Source Docs in Aid of OIF's Copyright Claims

This page is part of the historical background relating to "What Is an Osho?", a slick, sannyas-paradigm-shifting policy paper written by Amrito and circulated in 1998. A deconstruction of Amrito's paper is presented on this site, introduced here. A large subset of the background addresses various aspects of OIF's claimed right to control Osho's legacy, particularly regarding the legal muscle of copyright and trademark. This page makes accessible the documents OIF is using to justify their copyright claims and makes clear their inadequacies and limitations. It is sourced from Osho Friends International. For more legal pages, see OFI or Legal Main Page.

What Are the Documents OIF Is Relying On to Claim Copyright Ownership?

In claiming to own Osho’s copyrights in His work, OIF is relying on several documents that are listed below. Go to these articles for details of the documents and their legal effects, [ie view copies of the documents and read explanations and critiques. To just read the analysis, click on "Document 1", "Document 2" etc; to read that and see copies of the docs, use the OFI links.]

Document 1: An agreement dated 1978 and allegedly between Osho and Rajneesh Foundation (RF) in India.

Document 2: An agreement dated 1981 allegedly between Osho and Chidvilas Rajneesh Meditation Center in New Jersey. This entity later operated as Rajneesh Foundation International (RFI) in Rajneeshpuram in Oregon.

Document 3: An agreement dated 1981 allegedly between Rajneesh Foundation in India and Chidvilas Rajneesh Meditation Center [RFI] in the USA.

Document 4: An agreement dated 1985 allegedly between RFI and Rajneesh Foundation Europe (RFE) in Switzerland, which later became Osho International Foundation (OIF).

Document 5: An agreement dated 1986 allegedly between RFI and RFE [OIF].

Download All [ie download all five of the above docs]

[It is interesting to note that, when considering all five of OIF's docs together as demonstrating the best case they can make for their ownership of Osho's copyrights (and other related communal copyrights and trademarks etc), one can only come to the conclusion that their whole package is so pathetic as to be laughable. Even if every doc in this sad collection is genuine -- a big "if", since there are many contradictions and lacunae -- all they can possibly own are a few publishing rights, about 0.01% of what thet are claiming. The image that comes to mind is of a child caught with hir hand in the cookie jar by hir mother who, to avoid punishment, forges a note from hir father testifying that at the time of the alleged crime, the child was somewhere else.]