How can Karishma Mehta From Humans of Bombay Sue People of India for Copying Business Idea When She Herself Stole The Entire Concept And Idea From HONY?

How can Karishma Mehta From Humans of Bombay Sue People of India for Copying Business Idea When She Herself Stole The Entire Concept And Idea From HONY?

Humans of Bombay (HoB), a well-known Indian storytelling website, has taken legal action against ‘People of India’ (POI), an online storytelling platform, for alleged copyright infringement. The lawsuit, filed by HoB’s founder, Karishma Mehta, has sparked a significant online controversy, initiating various discussions related to intellectual property, inspiration, as well as privilege.

HoB, often considered as one of the most popular pages on social media platforms, boasts millions of followers who eagerly wait for and appreciate the emotionally charged as well as relatable stories of Mumbaikars. Founded by writer, photographer, and TEDx presenter Karishma Mehta, the platform is known for its heartwarming as well as fascinating anecdotes about the lives of Mumbai’s residents, mirroring the concept of the globally very famous ‘Humans of New York.’

In a now-famous video, Karishma Mehta openly discussed her fortunate background, which is when the issue started. She disclosed the considerable contributions made by her family to her education, including the fact that they sent her to study overseas. Mehta’s candor elicited conflicting responses from the public; some praised her openness while others chastised her for looking disconnected from the difficulties that many people confront.

How The Hell Did I Do It? is a YouTube video series that Karishma Mehta started in 2022 that features interviews with well-known individuals as well as successful companies. The show explores how these people become successful in life, which has occasionally led to trolls targeting Mehta for her alleged “privilege” or “struggles.”

However, the ongoing story involving HoB and its founder has shifted focus to the new case. According to the lawsuit, ‘People of India’ illegally used content from HoB’s Facebook page as well as YouTube channel. Furthermore, it asserts that HoB’s storytelling structure is very similar to the concept of POI.

The plea by Karishma Mehta mentions, “…the similarities between the infringing content and the plaintiff’s content not just constitutes infringement of copyright owned by the plaintiff but also to passing off and unfair competition, as the defendants have evidently, knowingly and deliberately published content that is identical or substantially similar to the popular content comprised of plaintiffs’ works in an attempt to ride on goodwill that has been painstakingly built by the plaintiff.”

Brandon Stanton of HONY Weighs In on HoB Lawsuit Controversy

Brandon Stanton, the founder of Humans of New York (HONY), has weighed in on the continuing issue surrounding the lawsuit brought out by Humans of Bombay (HoB) against “People of India” (POI). Stanton, who helped start the storytelling trend with his HONY platform, recently published his viewpoint on social media, setting off a contentious discussion among those who are involved in the online storytelling scene.

On September 23, 2023, when he first came across Karishma Mehta’s page and acknowledged the shared characteristics between HoB and HONY but declared that he chose not to pursue legal action, Brandon Stanton became involved in the discussion. In a tweet, Stanton stated that he had chosen to remain silent on the appropriation of his work by HoB because he believed that HoB shareds significant stories, even if they had through commercialization monetized their platform more extensively than he would personally feel comfortable engaging in on HONY. He further added that, “But you can’t be suing people for what I’ve forgiven you for.”

This tweet from the HONY founder ignited a storm on the social media platforms, with many people applauding Stanton for his forgiving stance while criticizing Karishma Mehta for filing the lawsuit as if HoB was her original idea. Moreover, the situation took another suprising hit when an official statement was released by Humans of Bombay. In their reply to Brandon Stanton’s remarks, HoB made it clear why they were taking legal action. They emphasized that their case was not about the very act of storytelling itself instead it was about intellectual property and expressed their sincere gratitude to HONY and Brandon Stanton for starting the storytelling movement.

An excerpt from the HoB statement read, “Dear Brandon, As with the hundreds of Humans of chapters around the world, we love and understand the power of storytelling. It’s therefore shocking that a cryptic assault on our efforts to protect our intellectual property is made in this manner, especially without understanding the background of the case.” The statement went on to emphasize that the lawsuit was aimed at safeguarding their team’s hard work and the intellectual property rights associated with their content.

Public Reacts with Controversial Memes and Criticism Amid HoB’s Legal Battle

The controversy surrounding Humans of Bombay’s (HoB) lawsuit against ‘People of India’ (POI) has sparked a strong online reaction wave, with trolls as well as memes criticizing HoB and its creator, Karishma Mehta. The controversy over purported copyright infringement and similarity in narrative techniques has not only stirred discussions but also prompted a critical assessment of HoB’s prior methods and content.

Mehta and HoB have become targets of trolls and memes on the internet for what some see as their manipulative as well as fake storytelling tactics. Older videos from the platform started to resurface, highlighting what some critics have called a “poverty-porn” method of selecting and showcasing people on the page. Critics claim that HoB has taken advantage of the poor while raking in big bucks.

Karishma Mehta discussed the beginnings of HoB in one viral video that fueled the flames. She said in the video how the idea for Humans of Bombay came down to her “completely randomly and out of the blue” and just clicked. This statement elicited additional trolling as well as harsh responses. Mehta also discussed her early troubles in the video, disclosing that the organization was unable to generate any financial progress for the duration of the first three years, and she had to rely on pocket money from her parents to make ends meet. This disclosure, combined with charges of copyright violation, has sparked an online backlash and internet outcry.

