COPYRIGHT LAW

IV -B.COM LL.B HONS.

S.NO Topic Case Law/Provisions/Doctrine
1. Introduction to Copyright  Art 9.2 of TRIPS Agreement-Copyright protection shall
extend to expression and not to ideas, procedures, methods of
operation or mathematical concepts as such.

 Copyrighted works are Creation of mind

 Copyright is a legal right/ protection given by legislation
 To works of creators and authors
 Provides exclusive rights on the copyright owner, such as the
right to reproduce and distribute the copyrighted work
 Provides incentives to creators and authors for further
creativity
 Encourages creativity and learning
 Balances exclusive right of authors and allows limitations and
exceptions for access to knowledge
 Access to copyrighted works encourages innovation, research
& further creativity

2. Subject Matter of Copyright  Copyright subsists in following ORIGINAL works:

Protection 1. Literary works,
2. Dramatic works,
3. Musical works,
4. Artistic works
5. Cinematograph film
6. Sound recording

3. Conceptual Basis/  Originality

Minimum Standard for o University of London Press v. University Tutorial
Copyright Protection Press Ltd- What is worth copying is prima facie worth
protected under copyright law
o Feist Publication v. Rural Telephone Service
 Independent creation + Modicum of Creativity
 Facts are not protected but Compilation of facts are
protected. In a compilation the selections or
arrangements are protected
 Doctrine of Merger is rejected

o Easter Book Company v. D B Modak

 Copy editing version of the judgment
 Fixed in tangible medium
o Embodiment Requirement and Duration Requirement
o White- Smith Music Publishing Co. v Apollo- (Piano Roller)
 Idea/expression Dichotomy
o Baker v Selden
o -Doctrine of Merger Chapman Kelley v Chicago Park (Living
Art)
 o Anil Gupta v Kunal Das Gupta
o R G Anand v Delux Film
 Lay Observant Test
o Institute for Inner Studies v. Charlotte Anderson
(Asanas)
o Useful Article –Separate identification and
independent existence requirement
 Mazer v Stein
 Star Athletica LLC v Varsity Brands Inc
o Computer Programme
 Computer Associates v Altai
 AFC Test
 Abstraction, Filtration and Comparison

4. Rights of Copyright Right to reproduction

Owner/Author o Jacob Rentmeester v Nike
Economic Rights - Plaintfiff the copyright owner and substantial copying –
o Right to Copying and unlawful appropriation of the copyrighted work
Reproduction -Extrinsic and Intrinsic test
o Distribution rights Right to Distribution
o Right of Public o Doctrine of exhaustion
performance and Doctrine of first sale – promote resale market –
public display secondary market and promote parallel import and
o Adaptation and competition
translation Rights  Bobbs Merrill Co v Straus
Moral Rights or Special  John Wiley and Sons v Prabhat Chander
rights  John Wiley and Sons v Supaap Kirtsaeng
o Right to paternity Moral Right
o Right to integrity o Amarnath Seghal v Union of India
 Sec 57 include right against destruction of a work
of Art.
 Amendment in 1994 – no exception for display of
work

5. Author or Owner of Joint Author

Copyrighted work  Najma Heptulla v Orient Lonman ltd
Course of Employment
 V T Thomas v Malayalam Manorama
 Indian Performing Right Society v Eastern India
Motion Picture Association
o Naruto v Slater – Monkey Selfie
o Chapman Kelley v Chicago Park (Living Art)- Natural force
not the gardener

6. Fair Dealing of the  Syndicate of press of university of Cambridge v.

Copyrighted Work B.D.Bhandari (Guide and text book)
Art 13 of TRIPS agreement  Delhi Photo Copying Case – Sec 52 (i)- In the Course of
Instruction
  Triple test (Three  Sony v Universal City Studio- -VCR- Betamax-Doctrine of
step test) Staple Article of Commerce – Capable of Substantial Non-
 limited case Infringing Use- Time shifting as a fair use
 do not unreasonably Test of transformative
prejudice the  Whether the new work merely supersedes the object of
legitimate interest of original creation or instead adds something new with a further
the right holder purpose or different character, altering the first with new
 do not conflict with expression, meaning or message, it asks in other words
normal exploitation whether and to what extent the new work is transformative.
 Campbell v Acuff Ross-Music Industry
Sec 52 of the Copyright Act  Parody
 fair dealing of works  Google v Authors Guild
 permissible use of  Snippet
computer  Kelly v Arriba Soft Corp.
programme  Thumb nail image
 use by judiciary,  Google v Oracle
legislature and  Copy of Java Declaring Code by Google for
government developing Android OS for Smart Phone
 educational use  Andy Warhol v Goldsmith
 use by library  Orange Silk Screen portrait by cropping and
 cultural and flattening the photo of Goldsmith
religious use
 use for disabled
persons
 other permissible
use
This provision reflects the
broad public interest the
legislature kept in mind
taking into consideration
the social, educational,
cultural and economic
condition s of the Indian
society
17USCsec 107
1. The purpose and
character of the use,
including whether
such use is of a
commercial nature
or is for nonprofit
educational purpose.
2. The nature of the
copyrighted work
3. The amount and
substantiality of the
portion used in
relation to the
copyrighted work as
a whole
 4. Effect of use upon
the potential market
for or value of the
copyrighted work.

5. Copyright Infringement  R G Anand v Delux Films

Sec 51 of the Copyright Act - Seven Preposition
- Lay Observant Test
 Peer 2 Peer Technology
- Peer-to-peer technology enables internet users to
communicate directly with other user and access the files
stored on each other’s hard drives.
- an individual uses a peer-to-peer file-sharing system to
locate and obtain a digital file containing a copyrighted
motion picture, which has been made available by
another user of the peer-to-peer network without the
permission of the copyright owner

A & M Records Company v Napster –Secondary Liability-

Contributory and vicarious liability