Editorji is a popular short video news and information platform based in India. It was founded in 2018 by Vikram Chandra, one of India’s leading journalists, and has risen to prominence in the digital news space in a relatively short span of time. The platform is primarily designed for mobile devices, with applications available for Android and iOS.

ABOUT US:

about us editorji

Latest Video News: Editorji provides the latest news video headlines, latest videos clip from India and the World. Get all breaking news videos on Entertainment, Business, Coronavirus, Elections, Politics and more.

Latest Video News, Breaking News, Bollywood, Political, Sports, Business News | Editorji

+91 11 4035 6666 / info@editorji.com
3rd floor, Plot B, Khasara no 360, Sultanpur, New Delhi, Delhi 110030
<a title="mail to us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Send Feedback</a>
<a title="Contact Us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Contact Us</a>

REACH US

Contact for any questions, suggestions, comments, feedback or advertisement on Editorji.com, we are always looking forward to hearing from you.

Contact Us for Feedback, Suggestions and Advertising 

Editorji content is better experienced in our app.

U U Lalit will have a short tenure as Chief Justice, but the task before him is enormous. What's top on his agenda for judicial reform? Vikram Chandra discusses with experts.

The India Story | What’s on CJI U U Lalit’s agenda for judicial reform?

U U Lalit will have a short tenure as Chief Justice, but the task before him is enormous. What's top on his agenda for judicial reform? Vikram Chandra discusses with experts.

U U Lalit will have a short 74-day tenure as Chief Justice of India when he takes over the position from NV Ramana. The task on Justice Lalit&rsquo;s hands, however, is enormous. The Indian Judiciary is faced with a logjam, as high case pendency and a large number of under-trials are just some of the problems that plague the legal system. If justice delayed is justice denied, how can India ensure swift justice for its citizens?
Also Watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/story/the-india-story-canada-visa-delays-leave-indian-students-in-the-lurch-1660914882443">The India Story | Canada visa delays leave Indian students in the lurch</a>
On this episode of The India Story, Vikram Chandra speaks to Madan Lokur, former Judge of the Supreme Court, and Nalin Kohli, advocate at the Supreme Court, over what items will be first on Justice U U Lalit&rsquo;s agenda of reform.&nbsp;
We also look at the Supreme Court&rsquo;s role as the guardian of fundamental rights.

