To Whom it may concern: We have identified your company as the hosting provider for a web site named www.messagefrommasters.com

This firm represents Osho International Foundation (“OIF” or “the Copyright Owner”). OIF is a public non-profit organization of Switzerland and the estate owner of all IP of an author named Osho.

In that capacity and pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 V.S.C. §512 (“DMCA”), I am writing to provide you with a notification of claimed infringements on the Websites located at: www.messagefrommasters.com

As set forth in Section 512(c)(3) of the DMCA, I am hereby providing the following elements of this notification:

(i) I am authorized to act on behalf of OIF.
My signature appears on this email / letter as /Klaus Steeg /sent via electronic mail.

(ii) There are copyrighted works that have been infringed. The copyrighted works are various text/books and photos all copyrights which are owned by OIF. All such copyrights are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The website is being used to offer these files of OIF’s copyrighted works without license.

(iii) Below are the locations of the web sites claimed to be infringing (the “Infringing Web Sites”), which we request be removed and access to it be disabled: All text by Osho as identified by infringer are copyright of Osho International Foundation.

All Osho-Images used on the mentioned web pages are copyright Osho International Foundation. The site also promotes other copyright infringing web pages like http://www.oshorajneesh.com offering copyright protected content for free without authorization.

(iv) You may contact me as the authorized representative of the complaining party at:
Klaus Steeg
410 Park Avenue, 15th Floor -New York, NY 10022
T. +1.212-231-8437
Fax: +1.212.658.9508
[email protected] – www.osho.com/oshointernational

(v) I have a good faith belief that use of the material on the Infringing Web Sites is not authorized by OIF, or by law.

(vi) Under penalty of perjury, the information set forth in this notification is accurate and I am authorized to act on behalf of OIF. Pursuant to the DMCA and international copyright law, we respectfully request that you act expeditiously to remove and disable access to the infringing content.

Klaus Steeg / Pramod

Osho International
410 Park Avenue 15 floor New York NY 10022
9 august 2011

in response to your various false claims of copyrights
OIF false claims of ownership and your notice claiming infringement
by website www.messagefrommasters.com and www.oshorajneesh.com

first i challenge OIF to show any legal court order / court ruling
with clear judgment stating their legal ownership of oshoʼs spiritual works

your false claims over worldwide copyrights of oshoʼs legacy
and his spiritual works for all of humanity present and future
are issues of great implications and vast magnitude

OIF has publicly lied and misrepresented these copyright ownership matters
and stolen / high jacked these materials illegally as no one has challenged them in
any legal court. this opens the pandora box to hundreds of unanswered questions
about who own legally oshoʼs spiritual works

QUESTIONS / how is OIF osho international foundation claiming copyrights

1. there is no signed document or legal transfer nor any last and final will left by osho who left his body in 1990

2. how is OIF legally claiming these / or any such copyrights ?

3. where are court order / legally signed documents of such ownership ?

4. if copyright were transferred then by whom / or which authority / organization
transferred these copyrights to OIF new york ?

5. if copyrights were transferred then was it transferred to OIF new york or OIF
switzerland and by which legal authority ?

6. how does OIF switzerland or OIF new york own copyrights ( if by any indian
trust exists ) is it by transfer commission or royalty arrangement with the
indian trust and how are these payments made and by whom ?

7. is there an authorized trust in india who legally own these copyrights ??

8. if yes, then show us their legal documents of copyright ownership and how
they transferred them to OIF switzerland

9. how is OIF a public non profit organization of switzerland and where is swiss
registration of this non profit status ??

10. it is learnt that osho international OI new york is just a trading name for a
privately held british company “ master zones ltd “ how has the claims of
copyright of the OIF switzerland trust illegally transferred copyrights to a
private individual british company while claiming
to be a public trust and non profit organization ?

