In t e l l e c t u a l Pr o pe r t y La w I

INTRODUCTORY Intellectual property is a natural/statutory right- derived from property rights- bundle of rights (own, posses, transfer, use) - maybe tangible, intangible, real, physical, etc- IP is property created by human intellect- non-physical property based on an idea- different as it can be used despite transfer TRIPS- recognizes IP as a private right- enjoyed by a person distinct from public right- hence ability to preclude others from use- manifested differently- not defined anywhere- Article 1 of TRIPS merely says that intellectual property refers to all categories of intellectual property specified in the agreement- includes copyright and related rights, patent, trademark, industrial designs, GI, layout of I/C and undisclosed information- classification based on varying degree of intellectual labour Philosophical Justification
1) Locke’s Labour Theory- natural rights of the creator- if a person invest labour he should

own the product created thereby- right to exploit it- commercial aspect- ignores quantity and quality of labour 2) Hegel’s Personality Theory- creation is an extension of the creator’s personality- moral right over the creation Objective behind Copyright US Constitution- Article 1 Clause 8- to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their work
1) Incentive and reward/compensation for creation 2) Right over expression and not idea- access to knowledge- freedom of speech and

expression 3) Limited Period- public domain- stepping stone for improvement Historical Development Response to development of technology- specifically the printing press- threat of multiple copies- emergence of publishing community- all printing made subject to permission of the king/ queen- stationer’s or printer’s guild- published with state’s permission Statute of Anne- 1710- response to dissatisfaction of the authors concerning lack of protection of their interest- act for encouragement of learning- established author as the owner of the right to copy- rights could be sold to printers- fixed term- 14 year protection for manuscripts and 21 years to those given to publishers- right of forfeiture provided- publications to be registered with stationers- copy to be archived- price to be just and reasonable

Act to amend and consolidate.bundle of rights with reference to particular work LITERARY WORK Defined u/s 2(o) . etc Requirement for Copyright Walter v.unjust enrichment/springboard doctrine.objective of creating knowledge base Berne Convention.established common copyright amongst several sovereign nationsTRIPS requires adherence. Syllabus.concept notedefendants planned their own show Shubh Vivah on similar lines Plaintiff.US joined in 1955.literary and artistic work include every production in literary.literary.meeting with defendants.common law does not apply Section 14.book publishes a collection of the politician’s speeches.novelty/originality lost.Universal Copyright Convention.1886. musical.recognized copyright within US.copyright was granted to the paper.work was registered. dramatic.statutory right.question regarding copyright.work defined section 2(y).public speech by a politician (Lord Roseberry) .justifiable for third world countries Copyright Act.1790. Menu Cards.bundle of rights Preliminary.however originality is required u/s 13 as a response to the case. Lane. Question Papers. 1957 Copyright is also a natural right.now obsolete since US has joined Berne.plaintiff conceived idea of reality television based on match making.creation and fixation are indivisible parts in almost all works Idea Expression Dichotomy Anil Dasgupta v.Berne Convention Article 2.concept note was a disclosure in confidentiality .In t e l l e c t u a l Pr o pe r t y La w I US Copyright Act.grant of injunction (balance of convenience) .skilled short-hand notes takerverbatim copy of speech reproduced in the newspaper.newspaper sues book publishers.presentation. scientific or artistic domain whatever be the mode or form of expression Dictionary.Swayamvar.1952.no rights independent of the Act. Kunal Dasgupta.inclusive definition.meaning of copyright.indicates existence of copyright regime before the Act-Section 16.comes into existence automatically upon creation.recognized fixation as an important criteria for copyright Fixation is not a statutory requirement in India. sound recording. cinematograph film.Fair use. artistic.case of infringement and breach of confidentiality.exclusive right to do or authorize the doing of any acts stated in the Act with respect to work.