Here’s a question for you – does a painting belong to the artist or a canvas? Do films belong to the directors and producers or the screen you saw it on? Do your headphones deserve credit for the latest Dua Lipa hit, or well Dua Lipa herself?   Unless you’re an anti-social rabble rouser who just wants to argue – chances are you would have sided with the artist in all these cases - When it comes to the ownership of art, the artiste always trumps the medium.   But what about tattoos?  Here, art is being created, but the medium is not lifeless. It's a living, breathing, thinking human being with their own rights. So does a tattoo artist lose rights over their artwork, or do they start owning their customers' arms, or legs, or even faces? The question boggles the mind, but here’s a breakdown of what our laws have to say about the ownership of artwork.   Section 2 of The Copyright Act of 1957, describes artistic work as work that includes engraving, sculpture, painting, or a photograph. Section 13 says that as long as this artwork is fixed to a tangible medium the copyright shall remain.   If we were to put two and two together, then tattoos are clearly engraved and well, human skin is pretty tangible – so tattoos can in fact be copyrighted by the tattoo artist!   We can all agree Stu waking up with his Mike Tyson tattoo in Hangover 2 will go down in the Hall of Movie fame as one of the funniest scenes ever - but you know who wasn't laughing at that scene The film-makers!  That 64 second scene cost Warner Bros way more money than intended.  S. Victor Whitmill, the artist who designed and made Mike Tyson's face tattoo, filed a case against Warner Bros, for not taking his permission to use the tattoo in the movie.  So, did he really have a case or was this a shot in the dark?   For that, we go back to 2003, when Mike Tyson effectively gave up all rights over a design he sports on his face. To be fair, not the weirdest thing he's done. The legendary boxer signed a tattoo release form stating that "all artwork, sketches and drawings related to my tattoo and any photographs of my tattoo are property of Paradox-Studio of Dermagraphics." - So yes, the tattoo artist absolutely had a case! And it’s not just us saying that, before the matter could go to trial, Warner Bros. arrived at an amicable settlement with Whitmill, details of which are not available to the public. So, despite the fact that the wrestler was actually himself a part of the film, the artist had the final say in the matter.   This issue presents a few pitfalls – if a person enjoys complete autonomy and control over their own artwork, this could enter a dangerous territory of controlling the autonomy of your canvas too. Case in point: what if Dwayne Johnson’s tattoo artist suddenly decides he wants his artwork covered up at all times? Would Dwayne Johnson stop taking his shirt off in public? Probably not!   But the law is written in black and white – and not only does the law grant copyright to the tattoo artist, it also grants them something called ‘Moral rights’ or right to Integrity! Which means that if any distortion, mutilation, or alteration of the artwork takes place that is detrimental to the author’s reputation – they can sue.  All in all, this is starting to sound like a very bad deal for the person actually getting the tattoo – is there nothing that protects their rights? Of course, there is!  Take for example removing a tattoo that you don’t want anymore. A very important case comes to mind – that of Architect Raj Rewal who went to the courts to try to stop the demolition of a building he had designed, citing that it will be a blow to his reputation. Here the court exclaimed that which cannot be seen cannot harm the author’s reputation. All in all, despite the laws granting the artist several rights, you can probably still get that ‘I love Dolly’ tattoo removed if you want to!  Coming back to the principal question we began with – what are the rights of the canvas when the canvas is a living breathing person?    In our country, publicity rights are almost synonymous with privacy rights, and have the importance of a fundamental right. So, what are Publicity rights? A person has protection against the misuse of their name, likeness or other markers of identity. Simply put, a person can protect their image from being used unfairly. Despite the fact that publicity rights are not explicitly enshrined in our laws, there have been several cases that involve this principle. And it’s also been held that publicity rights included the ability to allow or prohibit the commercial use of one’s appearance or personality traits.   It’s a double-edged sword to answer this question of copyright vs publicity – because while economic rights in artistic work are provided by law, including the right to transmit the work to the public, reproduce it, issue copies and so on, any effort by the tattoo artist to exercise these rights would be a violation of the individual’s own publicity rights. India is yet to see a case where these two rights butt heads, but it’s a not uncommon in other parts of the world.  That’s not to say that a person can never get the copyright for a tattoo they didn’t design. In fact, Shah Rukh Khan has a copyright for the tattoo design that he sported in the film Don 2! There are some methods to ensure that you get this legal right – granting a license, signing a contract with your designer, relinquishing a copyright are just some such ways.   Art is heartwarming, and powerful – but in this world where there’s art, there’s also big money. From sports stars in ads, to movie star blockbusters – it's fair to say that everyone wants a piece of the pie, so this argument isn’t going away anytime soon.  Watch episode 1: Watch episode 3: Watch episode 4: 

How and Why | Tattoos Episode 2: Who owns a tattoo? The question of copyright 

Here’s a question for you – does a painting belong to the artist or a canvas? Do films belong to the directors and producers or the screen you saw it on? Do your headphones deserve credit for the latest Dua Lipa hit, or well Dua Lipa herself?  
 
Unless you’re an anti-social rabble rouser who just wants to argue – chances are you would have sided with the artist in all these cases - When it comes to the ownership of art, the artiste always trumps the medium.  
 
But what about tattoos?  
Here, art is being created, but the medium is not lifeless. It's a living, breathing, thinking human being with their own rights. So does a tattoo artist lose rights over their artwork, or do they start owning their customers' arms, or legs, or even faces? 
The question boggles the mind, but here’s a breakdown of what our laws have to say about the ownership of artwork.  
 
Section 2 of The Copyright Act of 1957, describes artistic work as work that includes engraving, sculpture, painting, or a photograph. Section 13 says that as long as this artwork is fixed to a tangible medium the copyright shall remain.  
 