11. how have these thousands of original works / material of oshoʼs books audio
video photos artwork been smuggled out of india illegally as OIF switzerland
claim it belongs to some indian trust who owns these materials in their
applications before the charity commissioner bombay.

if these are claimed to be owned, property of a non profit organization trust
based in india then how have they been illegally transferred
physically removed / smuggled out of india to new york, switzerland, england
and given to a private company “ master zones ltd “ to publish illegally
for profits by selling / claiming false copyrights to hundreds
of foreign publishers to make personal profits aboad.

there is a clear violation of trustees financially cheating the indian trust and
also a clear violation of stealing copyrights materials that supposedly belongs
to an indian non profit charity trust. OIF should be held for theft.

12. publication royalties for books videos audio and such materials need to be
paid into indian trust accounts and should be made accountable. if millions of
dollars in royalties are being made in england new york and switzerland then
they are violating FERA indian foreign exchange act and robbing the indian
trustees of their copyright incomes

13. the indian charity commissioner bombay has given the osho ashram poona a
charitable non profit status and is being cheated by OIF who claim the non
profit status in foreign swiss accounts misusing indian charity trust rulings
while taking millions of dollars into personal bank accounts through copyright
sales and book royalties

14. even with false claims of oshoʼs copyright applications in the US what is the
jurisdiction of US copyright laws over europe, india or china ??

15. copyright jurisdiction laws / ownership of copyright materials remain
properties of india which can claim loss of revenues and theft of royalties on
intellectual properties created in india

16. misuse of non profit charitable status in swiss banks by claiming direct non
profit organization status in india is a criminal offence. this is a indirect
attempt of trustees to steal from the trust and avoid taxes in both countries.
have hundreds of international book publication deals been notified to the
indian charity commissioners office ?

REPLY TO / osho images-as per your placed document ( images osho pdf )

1. this pdf / document only shows a general casual registration application of a
few photographs that supposedly OIF claim to own copyrights. there is no
actual photograph shown of the exact photos in question

it may be out of hundreds of thousands of photographs commonly available
worldwide of osho from various people

2. thousands of seekers, general public took thousands of personal public
photographs of osho which are now commonly available for all everywhere
and cannot be claimed as copyright as these are private photos offered by
individual photographers willingly

3. photos taken of osho professionally when he was alive as works of hire
perhaps could be understood as copyrights, which then also require signed
affidavit of the said hired photographer to the said assignment

4. please furnish exact photograph claimed with the photographers assignment
papers proving the said copyright and also showing how OIF have any legal
authority copyrights over those said photographs

5. this document shows the year of “ creation of work “ as 1997 whereby osho
left his body in 1990…is this registration application dated 1997 for a photo of
his ghost ??

6. the entire application document is partial, incomplete with no section
completed, just general and vague without any photo attached

REPLY TO / books – as per your placed document ( bondage to freedom pdf )

1. this pdf shows a general application claiming copyrights in 1997 of a book
stating amendments / changed version of the book of another publication of
1990 ( with that registration still pending approval ) although we challenge
even this initial claim to copyrights in the first place, it is nowhere shown the
“exact book” this present 1997 application is pending for, as it is obvious from

this application that there are several versions of this book with similar titles.
they need to prove that this application was successful and also the exact
same book, with these particular amendments this application has been made
for, is exactly the same book as on our website

2. once again the original question to prove that they have legal authority and
documents over copyrights to this particular book in question.

REPLY TO / books – as per your placed document ( the inner journey pdf )

1. this pdf shows another general application absurdly claiming copyrights of an
english book titled “ the inner journey “ in 1997 from the translations of a hindi
book previously titled “antaryatra “ published in india 1996 with new additional text

2. please show us the original hindi book title ownership and publication rights
for the hindi book along with written permission / agreement of hindi book title
owner in india to transfer and give you rights to translate and thereafter also
claim copyrights for such translated materials

3. they need to prove that the exact same book with particular translations and
design amendments is exactly the same book as on our website


1. show us any legal court signed documents of any of the following…
acharya rajneesh, bhagwan shree rajneesh, shree rajneesh, osho,
stating his transfer of his works copyrights materials

2. in 1969 as acharya rajneesh set up “ jivan jagruti kendra “ trust
for few of his early hindi books only with no signed copyright papers

3. in 1978 as bhagwan shree rajneesh “ rajneesh foundation “ trust was given
conditional publishing licence, but again
there is no signed original documentto authenticate this

4. osho left his body in 1990 with no written agreement or transfer of any
copyrights to anyone

5. osho is a renouned enlightened spiritual master and has been traveling
worldwide as a speaker, speaking in open public and to masses, answering
thousands of spiritual questions for seekers worldwide in open spiritual discourses

6. in india spiritual discourses are not written like text novels fiction books like
writers and authors, but are spontaneous religious discourses of wisdom
given to public and open audiences

7. question answered by wise enlightened masters are considered spiritual
guidance and are personal to the questioner. these discourses are freely
distributed in india perhaps even as religious discourses

8. these publicly spoken words cannot be copyrighted as they are answers
given to individual spiritual seekers. the questioner has the right to ask
questions at these discourses which have been personally attended and a
certain donation been paid for attending and listening

9. the questioner / question answered have their rights to these spoken words
and also have rights to publish the answers received as they are open public religious discourse

10. many of the spoken words / books are initially taken from hundreds of known
spiritual books with commentaries and modern interpretations.

these arecommentaries on old spiritual books and we need to see if permissions have
been taken from the original text and their authors.
as has been seen from the USA court case regarding OSHO trademark

Osho Friends International Holland vs Osho International Foundation
( OFI holland versus OIF new york )
where Osho International Foundation tried to bully the whole osho sannyas world by
misleading the world movement and attempting to illegally take over all OSHO
trademark worldwide under their control

OIF then misinformed Google and misused DMCA laws to ban and bar other OSHO
meditation centers from using OSHO name before their centers…
this case was lost by Osho International Foundation
with strong observations and wordings against OIF by the US Courts.
( court order and document attached ) as Osho Trademark Decision

this new matter and claims of copyrights made by OIF is false
and i again challenge them to take this matter to the courts
which serve their copyright claims jurisdiction and prove their ownership
before threatening our websites which are offering available materials freely that are
also available openly on hundreds of websites.

osho is free from your personal financial exploitation…
and misuse and blatant theft of sannyasins inheritance worldwide
with attempts to cheat millions of new seekers on the path of truth…

see you in court of you dare !!!

swami rajneesh


some reading matter from Sangeet
( legal adviser for OFI Osho Friends International Holland )

Osho sometimes spoke about His world headquarters,
and made it clear that headquarters was His secretariat:

The world headquarters will simply function so that you can have a connection with
me. Otherwise you donʼt have any place to whom to ask where I am, what is
happening to me. The world headquarters is not in any way a power over any
sannyasin, over any other sannyas centers, ashramas, communes. It has nothing to
do with that. It is my secretariat. OSHO
The Last Testament, Vol. 5, chapter 12

The world headquarters for Oshoʼs work operated wherever Osho and His
secretaries were. At one point it was in Bombay (now Mumbai), then in Pune, then in
Oregon, then in various places on the World Tour, then in Mumbai again, and then
back to Pune, where Osho left His body

Osho had several secretaries through the years including Laxmi, Sheela, Hasya,
Neelam, and Anando. Osho had several secretaries at one time to avoid abuse of
power. The offices of these women were called secretariats in the British style, and
the secretaries had staffs that helped them with the work of communicating with
thousands of people around the world. Secretaries and their staffs were volunteers
who donated their work out of their love for Osho

At the time of the name change Osho had three secretaries:-
Hasya: His international secretary who communicated on Oshoʼs behalf with
centers and individuals around the world outside of India.
– Neelam: His secretary for India, who communicated on Oshoʼs behalf with
centers and individuals in India.
– Anando: His legal secretary, who dealt with legal and business matters.

When Osho was in different places, Osho centers, trusts, and foundations provided
living space for Him and some of the people around Him and office space and
support for the activities of the secretariats. Osho had no direct legal connection with
any of these entities except one, which weʼll discuss in a moment. Osho never set up
any hierarchy or transferred any legal rights over His work to any of these entities.