Stanton questioned HoB’s choice to bring legal claims against other platforms despite acknowledging the similarities between HONY and HoB. His message received a lot of attention and was viewed almost 500,000 times on the platform. Mehta’s legal measures against POI were criticized by social media users, as well as many used the chance to call her out even further. Some people took to social media and made hilarious allusions to other notable figures; some comments have even compared her method of creation to random ramblings.

• “Randomly out of the blue I think about making kids characters, one would be a mouse and the other a duck … maybe call it Dickey and Monald.”
• “Yeah, I think I have heard similar reasoning from Anu Malik ji too.”
• “When you tell a lie hundreds of times, it doesn’t classify as a lie anymore.”
• “The Categorical Influencer. Unoriginal. Petty and never give credit to those who deserve it. And yes, they have immense struggle,”
• “And the concept and the name turned out to be an exact replica of Humans of New York…damn! What a delicious coincidence.”

Trademark Infringement: Does HoNY Have a Case Against HoB?

As the online world continues to be captivated by the Humans of Bombay controversy, legal experts are now evaluating if Humans of New York can have the potential to bring a claim of trademark infringement or passing off against HoB. While Brandon Stanton, the founder of HoNY, has stated that he has no plans to sue, intellectual property (IP) lawyers are investigating the possibility.

The Managing Partner of Anand and Anand, Praveen Anand, underlined that the validity of a copyright infringement case by HoNY will be heavily dependent on whether its brand is registered. If the trademark is not registered, the lawsuit may turn on the concept of “passing off,” with both sides arguing.

“Assuming that the HoNY trademark is not registered, then HoNY can argue that the formats and titles of the two platforms are so similar that people may think HoB is the Indian chapter of HoNY, which could carry some merit. However, HoB can also argue that its title is descriptive, and they can refer to Stanton’s comment that HoB is doing a good job,” Anand explained.

Senior attorney Chander M. Lall agreed as well as emphasized the similarities between the two trademarks. He pointed out that the only difference between the trademarks is the names of the cities. According to Lall, the viability of a passing-off claim would rely on whether or not people would connect HoB with HoNY. If there is such a link, HoNY may have a strong case for passing off.

The continuing issue surrounding HoB as well as its lawsuit against “People of India” for claimed copyright infringement and similar narrative techniques takes a new layer with the publication of this legal investigation. A more extensive conversation on intellectual property rights as well as the challenges of online storytelling has been triggered by the incident.

Notably, this is not the first dispute in which HoB has found itself. In 2019, the platform published a five-part interview with Prime Minister Narendra Modi right before the Lok Sabha elections in India. HoB was accused of disseminating political propaganda by social media users after the posts went viral resulting in condemnation.

Let us now analyse the whole situation-

In the midst of the ongoing legal battle between Humans of Bombay and ‘People of India’ , one has to think about the broader consequences of this lawsuit as well as the intentions behind filing it. While legal experts argue with regards to the nuances of copyright infringement as well as passing off, it is important for us to take a step back and reflect on whether this lawsuit is genuinely justified or warranted.

Karishma Mehta, the founder of HoB, has made a name for herself by sharing emotional heartwarming stories of Mumbaikars, successfully touching the lives of millions of people on various social media platforms. However, in the world of online storytelling, it cannot be denied that inspiration is such an essential part of the creative process. It is not uncommon for creators to draw inspiration from their peers as well as predecessors, because storytelling is, at its core, a universal concept that is artistically interpreted by many platforms.

Humans of New York (HoNY) creator Brandon Stanton resorted to social media to convey his thoughts on the matter. Stanton, who obviously had an impact on Mehta’s business, chose not to sue HoB. On the contrary, he acknowledged the resemblances, recognised the importance of the work they were doing, and forgave HoB for the appropriation.

Therefore, this is the question: if Mehta’s work was strongly inspired and influenced by Stanton’s, and he has forgiven her, why is she suing another platform such as POI? Is it merely about clout and popularity? Has the spirit of storytelling, which is in its fundamental nature about sharing as well as connecting, been overshadowed by the pursuit of legal battles and power?

Storytelling, whether it happens in New York, Bombay, or anywhere else, is essentially for sharing human experiences as well as fostering feelings and emotions of empathy. It transcends all geographical borders as well as boundaries, and the online storytelling community thrives on cooperation and shared inspiration. Mehta had mentioned in the past that her idea for HoB came completely spontaneous and out of the blue, even when the reality begs to differ. Her own statements however, suggest that creativity often flows from the collective consciousness of society.

One may argue that the distinctions between originality as well as inspiration are frequently muddled in the world of internet storytelling, where concepts are fluid and continuously changing. Each storyteller’s distinctive viewpoints, voices, and lifetimes of experience give life to the work they do, defining as well as elevating it.

In light of this, some may interpret Mehta’s choice to sue POI as an effort to suppress innovation as opposed to safeguard the validity of intellectual property. It raises questions about whether the lawsuit is actually intended to protect her content or is merely an attempt to exert dominance and power over the storytelling environment.

In the broad storytelling tapestry, inspiration is to be cherished rather than contested. Perhaps the time has come for Mehta and HoB to have productive discussions with other storytellers and carry out their purpose of sharing the vibrant narratives of Mumbai rather than pursuing legal actions. After all, the strength of storytelling resides in its capacity to bind as well as inspire, and in the digital era, it is a force that ought to be harnessed as opposed to being restricted.