If we were to put two and two together, then tattoos are clearly engraved and well, human skin is pretty tangible – so tattoos can in fact be copyrighted by the tattoo artist!  
 
We can all agree Stu waking up with his Mike Tyson tattoo in Hangover 2 will go down in the Hall of Movie fame as one of the funniest scenes ever - but you know who wasn't laughing at that scene The film-makers! 
 
That 64 second scene cost Warner Bros way more money than intended.  S. Victor Whitmill, the artist who designed and made Mike Tyson's face tattoo, filed a case against Warner Bros, for not taking his permission to use the tattoo in the movie.  
So, did he really have a case or was this a shot in the dark?  
 
For that, we go back to 2003, when Mike Tyson effectively gave up all rights over a design he sports on his face. To be fair, not the weirdest thing he's done. The legendary boxer signed a tattoo release form stating that "all artwork, sketches and drawings related to my tattoo and any photographs of my tattoo are property of Paradox-Studio of Dermagraphics." - So yes, the tattoo artist absolutely had a case! And it’s not just us saying that, before the matter could go to trial, Warner Bros. arrived at an amicable settlement with Whitmill, details of which are not available to the public. So, despite the fact that the wrestler was actually himself a part of the film, the artist had the final say in the matter.  
 
This issue presents a few pitfalls – if a person enjoys complete autonomy and control over their own artwork, this could enter a dangerous territory of controlling the autonomy of your canvas too. Case in point: what if Dwayne Johnson’s tattoo artist suddenly decides he wants his artwork covered up at all times? Would Dwayne Johnson stop taking his shirt off in public? Probably not!  
 
But the law is written in black and white – and not only does the law grant copyright to the tattoo artist, it also grants them something called ‘Moral rights’ or right to Integrity! Which means that if any distortion, mutilation, or alteration of the artwork takes place that is detrimental to the author’s reputation – they can sue.  
All in all, this is starting to sound like a very bad deal for the person actually getting the tattoo – is there nothing that protects their rights? Of course, there is!  
Take for example removing a tattoo that you don’t want anymore. A very important case comes to mind – that of Architect Raj Rewal who went to the courts to try to stop the demolition of a building he had designed, citing that it will be a blow to his reputation. Here the court exclaimed that which cannot be seen cannot harm the author’s reputation. All in all, despite the laws granting the artist several rights, you can probably still get that ‘I love Dolly’ tattoo removed if you want to!  
Coming back to the principal question we began with – what are the rights of the canvas when the canvas is a living breathing person?  
 
 
In our country, publicity rights are almost synonymous with privacy rights, and have the importance of a fundamental right. So, what are Publicity rights? A person has protection against the misuse of their name, likeness or other markers of identity. Simply put, a person can protect their image from being used unfairly. Despite the fact that publicity rights are not explicitly enshrined in our laws, there have been several cases that involve this principle. And it’s also been held that publicity rights included the ability to allow or prohibit the commercial use of one’s appearance or personality traits.  
 
It’s a double-edged sword to answer this question of copyright vs publicity – because while economic rights in artistic work are provided by law, including the right to transmit the work to the public, reproduce it, issue copies and so on, any effort by the tattoo artist to exercise these rights would be a violation of the individual’s own publicity rights. India is yet to see a case where these two rights butt heads, but it’s a not uncommon in other parts of the world.  
That’s not to say that a person can never get the copyright for a tattoo they didn’t design. In fact, Shah Rukh Khan has a copyright for the tattoo design that he sported in the film Don 2! There are some methods to ensure that you get this legal right – granting a license, signing a contract with your designer, relinquishing a copyright are just some such ways.  
 
Art is heartwarming, and powerful – but in this world where there’s art, there’s also big money. From sports stars in ads, to movie star blockbusters – it's fair to say that everyone wants a piece of the pie, so this argument isn’t going away anytime soon.  