defendant brought publication containing a number of papers set by he examiners. DB Modak. events.the concept is the brainchild of the plaintiff.respondents claimed that there was copyright in headnotes and undertook to not copy the same. styling and formatting.head start.primary and derivative.whether the idea is novel concept and whether it can be protected and whether information was confidential Idea per se has no copyright.obtain judgments and then copy-edit by making additions.common charactersno copyright on basic plot and stock characters.respondents make grand jurix.others deny having read book.appointment of examiners on conditions that copyright in examination paper would vest in the university. labour and capital expenditure.two classes of literary work. situations.special disability.based on an interview of a member of the team.balance between interest of author and the public. etc Object of copyright is to prevent unlawful exploitation or reproduction.key requirements is originality.defendants claimed fair dealing for private study. University Tutorial Press Ltd.rags to riches theme.considerable amount of skill.appellants are publishers of reportable judgments.concept capable of confidential communication if it has attractiveness as a programme and capable of being realized.respondent cannot be allowed to reap fruits of his labour.original does not mean novel or inventive thoughtwork should not be copied.not original workno copyright on theme/idea.springboarding should not be allowed.only one episode had been broadcasted. memory and judgment and constituted original literary work. concurring/partly concurring/etc.appellant sued for infringementserial based on book.what is the standard for originality in the latter? Landbroke v.infringement only by comparing similarities of details.no copyright in facts.no expression on merit Barbara Taylor Bradford v.Court agreed the work to be literary.plaintiff argued that setting of paper involved exercise of brainwork.copyright assigned to plaintiff company.original literary work.balance of convenience in favour of respondent Theshold/Test of Originality University of London Press Ltd v.In t e l l e c t u a l Pr o pe r t y La w I Defendant-concept in public domain. Hill.contribution/inputs analyzed.injunction from broadcasting for a period of four months.no requirement of literary merit Eastern Book Company v.copied entirely from SCC verbatim. numbering.cross citations.if plaintiff launches programme then further injunction for two months.originality in the context of compilation.football betting coupons arranged in .other similar themed shows in other countries Issue. etc. corrections.note was rough and preliminary note.copyright claim over copy-edited text.if developed into concept with adequate details it can be registerednovelty in the idea of combining match making with reality television. Sahara Media Entertainment Ltd. margin heading for statutes. internal referring.must originate from author.

respondent claim that no copyright can exist on advertising slogans.skill. internal referencing.respondent refused appellant the right to use their listing. Law Society of Upper Canada.now a competitor.similar facts as the present one. etc.ex employeedefendant got a copy. labour.literary work is an expression of thought.appellant coupon identical.In t e l l e c t u a l Pr o pe r t y La w I a certain form.a new arrangement of old matters will give right to the protection (University of London Press case) Modicum of Creativity Doctrine.work must be original to author.not a mechanical process.in case of compilation originality is a matter of degree.modicum of creativity (too high). etc.must originate from author.compilation from common source is under literary work.partly allowed appeals Burlington Home Shopping v.maybe used under passing off Abridgment .photocopies.compilations have creativity in their arrangement.usage without consent.there should be such addition that imparts some quality or character which the original does not possesdistinguishable features.sweat of brow stretches it too far (low standard).bears impression of author’s labour and exertions Principle of De Minimis Pepsico v. money. citations. labour and capital.no one can be allowed to reap benefits of another’s labour.held that the author must produce a material with exercise of his skill or judgment which is not merely the product of labour/capital yet is not creativity in the sense of novelty Court followed CCH position. Rural Telephone Service Co Inc.plaintiff claim copyright infringement over Dil Mange Moreuse by defendants in advertising campaign.no substantial variation CCH Canadian Ltd v.use of concurring/partly concurring/etc.inputs classified into two parts. choice of facts. etc.some minimal degree of creativity must exist. Hindustan Coca Cola.US SC.Feist Publications Inc v.minimal creativity is must.author has copyright.held that slogans cannot be copyrighted as original literary work.white pages and yellow pages.slavish imitation determines infringement. skill amounts to literary work.compilation of list of clients/customers by devoting time.original literary work.copyright over work as a whole.lack of sufficient originality.requires careful consideration and extensive reading.corrections.because fragments taken separately would not be copyrightable does not means the work as a whole cannot be either Sweat of the Brow Doctrine. Rajnish Chibber.rejected sweat of the brow as creating monopoly in ideas Mathew Bender Co. etc considered not enough.library.rare combination of wordsregistration prima facie evidence of copyright.mere use of skill/labour/capital not enough.