Osho did have a connection with the first trust that was set up in India to spread His
teachings. It was called Jivan Jagruti Kendra (later Rajneesh Foundation [RF]) and
Osho was named an advisor for life at the time the trust was created in 1969. Osho
may have given RF a conditional publishing license for a few of His books in 1978,
but no original document has been produced to authenticate this.

Osho connected with His people in two major ways. He gave names to centers,
ashrams, institutes, therapies, and so on, and He answered questions sent to Him
and gave suggestions to people. In the early days in Mumbai (Bombay) and Pune
Osho made this contact partly through his then secretary, Ma Yoga Laxmi, and her
assistants, and partly in personal meetings with His sannyasins.

At those meetings He sometimes gave out name certificates to people
He had asked to open centers around the world.
When He became ill late in Pune I, He stopped meeting regularly
with people and carried on contact with sannyasins almost entirely through His secretaries.

His secretaries prepared and gave out name certificates to centers on
Oshoʼs behalf. During the World Tour from 1985 to 1987 Oshoʼs secretaries kept
people informed where Osho was and how He was doing.

At the time Osho left the body any intellectual property rights He might have owned
had never been transferred to anyone else. When someone leaves the body they no
longer have the legal power to own anything. Oshoʼs secretaries had acted as His
agents during His life, and when He left the body any authority His secretaries might
have had through Him ended. His last secretaries continued to work as volunteers for
several years explaining Oshoʼs wishes to people, but they had no special authority
any longer. Osho had dissolved into His people, dissolved into His varied and farflung successors.

After a few years Oshoʼs secretaries all left Pune to move on with
their lives and there was no longer any headquarters in the sense that Osho spoke of
it, though the Osho center in Pune continued to function.

Some people have tried to lead others to believe that the ashram/commune/resort in
Pune is some kind of headquarters or a “mother church,” but there is no legal basis
for this idea. There never was a legal headquarters of Oshoʼs work at any time.
Osho Himself was the spiritual center of the movement.
When He left His body He, in His own words, dissolved into His people.
In other words, there was no longer any spiritual center,
but a group of individuals spread around the globe who were all equal successors to Osho.

Pune is a place where many different legal entities (at least 10) operate.
These legal entities are independent and are not legally connected with foreign corporations like
OIF, Zurich. (India has strict laws about charitable trusts and foreign corporations.)

Around 1988 Osho asked that an office of volunteers be set up in Pune that would be
called Global Connections (GC). In those pre-Internet days these volunteers were to
gather and provide information about people involved in Oshoʼs work anywhere in the
world. If someone was getting transferred to Singapore for a job, for example, and
wanted to know if there was an Osho center there, he or she could ask GC. GC
would tell the person what centers were in Singapore, where they were, and what
activities they had.

GC was provided an office and office equipment by the group of legal entities that
worked together at that time to support the programs in Pune. Several different legal
entities were involved, but GC was never legally associated with any one of them.
GC was always just a group of volunteers. It has never been a legal entity.
GC compiled a list of centers, and over the years, particularly after Vatayana got
involved, GC started to set conditions for centers being included in its list.

For example, if the center didnʼt offer a regular meditation schedule it had to list itself as
an information center or GC wouldnʼt put it on GCʼs list. As the Internet grew the GC
list became meaningless, since many centers put up websites and several websites
listed various meditation centers around the world. GC was no longer needed as a list keeper.

After Oshoʼs secretaries left Pune GC also took over the job of sending out gifts of
name certificates for new centers. Before He left the body Osho asked that all new
Osho centers simply be called Osho Mediation Centers, without any other name, like
Viha, Miasto, or Rabia. Osho knew He would no longer be there to give centers
names and He never assigned or gave that job to anyone to do on their own, though
His secretaries had sometimes done it on His behalf during His life. Before He left the
body He ended the tradition of giving special names to centers. After He left the body
people in Pune continued the tradition—which was nothing more than a tradition—of
giving out name papers to people who opened new centers. Those name papers
were Osho Meditation Center or newer designation Osho Information Center

In the US trademark trial GC claimed, for the first time, that what it was really doing
by sending out name certificates and compiling information about centers was legally
controlling the centers on behalf of OIF, Zurich.
This was news to everyone in the sannyas community.

If you look closely at the evidence in the US trademark case you will see that the
entities in Pune donʼt claim to have authority over anyone outside of India. Vatayana
from GC claims that she is an agent of OIF in Switzerland and that she controls
centers outside of India under the authority of OIF, Zurich, not through any authority in Pune.

On the other hand, OIF in Zurich admits that it does not claim to own the trademark
for Osho in India. OIF in India, a completely separate Indian trust, has applied to
register trademarks for Osho in India. In order to legitimately register trademarks for
Osho in India, OIF, India would have to own the trademarks in India by completely
controlling all the uses of Osho in India since Osho changed His name in 1989.

This would be a bit challenging, since OIF, India wasnʼt created until 1991 and centers in
India began using Osho independently when Osho changed His name in 1989.

Itʼs important that OIF, Zurich doesnʼt claim to control the centers in India and doesnʼt
claim that any entity located in Pune has authority to control Osho centers outside of India.
This can be confusing, because OIF, Zurichʼs agent, Vatayana, operates out of Pune,
so some people have gotten the mistaken idea that she is claiming to exercise
some authority of “Pune,” or some legal entity located in Pune.

So what is the role of Pune in OIF, Zurichʼs claim to own trademarks for Osho in the
US, Canada, Australia, and the EU?

We are the world (of Osho) OIF,
Zurich basically tries to make itself out to be the controller of all things related to
Osho, including all the activities that are carried out by various legal entities based in
Pune. OIF has claimed that it now controls all the activities in Pune and around the world.

Originally OIF, Zurich admitted that Osho worked directly with the centers, made
decisions about His publishing, changed His name to Osho, and asked centers and
individuals connected to His work to use Osho too. Then it became apparent that if
this was true (as it certainly was), OIF, Zurich didnʼt own any trademarks. So OIF
changed its story midstream in the US trademark case and began to argue instead
that OIF, not Osho, was controlling everything and that OIF directed centers to
“rebrand” to Osho in 1989. OIF then denied that it had ever claimed Osho directed
His own work and the use of His name.

Pramod (Klaus Steeg) testified under penalty of perjury that Hasya, Oshoʼs
International Secretary, was not representing Osho, but was an agent of OIF, Zurich
(or sometimes of RF), so that when Osho gave names to centers through Hasya, it
was actually OIF, Zurich /RF licensing and taking control of the centers. Pramod also
claimed that people around Osho were told that Osho was directing things, but this
was a lie, and OIF/RF was really in charge.

Pramod claims all of this, though he admits that OIF, Zurich has never operated in
India and that no legal entity in India (such as RF) has ever transferred any
trademark interest to OIF. Hasya always presented herself as a volunteer who was
acting as a personal secretary to Osho, and there is no competent testimony or
documentation to disprove that. Pramod [Steeg], OIFʼs only witness on this, was not
even in Pune at the time of the name change, had no personal knowledge about
Hasyaʼs relationship with Osho.

If Hasya was not an agent of OIF, Zurich and neither Osho nor any legal entity in
India ever assigned trademark rights to OIF, Zurich (and OIF admits they didnʼt), then
Hasyaʼs activities have nothing to do with OIF, Zurich.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the hypothesis that Hasya was the
agent of OIF, Zurich, instead of Osho, in 1989 and earlier, thereʼs no evidence that
OIF owned any legal rights that gave it the power to license the centers through
Hasya. OIF keeps trying to do things in a backward way, to bootstrap itself into a
position to claim what it doesnʼt actually own. OIF claims to have taken control of the
centers secretly, by telling the centers that they were getting name papers from Osho himself.

OIF claims that this underhanded trick would give it the legal right to control
the centers, but, fortunately, thatʼs not how it works.
OIF would have to acquire ownership of the legal right to control the names of
centers before it could issue any licenses. Once OIF had that legal right, it might be
able to license names to the centers. But OIF had no basis for owning center names
in the time period of Pune II (1987–1990). Osho never transferred any legal rights to
OIF and no other legal entity ever transferred any rights in center names to OIF.
OIF never ran a center itself. Therefore, OIF had no conceivable claim to legal ownership
of centersʼ names and no legal rights to license centers during Pune II.