No one can argue that artwork belongs to the artist and not the medium it is made on. But what happens when the canvas is a living, breathing human being? In this episode we find out!&nbsp;

Here&rsquo;s a question for you &ndash; does a painting belong to the artist or a canvas? Do films belong to the directors and producers or the screen you saw it on? Do your headphones deserve credit for the latest Dua Lipa hit, or well Dua Lipa herself? &nbsp; &nbsp; Unless you&rsquo;re an anti-social rabble rouser who just wants to argue &ndash; chances are you would have sided with the artist in all these cases - When it comes to the ownership of art, the artiste always trumps the medium. &nbsp; &nbsp; But what about tattoos? &nbsp; Here, art is being created, but the medium is not lifeless. It's a living, breathing, thinking human being with their own rights. So does a tattoo artist lose rights over their artwork, or do they start owning their customers' arms, or legs, or even faces?&nbsp; The question boggles the mind, but here&rsquo;s a breakdown of what our laws have to say about the ownership of artwork. &nbsp; &nbsp; Section 2 of The Copyright Act of 1957, describes artistic work as work that includes engraving, sculpture, painting, or a photograph. Section 13 says that as long as this artwork is fixed to a tangible medium the copyright shall remain. &nbsp; &nbsp; If we were to put two and two together, then tattoos are clearly engraved and well, human skin is pretty tangible &ndash; so tattoos can in fact be copyrighted by the tattoo artist! &nbsp; &nbsp; We can all agree Stu waking up with his Mike Tyson tattoo in Hangover 2 will go down in the Hall of Movie fame as one of the funniest scenes ever - but you know who wasn't laughing at that scene The film-makers!&nbsp; &nbsp; That 64 second scene cost Warner Bros way more money than intended. &nbsp;S. Victor Whitmill, the artist who designed and made Mike Tyson's face tattoo, filed a case against Warner Bros, for not taking his permission to use the tattoo in the movie. &nbsp; So, did he really have a case or was this a shot in the dark? &nbsp; &nbsp; For that, we go back to 2003, when Mike Tyson effectively gave up all rights over a design he sports on his face. To be fair, not the weirdest thing he's done. The legendary boxer signed a tattoo release form stating that "all artwork, sketches and drawings related to my tattoo and any photographs of my tattoo are property of Paradox-Studio of Dermagraphics." - So yes, the tattoo artist absolutely had a case! And it&rsquo;s not just us saying that, before the matter could go to trial, Warner Bros. arrived at an amicable settlement with Whitmill, details of which are not available to the public. So, despite the fact that the wrestler was actually himself a part of the film, the artist had the final say in the matter. &nbsp; &nbsp; This issue presents a few pitfalls &ndash; if a person enjoys complete autonomy and control over their own artwork, this could enter a dangerous territory of controlling the autonomy of your canvas too. Case in point: what if Dwayne Johnson&rsquo;s tattoo artist suddenly decides he wants his artwork covered up at all times? Would Dwayne Johnson stop taking his shirt off in public? Probably not! &nbsp; &nbsp; But the law is written in black and white &ndash; and not only does the law grant copyright to the tattoo artist, it also grants them something called &lsquo;Moral rights&rsquo; or right to Integrity! Which means that if any distortion, mutilation, or alteration of the artwork takes place that is detrimental to the author&rsquo;s reputation &ndash; they can sue. &nbsp; All in all, this is starting to sound like a very bad deal for the person actually getting the tattoo &ndash; is there nothing that protects their rights? Of course, there is! &nbsp; Take for example removing a tattoo that you don&rsquo;t want anymore. A very important case comes to mind &ndash; that of Architect Raj Rewal who went to the courts to try to stop the demolition of a building he had designed, citing that it will be a blow to his reputation. Here the court exclaimed that which cannot be seen cannot harm the author&rsquo;s reputation. All in all, despite the laws granting the artist several rights, you can probably still get that &lsquo;I love Dolly&rsquo; tattoo removed if you want to! &nbsp; Coming back to the principal question we began with &ndash; what are the rights of the canvas when the canvas is a living breathing person? &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In our country, publicity rights are almost synonymous with privacy rights, and have the importance of a fundamental right. So, what are Publicity rights? A person has protection against the misuse of their name, likeness or other markers of identity. Simply put, a person can protect their image from being used unfairly. Despite the fact that publicity rights are not explicitly enshrined in our laws, there have been several cases that involve this principle. And it&rsquo;s also been held that publicity rights included the ability to allow or prohibit the commercial use of one&rsquo;s appearance or personality traits. &nbsp; &nbsp; It&rsquo;s a double-edged sword to answer this question of copyright vs publicity &ndash; because while economic rights in artistic work are provided by law, including the right to transmit the work to the public, reproduce it, issue copies and so on, any effort by the tattoo artist to exercise these rights would be a violation of the individual&rsquo;s own publicity rights. India is yet to see a case where these two rights butt heads, but it&rsquo;s a not uncommon in other parts of the world. &nbsp; That&rsquo;s not to say that a person can never get the copyright for a tattoo they didn&rsquo;t design. In fact, Shah Rukh Khan has a copyright for the tattoo design that he sported in the film Don 2! There are some methods to ensure that you get this legal right &ndash; granting a license, signing a contract with your designer, relinquishing a copyright are just some such ways. &nbsp; &nbsp; Art is heartwarming, and powerful &ndash; but in this world where there&rsquo;s art, there&rsquo;s also big money. From sports stars in ads, to movie star blockbusters &ndash; it's fair to say that everyone wants a piece of the pie, so this argument isn&rsquo;t going away anytime soon. &nbsp; Also Watch:&nbsp; <a href="https://www.editorji.com/editorji-specials/how-and-why-tattoos-episode-1-the-history-and-culture-of-tattoos-in-india-1657292213294">Episode 1: The History and culture of tattoos in India&nbsp;</a> <a href="https://www.editorji.com/editorji-specials/how-and-why-tattoos-episode-3-how-much-money-does-the-tattoo-industry-make-1657292863391">Episode 3: How much money does the tattoo industry make?&nbsp;</a> <a href="https://www.editorji.com/editorji-specials/how-and-why-tattoos-episode-4-why-do-people-get-tattoos-a-look-at-the-psychology-behind-getting-inked-1657293307863">Episode 4: Why do people get tattoos? A look at the psychology behind getting inked</a>

A camping association, Responsible Campers Association Inc (RCAi) in New Zealand is seeking a change in the government's law by allowing people to poop in public places if they don't think that they are being observed.
The spokesperson of RCAi said that currently in section 32 of the Summary Offence Act a person will be fined for urinating or pooping in a public place if they believe they are not getting observed.
The association also called for more toilet facilities to be made available for travelers. On the other hand, freedom camping group often don't agree with it, somehow they are against pooping or urinating in tourist places.

Campers want New Zealand govt to tighten laws on pooping in public places

A camping association in New Zealand is urging the govt to tighten laws law that allows people to poop in public places if they don't think that they are being observed.

Responsible Campers Association Inc wants the govt to make the law stricter by requiring people to do such activities at least 50 metres away from a waterway and bury the excreted waste

A camping association in New Zealand is urging the govt to tighten law that allows people to poop in public places if they don't think that they are being observed.
Responsible Campers Association Inc wants the govt to make the law stricter by requiring people to do such activities at least 50 metres away from a waterway and bury the excreted waste at least 15cm into the earth.
Currently, in New Zealand defecating or urinating in a public place&nbsp; is an offence but if the person can prove they had reasonable grounds for believing they were not being observed, they may be able to escape a $200 fine.
Local residents and administration in New Zealand have been voicing concerns for years over campers dirtying and littering the camping ground.
ALSO WATCH: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/6-killed-in-an-avalanche-in-italy-rescue-operations-resume-1656945222098" target="_blank">6 killed in an avalanche in Italy, rescue operations resume</a>

Heads ponder upon prevailing law and order situation in the state

Heads ponder upon prevailing law and order situation in the state

law

Categories