medium has to be similar MUSICAL WORK Defined u/s 2(p).In t e l l e c t u a l Pr o pe r t y La w I Macmillan v. Malayala Manorama Co Ltd.no adverse effect on circulation Work of Architecture Defined under section 2(b).decided in the context of passing off.producer u/s 2(uu) DRAMATIC WORK Defined u/s 2(h).10 years protection Photograph Section 2(s).protects method of construction.different from architectural work of art.does not include cinematograph film.extracts from the book knit by words to for an unbroken narrative.author and employee not same under section 17.inclusive definition. Super Cassette Industries.appealing to the eyes.cartoon.reprint does not entitle copyright.inapplicability as far as designs registered under the Design Act are concerned .artistic work.Section 15.version recording.may include musical work.continued to use in a different publication.protects composition and not the song.3 parts.employee of respondentafter termination of employment.copied by respondents who produced a similar book with extracts in addition to what was provided in appellants book.not from original soundtrack SOUND RECORDING Defined u/s 2(xx).appellant produced abridged version of a non-copyright book.but 13(3)(b) solves this problem. Cooper.allows for version recording.author is producer.2(d) Designs Act.does not include cinematograph film.13 does not provide for original sound recording.held.substitution of originality requirement.must if reasonable skill.publisher cannot be author in case of cartoons/characterscartoonist clothes the idea in a form. etc is required copyright may be extended.neither copying nor reproduction.former employees has no copyright for subsequent cartoons.work should not be copied ARTISTIC WORK Defined under section 2(c) .52(j)author is composer Gramophone Company v.section 2(za) & (i) Copyright over Characters VT Thomas v.fixation in writing .rights under section 14(1)(d).

character merchandising.strange dance result of jump cutting. Dev Anand. Delux Films.substantial part is infringement of copyright in any other work.suffered or likely to suffer damage.kyun kioriginal artistic work including logo and title in peculiar styling and font and containing the words.challenged.common saying or proverb. Eastern India Motion Picture Association.4) logo.In t e l l e c t u a l Pr o pe r t y La w I or otherwise.also several differences in the two.no question of passing off. matter and arrangement .case of adaptation.can the existing and future right in music be assigned and otherwise defeated by the producer by engaging the same.no infringement.includes sound recording.film may be recording of a dramatic work or a dramatic work in itself.misrepresentation.no clear commitment.literary work.rights concerning music vested with producers as part of the soundtrack. Leo Burnett.dramatic work is capable of being performed before an audience.Joy is dramatic.no case for plaintiffs RG Anand v.court lays down seven principles for infringement.right to communicate the film to public IPRS v.however if the creation is commissioned then producer is vested with the rights Star India v.commercial cannot affect viewership.held.if right assigned by lyricists/composers then producer has right to make it heard in public but the author retains the right to perform otherwise than as a part of the cinematograph film.question of quality not quantity.good review.respondent claim that ad is independent creation with skill.acquired goodwill and reputation. violation restricted to form.commercial claimed to be substantial copymisrepresentation.also original.1) copying means actual process of duplication and not another film which merely resembles the first.if dramatic performance is fixed in film negative it is no longer dramatic work Norowzian v.Anticipation.similar technique used.some effort must have been put in devising and not something known to public.synopsis for film making.1) no copyright in idea/subject matter/ themes/plots/historical/legendary facts.no prima facie case of substantial copying.whether film can be dramatic work.plaintiff owner of copyright in the cinematograph film.no copyright subsists in style or technique CINEMATOGRAPH FILM Defined u/s 2(f).no copyright on idea or theme.13(4) seeks to ensure rights under 14(1)(a) coexist with 14(1)(c).staging of play.3) photograph claim not valid since it excludes cinematograph film.2) substantial copying. labour and effortno copyright in title.public domain.no requirement of originality.requirement is goodwill.a film will often but not always be capable of being performed.provincialism as central theme.two concerned things are in different fields.announced production of movie.IPRS laid down tariff for performance.Joy was a short film.5) passing off.13(3)(a). Arks.resemblance.infringing copy.difference between literary and dramatic work is that the latter can be performed Fortune Films v.requirement of originality for dramatic work but not for films.