I can lease you my neighborʼs car, but since I donʼt own the car, the lease means
nothing at all. Thereʼs no evidence of any licenses to centers in Pune II, but even if
there had been, OIF would have to have owned the car before it could have leased it.

Osho never claimed to be using His name as a trademark or transferred any rights in
His name to anyone else. He gave names to centers that included His own personal
name through His secretaries, without any legal restrictions. Given that situation, no
one else could have had the right to license those centers to use His name. OIF had
nothing to license to centers in Pune II or at any time since.

But wasnʼt Pune an organization?
In the US trademark case OIF, Zurich argued that it wasnʼt true that Osho was
against organization, because there was an organization in Pune. Osho did point out
that centers need some kind of organization and rules to run from day to day. The
bigger the center the more rules needed, so He favored small centers:

“I don’t want very organized communes, for the simple reason that whenever you
become very organized you start losing something for which
you had started to organize in the first place. Other things become more important.
or example, in Poona there was a totally different quality. People were coming from
all over the world. They had small centers. There was no
centralized domination over the centers; all the centers were free to do whatsoever
they wanted to do. To me it was far more beautiful.”
OSHO Light on the Path, Chapter # 3

Osho was talking directly about His own activities in Pune where He was located at
the time. His point was that He had the right to direct the center where He was
working in the way He saw fit, just as people around the world were entitled to direct
the centers where they lived and worked as they saw fit. Osho completely honored
the independence of the other centers and never tried to control them. He, quite
reasonably, wanted sannyasins to give Him equal respect and not try to tell Him how
to run the center were He was working.

The key point is that though Osho recognized the legal necessity of having charitable
trusts and nonprofit foundations with tax-free status, He never authorized any legal
control of one entity over another. In fact, He strongly opposed the idea.

Osho left the basic legal structure and day-to-day organization of various centers to
the people involved. He never asked to see their by-laws or other organizational
documents or told them how to operate. Some centers were small gatherings in
peopleʼs houses and some were legal entities with their own organizations,
residences, and businesses. Osho was clear there should never be any entity or
organization that had legal control over those running other centers.

“I would like all the communes that want to continue to be autonomous: not
dependent on any central world headquarters; related,
but not dependent; related just because they are sannyasins.
The world headquarters is their headquarters. It is not somebody else dominating them
and making them do things whether they like it or not.”

OSHO Light on the Path # 28

Throughout its claim to own all trademarks related to Oshoʼs teachings OIF, Zurich
has tried to confuse itself with other entities in order to appear to be the all-controlling
trademark holder for Osho. The articles show these claims are not based on either law or fact.

  1. Why are you fighting each other ? Both of you are doing the same thing , just spreading the message from one of the greatest masters on earth ! It belongs to neither of you. Osho was against any such monopolization of ideas, Its not the religious way .

    1. Vinod, you are both right and wrong. While it is true that all of us (not just the 2 in question!) are spreading the message, only one (OIF, Zurich) is attempting to LIMIT how and where others are allowed to speak about and represent Osho. Not the same at all!
      When one person is trying to shut down all others, we must speak against them.

  2. I feel that these copyright claiming people are nothing but new avatars of old pundits- modern pundits or neo pundits :-). These have nothing to do with spirituality and its good to see that these are being tackled in the same way as of their attacking.

  3. What OIF is ugly, unconcious. Because they want to make a living out of Osho. They are just scared to lose security since they don’t know how to make their own money. I feel bad for their situation, but Osho’s work has to be spread, freely. He never cared about anybody´s opinion, so if someone uses it wrongly, it is their problem. Osho international fundation, chill out, celebrate, and create your own living !

  4. yes thats true ugly things r going on,but do we all forgot we r disciples of an rebellious spirit,just anything goes holly bull shit why to accept?rebell and protest agaist thes judas . . . . . .

  5. messagefrommasters website gets spread osho message more quickly than you so called osho copyright websites.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *