SLIDE- S.

2(c)

Section 2(c) of the Indian Copyright Act defines artistic works

What is important to note is that these works receive recognition as “artistic works”

SLIDE- Section 14

RIGHTS CONFERRED IN A COPYRIGHTED ARTISTIC WORK:

Section 14 of the Act gives and elaborates different kind of rights which are conferred
and available to each kind of work. Sub section (c) of Section 14 talks about rights
conferred in the case of artistic work; every artistic work has a right to reproduce the
work in any material form As per Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright
provides only the creator with the right to replicate his work. The right to be the legal owner
of a given intellectual property, is also granted under this law.

Rights after registration of the artistic work

 The right to replicate the work.

 The right to inform the public of the work.
 The right of publication of copies of this work.
 The right to make any adjustment in that work.
 The right to allow the work to be included in cinematographic films.

It is not mandatory to get copyright protection but always advisable to do so

because it will give the owner a certain set of minimum rights over his work
and the protection that no one will be able to copy his work for a minimum
period of time.
Therefore, it is necessary to get the registration of copyright in order to avoid
any theft or duplication of work. In India, under the Copyright Act of 1957, a
copyright is automatically provided when the software code is incorporated
into any tangible format such as ROM, paper, magnetic tape, etc. The entry
of such works is kept as a public record in the copyright register, which
includes the title name and the name of the author in the index.

Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India.

Facts: Amarnath Sehgal, a well-known sculptor, was commissioned to prepare a

mural by the Indian Government for the Vigyan Bhavan. The mural was created over
a period of 5 years and was displayed in 1962. The Government decided to remove
the murals installed on the walls of Vigyan Bhavan and store the said mural in a
storage space of the building due to ongoing renovations and failed to notify or seek
authorization from Amarnath. The mural was also slightly damaged due to
 mishandling and negligence. Amarnath sued the Government over the mistreatment
of his mural, claiming it to be a violation of his moral rights.

Issues: Whether the author had rights over the display of his work post-sale under
moral rights provisions?

Law Involved: Section 57 of the Copyrights Act, 1957.

Analysis: While holding that moral rights form the soul of an author's work, the Court
clarified that these could not be taken away from the author regardless of the work’s
sale. The destruction and mutilation of work were held to be an infringement of the
author’s moral rights.
The Government argued that once the sale was complete and due consideration had
been paid, it had the power to utilize the work as it deemed fit, including its decision
to remove the work from public display. However, the Court did not accept this
argument and emphasized that the mutilation and part destruction of the mural was
prejudicial to the reputation of the author itself, regardless of who is the owner.
Therefore, the author was awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and ordered
that the remains of the mural be delivered to Amarnath for the purpose of restoration
and further, sale.

Conclusion: This case formed the basis for how moral rights were to be interpreted.
The Court further allowed special reliefs which were not witnessed prior to this case,
such as returning the copyrighted work back to the author. This reiterated and set
the tone for future interpretations of moral rights and the residuary rights of an
author.

provides the power to file a lawsuit on infringement of copyright – In order to

file a lawsuit the work must be registered by its author.

Slide section 51

1. Unauthorized Actions:
 Without license or approval:
 (i) Engaging in activities exclusively reserved for the copyright owner.
 (ii) Allowing, for profit, the use of a piece in a way that infringes
copyright, unless the person was unaware and had no reasonable
grounds to believe it would be an infringement.
2. Commercial Infringement:
 (i) Making, selling, or renting infringing copies.
 (ii) Distributing infringing copies to an extent that harms the copyright owner.
 (iii) Publicly exhibiting infringing copies for trade.
 (iv) Importing infringing copies into India, with the exception of one copy for
private and domestic use.
 When any one makes or develops any new work, they get copyright protection to
make sure that their efforts are doesn’t go in vain and they get the profit which they
deserve. Copyright is an exclusive right which gives its owner bunch of rights like,
reproduction, adaptation, communication and translation.