copyright vets with the person who arranged it Express Newspapers v. Orient Longman.case of contract for service and not contract of service.Author the first owner. no. no infringement 6) clear and cogent evidence 7) stage play to film.agreement with Kabirrepresentatives of Maulana want otherwise.whether the grid is copyrightable?.so no right with plaintiff.right vested with newspaper.some parts kept in seal.In t e l l e c t u a l Pr o pe r t y La w I 2) when source is common similarities are bound to occur. combo.2(d)(vi).former is employment whereas later is commissioning.responsibility means legal consequence and not just financial responsibility TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT Assignment is transfer whereas license is permission.Section 178 CDPA.assignment for communication. Liverpool Daily Post. Pratik Chowdhury.intellectual contribution by two or more towards composition.to be opened later and published.market likely to get affected AUTHORS AND OWNERS 17. etc in developing the program. presented and treated differently such that it becomes a new work.later approved by Maulaza Azad.copied by rival newspaper.2(z) Najma Heptulla v.conditions/provisos.plus he does not fall within the term producer.test is whether person is performing as a person in business on his own accountif yes then contract for service.court has to determine whether similarity is on fundamental or substantial aspects of the expression 3) violation from the point of view of the reader.Prof.in whose language is it written test in Donoghue’s case.treatment and presentation differentonly central idea is same COMPUTER GENERATED WORKS Types.difficult.later released cassettes separately.joint ownership recognized. incidental similarities.section 9(3). spectator or viewer who after having read or seen both works gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work is a copy of the first 4) same theme. skill. Kabir wrote book out of dictates.computer generated work is where there is no human author.hence it was a case of joint authorship.defendants are singer.case of direct copying.facts state that the legal representatives gave consent to the arrangement Gee Pee Films v. no violation 5) material or broad dissimilarities which negative intention to copy.coupons.film has broader perspective and wide fieldtotality of impression from the point of view of viewer.only those media known then.computer generated grids.disapproved.human skill & labour. lyricists and composers hired by plaintiff to compose two songs on remuneration.appointed a person under contract to develop program for generation.anything worth copying is worth protecting.author.royalty/payment is indicator of whether a particular document is assignment .if two person collaborate with common design and produce a literary work they are co-authors.involves human.

