Poorna’s project explores how the structure of tangible property can be transposed to copyright to achieve a balance between ownership and user rights. At its core, Poorna’s research examines how private law principles enable better conceptualisation of copyright law. She will pursue an historical and comparative analysis of property and copyright law in various common law jurisdictions.
Poorna completed her DPhil at the Law Faculty at Oxford in 2017 on implied licences in copyright law supervised by Professor Graeme Dinwoodie. Over the last few years, Poorna has taught several core private law subjects such as Land Law, Contract Law and Tort Law at various colleges in Oxford and Copyright Law at the Law Faculty.
Poorna is affiliated to the Queen's College, Oxford as an Extraordinary Junior Research Fellow. She is also an Academic Member of the Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre.
Poorna obtained her undergraduate law degree from National Law School of India University and her LLM from SOAS, University of London. Before embarking on her DPhil, Poorna practised intellectual property law in Hong Kong and was a litigator in India.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13. Sorted by year, then title.
P Mysoor, 'Does UK Really Have a ‘Closed’ List of Works Protected by Copyright?' (2019) European Intellectual Property Review (forthcoming)
It is often claimed that the UK has a ‘closed list’ of works protected by copyright. While the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 does categorise works to determine their eligibility for copyright protection, does the very existence of categories make the list closed? Does it not depend on how open-ended each category is, before a conclusion on its exhaustive nature can be drawn? This article examines these questions taking a closer look at the textual aspects of the CDPA and explores using interpretive techniques what it means to use the inherent flexibilities of the CDPA to their fullest extent within the statutory framework.
P Mysoor, Implied Licence instead of “New Public”?, paper presented at EPIP, Oxford, 2016
This article explores how exhaustion and non-exhaustion of certain rights can be more coherently explained using the common law doctrine of implied licence. Exhaustion, as the name suggests, only focuses on the effect of the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or the copy of the work on the copyright owner, namely the consumption of the distribution right. Although the consumption is distinctly for the benefit of the transferee of the original or the copy, the provisions in the directives on exhaustion do not reveal the effect of exhaustion on these transferees, nor the policy justifications that drive such consumption. These provisions only provide simplistically that the distribution of goods exhausts, but the
provision of services does not. This leads to certain misconceptions that exhaustion cannot occur if the copy of the work is not in a tangible medium and that for all provision of services authorisation is required. The doctrine of implied licence can help address these concerns. Instead of regarding exhaustion as a statutory phenomenon, reframing it as a licence implied by statute changes the focus from the right lost by the copyright owner to the permission gained by the transferee. Further, the doctrine of implied licence is sensitive to the justifications that drive the implication of the licence, addressing the question as to why exhaustion must occur. Therefore, a framework called the Implied Licence Framework for Exhaustion is
proposed here, which not only offers a better explanation for exhaustion and nonexhaustion, but also dispels the misconceptions.
P Mysoor, 'Proprietary Estoppel and Copyright Law' (2018) King's Law Journal (forthcoming)
P Mysoor, Reflecting the dynamism of ‘fairness’ in copyright law: a users’ rights perspective, paper presented at ATRIP, Helsinki, August 2018
P Mysoor, Reforming the EU copyright law on the right of communication to the public, paper presented at WIPO Advanced Intellectual Property Forum, Geneva, 2017
P Mysoor, Data as Property?, paper presented at Who Owns the Arts and Sciences, New IP Lawyers’ Conference, University of Exeter, 2015
P Mysoor, 'Protecting the Unprotected Database' (2015) 131 Law Quarterly Review 557 [Case Note]
P Mysoor, A Battle to Keep the Pirates at Bay: the Context, the Challenges and the Aftermath of the Pirate Bay, paper presented at Law, Technology and Public Interest, University of Hong Kong, 2014
Online copyright infringement is one of the toughest challenges the content industry has faced in the twenty first century. Article 8(3) of the Information Society Directive, implemented under section 97A of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, provides an injunctive remedy in response to such online infringement. Given the elusive nature of the website operators and the sheer number of their users, rights owners have turned to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to implement the injunctions granted under section 97A to block websites with infringing content. In their battle to keep pace with online infringers, the UK courts have permitted significant compromises to the procedures while granting these injunctive blocking orders. One of the pioneers in this line of cases in the UK is the Pirate Bay case (TPB case), which ruled as a matter of law that the procedure under Section 97A does not require the alleged infringers to be made parties to those proceedings. TPB case also marks the trend of the ISPs consenting to an order of injunction, and not defending the proceedings. This has resulted in the absence of any adverse party in the proceedings under section 97A. This threatens the basic tenets of procedural fairness and propriety, having adverse consequences on both the substantive and procedural aspects, evident in the cases that followed TPB case. This article examines the aspects of the judgment in TPB case that led to these procedural compromises, whether it had any basis in the pre-existing case law, what the nature of an injunction under section 97A is and how the subsequent line of cases have followed TPB case as a precedent. It further explores the adverse consequences of the procedural compromises and whether any safeguards are available against such compromises.
P Mysoor, 'Of Bollywood Songs, Film Producers and Collecting Societies: Locating the Rights of the Composers' (2014) 10 Indian Journal of Law and Technology 60
Bollywood films are known for their songs, and in many cases Bollywood films are known because of the songs. It is not merely in Bollywood films that songs have a significant role, but also in the lives of myriad composers, lyricists, singers and so on, lending an opportunity for their creative expression in addition to serving as a means of livelihood. Ideally, it should be possible for composers to be able to earn an income by composing music for films, as well as by being a member of a collecting society in such a way as to maximize their returns. From the bundle of rights they have, the composers should be able to transact with both the producers and the collecting societies, but with rights that do not overlap. However, in reality the rights could get tangled in a legal quagmire between the collecting society and film producers, as each demands exclusivity. The article is an attempt to show how the rights of composers is meddled with by both the film producers and the collecting societies, leading to gross unfairness in the distribution of the returns from exploitation of their rights. To this end, the article examines the UK Court of Appeal decision in B4U Network (Europe) Limited v Performing Rights Society Limited, which upheld the rights of the collecting society, and compares it with the Indian Supreme Court decision in Indian Performing Rights Society v Eastern India Motion Pictures, where the rights of the film producers was upheld. This article then goes on to examine what it means to the composers if the film producers’ rights trump those of the collecting societies. The article also explores how the amendments introduced to the Indian Copyright Act in 2012 address the situation.
P Mysoor, 'Unpacking the Right of Communication to the Public: A Closer Look at International and EU Copyright Law'  IPQ 166
In the ever-evolving information age, the right of communication to the public has struggled for a predictable interpretation under EU copyright law. Through the successive rulings of the CJEU, a body of law is beginning to emerge to interpret the right. Some of the findings of the CJEU have brought an uncomfortable overlap of right of communication to the public with the pre-existing right of public performance. Certain other findings such as the need for an active intervention by the user, the concept of "new public" and the need for an economic gain resulting from the communication have identified elements of the right not obvious from a plain reading of the provisions, although these findings have not been consistently applied. The purpose of this article is to unpack all these findings, and take a critical look at whether such findings are in tune with the jurisprudential basis of the right, and assess their impact on the national laws.