When these exclusive rights of the copyright holder are violated then it amounts to
Copyright infringement. The unauthorized or prohibited use of works under
copyright such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make
derivative works, will also amount to Copyright infringement and to prove copyright
infringement in court of law, a copyright owner must establish proof of copyright
ownership and proof of copying by direct evidence of copying or by indirect evidence
showing access to the original work; and “substantial similarity” between the original
and allegedly infringing work.

SLIDE Landmark judgements

R.G Anand v Deluxe Films

This case is the landmark case as in this case Supreme Court very carefully examined
and elucidated various authorities and case laws, and following propositions were
evolved:

 Copyright does not give any protection to ideas, facts, systems, themes, plots or
methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed,
arranged or the way copyright is formed.
 Where the idea is same but is being developed in a different manner, the
similarities are bound to be there as the source of such manifestation is common.
In such instances courts look that whether or not the similarities are on
fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode in which that expression of
copyright work is adopted. In simple words it means that in order to take action
the copy must be substantially or materially same to the copyright work which
would mean that the defendant is guilty.
 One of the best, safest and fastest way to determine that whether the copyright
work has been infringed or not is to look that when the reader, spectator or the
viewer after looking at that work is clearly of the opinion and are absolutely sure
that the subsequent work is a copy of an original copyright work.
 When the theme is same but the way it is presented is so different that the
subsequent work can be looked as new work, then no infringement of copyright.
 Material and broad dissimilarities also helps in proving that there was no intention
to copy original work.
 A violation of the copyright must be proved by showing clear and cogent evidence
and after applying various case laws and tests aid down for this purpose.
 Scope of Copyright:
 Copyright does not protect ideas, facts, systems, themes, plots, or
methods of operation.
 Protection is granted to the expression, arrangement, or formation of
these elements.
 Assessing Similarities:
  Similarities are inevitable when the idea is the same but developed
differently.
 Courts examine whether the similarities are on fundamental or
substantial aspects of the expression.
 Standard for Copyright Infringement:
 Copyright infringement occurs when the subsequent work is
substantially or materially the same as the original.
 The standard is whether a reader, spectator, or viewer can clearly and
absolutely identify the subsequent work as a copy.
 Presentation and Dissimilarities:
 If the theme is the same but the presentation is significantly different, it
may be considered a new work, and no infringement is established.
 Material and broad dissimilarities can prove the absence of intention to
copy the original work.

 In the case of Cadbury India Ltd v. S.M. Dyechem Ltd. (2000), the ‘lay
observer’ test has been developed while addressing the issue of
infringement of copyright of artistic work. As per this test, if a lay
observer, who is not an expert in artistic work, looks at the visual and
believes it has been copied from another work, it is an infringement of
artistic work.
 Microfibres v. Girdhar & Co.(2006) has been the landmark case to
state the difference between artistic work under Copyright Act,1957
and design under the Design Act.
 When it comes to preserving the visual characteristics of a business,
copyright protection is usually the first thing that comes to mind. It’s
worth noting that, due to Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act of 1957,
design registration and copyright protection cannot exist at the same
time. And, according to Section 15(2) if an article that can be
registered under both is duplicated more than 50 times by an industrial
process, the copyright protection is automatically lost. If this is the
case, and the design has not been registered in India, it cannot be
protected from replication by the competitor.
 In this case, it was stated that copyright protection lasts considerably
longer than the Design Act protection. Therefore, if a piece of art
purely puts an artist’s idea into canvas, it would be considered an
artistic work and should be protected by the Copyright Act. The crucial
point to remember here is that if someone develops art with the
intention of mass commercialization, it is no longer an artistic piece but
a design with a shorter protection period. If your work falls within the
design category, you must safeguard it by registering it under the
Design Act. If you skip out on statutory design protection, the
Copyright Act provides remedy under Section 15(2), which protects
copyright in a design until 50 copies are manufactured through an
industrial process. Copyright expires after the 51st reproduction.
 Facts of the Case:

 The case centered around the distinction between artistic works under the Copyright
Act of 1957 and designs under the Design Act.
 Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act specified that design registration and copyright
protection cannot coexist simultaneously.
 Section 15(2) outlined that if an article eligible for both copyright and design
registration is industrially duplicated over 50 times, copyright protection is
automatically lost.

Issues Raised in the Case:

1. Can copyright protection and design registration coexist for the same article under
Indian law?
2. What happens when an article, eligible for both copyright and design protection, is
industrially duplicated more than 50 times?
3. Is there a difference in the duration of protection between copyright and the Design
Act?

Key Judgements and Legal Insights:

1. Coexistence of Copyright and Design Protection:

 Section 15(1) clarified that copyright and design protection cannot exist
simultaneously for the same article.
2. Impact of Industrial Duplication:
 Section 15(2) specified that if an article, eligible for both protections, is
industrially duplicated over 50 times, copyright protection is automatically
lost.
3. Duration of Protection:
 The case emphasized that copyright protection lasts significantly longer than
protection under the Design Act.
 Artistic works fall under copyright protection, providing a longer duration.
However, if art is developed for mass commercialization, it transitions into a
design with a shorter protection period.
4. Importance of Registration:
 To safeguard designs falling under the Design Act, registration is crucial.
 Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act provides protection until the 50th
reproduction for unregistered designs. After the 51st reproduction, copyright
expires.

Conclusions:
 The case underscored the exclusivity of copyright and design protection, prohibiting
simultaneous existence.
 Duration of protection became a critical factor, highlighting the longer-lasting nature
of copyright.
 The importance of registration under the Design Act was emphasized for designs
intended for mass commercialization, ensuring statutory protection beyond the 50th
reproduction.

Mansoob Haider v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Facts of the Case:

 Plaintiff Mansoob Haider sought credit for the film "Dhoom 3" and an injunction
against its satellite broadcast, claiming infringement of his copyrighted script titled
"ONCE."
 The script was delivered to Yash Raj Films in 2010, alleging that elements from his
script were copied in "Dhoom 3," released in 2013.

Issues Raised in the Case:

1. Whether the defendants had access to the plaintiff's script?

2. Can copying of the plaintiff's script be proven using the subjective or intrinsic test?
3. Is there substantial and material overlapping of original elements in the plaintiff's
script?

Key Judgements and Legal Insights:

 Access to Plaintiff's Script:

 Court favored the defendants, citing lack of convincing evidence for the claim
that they had access to the script.
 Plaintiff's silence for four years after script delivery was considered
unreasonable conduct.
 Copying and Similarity:
 Comparison of both scripts and the film led to the conclusion that there was
no copying or substantial similarity.
 Common elements such as a magician with two sons, a vanishing trick,
revenge plot, and distinguishing marks were deemed part of "scène à faire"
and lacked originality.
 Scène à Faire and Lack of Protection:
 The court emphasized that elements falling under "scène à faire" are not
protected as they lack original expression.
  Set similarities were not considered, as the entire film was set in a foreign
country, unlike the script.
 Total Concept or Feel Test:
 Relying on the RG Anand decision, the court applied the "total concept or feel
test" and found no material similarity or dishonest intention to copy.
 Copyright law aims to protect original expression, not stifling creativity by
protecting ideas.
 Cost Awarded to Defendant:
 The court awarded costs to the defendant as a deterrent against frivolous
claims in the future.

Conclusions:

 The court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing claims of copyright

infringement.
 Lack of access, substantial similarity, and the application of "scène à faire" were
pivotal in the court's decision.
 The case reinforced the principle that copyright protects original expression, not
ideas, and discouraged frivolous claims by awarding costs to the defendant

Conclusion
Copyright registration of artistic works in India is a crucial step for artists seeking
to protect their creative endeavors. By registering their artwork, artists gain legal
protection, enforcement rights, and recognition of their ownership. The process
provides artists with the confidence to assert their exclusive rights, take legal
action against infringements, and seek remedies for damages. Moreover, copyright
registration ensures that their artistic legacy remains safeguarded and respected,
encouraging a thriving creative environment. Therefore, artists are encouraged to
avail the benefits of copyright registration to secure their artistic expressions and
foster a culture of artistic protection and appreciation in India.