v.refusal must be given a contextual meaning.investment by broadcaster .can approach anytime there is unreasonable terms.original literary work.mathematical questions are expression of laws of nature. secondary liability. Narendra Publishing House.argued as review.offer on unreasonable term is refusal.Primary.act provides mechanism.whether the new work is transformativevalue addition.plaintiff published text book for students as per course structure prescribed by J&K Board. Super Cassette Industries.questions from a common pool. money.collaboration.public interest in availability of the work.In t e l l e c t u a l Pr o pe r t y La w I or license.review is re-examination/revisiting OTHER RIGHTS Broadcast Reproduction Right Separate right granted to broadcasters.necessary to construe law with regards to international covenants. when it is withheld INFRINGEMENT 51.defendants published books in violation of copyright.necessary part of the structure.poor/degrading substitutedefendants claimed fair use.construction in light of the balancing nature of IP law.clause 2 should be confined to clause a i.compulsory licenses are exception the general rule.work amounts to transformative work hence review.soundtrack of movie assigned.four factors identified in Harper v.subconscious University of Oxford v..no creativity in arrangementfair use.interpretation of section 31 was made keeping in mind the scheme of the Act. Shanti Films.reproduced content with solutions/answers.assignment there is lump sum payment whereas license involves apportionment Gramophone Co.doctrine of merger.act gives full freedom to owner to exploit and reap benefits through voluntary licenses.where idea-expression is intrinsically connected and expression is indistinguishable protection cannot be granted.talk on idea-expression dichotomy.e.royalty clause in agreementproducers started exploiting rights.not the case as far as simple licenses are concerned.copyright with plaintiffsubstantial skill.not mere substitute.board can exercise its power from time to time.patent does not allow protection to equations.derivative work.case of assignment ENIL v.grant of compulsory license must be with respect to this.offer is not sufficient.u/s 37.public must mean public all around the country.1) purpose and character of use 2) nature of the copyrighted work 3) substantiality of the portion used 4) effect on the potential market.intention to be gathered from words.Two conflicting opinions of Delhi and Bombay High Court over the grant of compulsory license on reasonable remuneration.higher standard for copyright.to be treated together.in case of assignment/exclusive license the assignee can sue owner for infringement. judgment. Nation.use of royalty will not negate meaning.no entitlement in favour of individual broadcaster.language is limited means to describe the same.

Union of India. C.bootlegging. 7 lakhs in certain amounts on or before the release of the picture in the territories of Delhi-U. and he sued to restrain the producers from doing so. It was further provided that the copyright in the cine artiste's work in the motion picture was to vest in the cine artiste till full payment of the agreed amount was made to him on which it would automatically vest in the producers.loss of revenueexparte John Doe orders sought against wrongful transmission. an engraving or a photograph) in Section 2(c). Bengal.destruction without permission..number of operators broadcasting without licensing agreement.apprehension of loss of reputation is real.section 57 must be interpreted in wider amplitude to include destruction of a work. a drawing. Held that the performance by an artiste in a cinematograph film cannot be equated to any of the five categories of "artistic work" (namely.bronze metal sculpture. does not recognise the performance of an actor as a "work" (defined by Clause (y) of Section 2).2(q) and 2(qq). A cinematograph film was expressly excluded in the definition of a dramatic work in s.power of modification granted under terms of contract. Mysore.-C I.protects attribution and integrity.interest of performers need to be protected. The plaintiff alleged that the producers were releasing the picture in the Bombay and overseas territories without full payment of the remuneration to him. P.P.In t e l l e c t u a l Pr o pe r t y La w I Taj Television v.right to have name on the work and be identified as author.image lowered if distorted version is allowed to be presented.author’s special rights Mannu Bhandari v. 1957. Nizam. Moral Right Article 6bis of Berne. In view of the definitions of "artistic work".garnered interest..led to incorporation.independent of author’s economic right and even after transfer.if performance incorporated in cinematograph film with permission.broadcast rights of world cup.section 57.integrity rightretraction. a sculpture.suitable modifications suggested Sehgal v.new launch of channel. "dramatic work" and "cinematograph film" in Section 2(f).divulgation or dissemination right.court commissioner appointed Performer’s Right Performance and Performer.no right applies. Tamil-Nadu and Andhra. In the course of correspondence exchanged between the parties.2(h). a painting. Dev Anand.later pulled down and consigned to store room.other modification to be read as ejusdem generis to distortion and mutilation.it .WIPO Performance and Phonogram Treaty. Rajan Mondal.unauthorized recording of live performance Fortune Films v. which is protected by the Copyright Act.only certain modifications suitable to convert novel into film.plaintiff was a cine artiste of a Hindi motion picture entitled "Darling Darling" produced by the first defendants. Kala Vikas Kendra.paternity/attribution right. it would appear that the Copyright Act. it was inter alia provided that in consideration of his services to the producers he would be paid remuneration of Rs.vigyan bhavan.

In t e l l e c t u a l Pr o pe r t y La w I is the ultimate and extreme form of mutilation .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful