MEANING: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Infringement is derived from the word Infringe which means break a law
or an agreement.
It leads to economic loss to the owners of copyright. Besides economic
loss, it also adversely affects creativity.
Section 51 of Copyright Act,1957.
DEFINITION OF INFRINGEMENT
NOTE
ILLUSTRATIONS
ILLUSTRATIONS
 PRINCIPLESOFDETERMININGINFRINGEMENT

Direct Copying
IndirectCopying
Substantialcopying
Substantial copying means copying major part of the author. Even if a part
copied it would lead to substantial copying if it is a very important part of the
author’s work.
Case: D Narayan Rao V. Prasad
Facts: Defendant had borrowed a part of the speech which was only two and
half minute duration in a three hour film.
Held: Court held that substantial part of the speech had been copied.
PRINCIPLESOFDETERMINING INFRINGEMENT
(CONTD..)

Conscious, unconscious and subconsciouscopying.

Conscious: has self knowledge.
Unconscious: No self knowledge.
Subconscious: Familiar with the work. Subconscious copying is
sufficient to constituteinfringement.
 WADIA MOVIE TONE PVT LTDV.VISHAL
BHARADWAJ(2017 CASE)

Facts: The movie ‘Hunterwali’ released in the year 1930s had copyright in a unique
character ‘Fearless Nadia’ a stuntwoman. The defendant produced another movie
‘Rangoon’ in the year 2016 starring Kangana Ranuat in the leading role with the character’s
name ‘Janbaaz Julie’ but they landed into a legal battle with the Wadias when they accused
of copyrighting the character ‘Janbaaz Julie’ from ‘Fearless Nadia’. The costume, the
character sketch, the style of walking, wearing a mask, a whip, being a stunt woman and
using the phrase ‘Bloody Hell’. Everything was copied from ‘Fearless Nadia’ character.`
Issue: Whether infringement of the character ‘Fearless Nadia’ took place???
Held: Court held that as there were substantial copying of the character, Rangoon of Vishal
Bharadwaj was accused of infringement was asked to pay bank Guarantee of two crores etc.
 GHAJINI V. FUDGINI (2005 case)

Facts: The movie ‘Ghajini: Tamil’ released in the year 2005 where the main charactersuffered
from temporary memory loss and was out to get revenge for his wife’s murder. In the year
2008, a Hindi version of Ghajini was released where the character also suffered from short
term memory loss and was out for vengeance for his girlfriend’s murder. The onlydifference
was in latter movie, the girl was hisgirlfriend,
Issue: Whether the copyright of Ghajini: Tamil movie was infringed by the Hindi Version of the
movie?
Held: Court held thatthere were infringement and Interim injunction was ordered.
 MILAN LUTHRIA V. GULSHANRAI(2017)

Facts: The movie ‘Baadshaho’ released in the year 2017 and released a song called “Socha
Hai”. Before this movie, Deewar released the song ‘Keh doon tumhe’. The producers of
Baadshaho had remixed the song ‘Keh Doon Tumhe’ and made a new on one ‘Socha hai’.
The defendant claimed that they had remixed the song without their permission and it
was infringement of the song.
Issue: Whether the song ‘Socha hai’ lead to infringement of the original song ‘Keh Doon
Tumhe.’
Held: Court held that as there were infringement and injunction was ordered. Thesong
was removed from the movie.
 PHONE BOOTH V. KNOCKOUT

Facts: In Phone Booth, a movie by Twentieth Century Fox, there was hostage in the
phone booth having major conversation with the sniper and the story also revolves
around extra marital affair. In Sohail Maklai’ Entertainment’s movie Knockoutas well,
the story revolved around a hostage and the issue revolved around the issue ofblack
money with the zest ofextra marital affair. Twentieth Century Fox filed a case against
Sohail Miklai for unlawful remake of the movie Phone Booth.
Issue: Whether the copyright of Phone Booth wasinfringed.
Held: In this case, the court held that it was copyright infringement and awarded
damages to Twentieth Century Fox.
 ORIENT LONGMAN V. INDEREETANANT2005

Facts: The defendant reproduced the loose sheets of the

author’s work. The defendant contended that it was
reproduction of loose sheets and would not lead to
infringement. The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant
for infringement.
Issue: Whether the reproduction of the loose sheets
constitute to be an infringement.
Held: The court held that it would lead to infringement as it
was the work of author’s irrespective of it being loose sheets.
 PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETYVSHAWTHRONS

Facts: The performance was open to any member of the public who
was prepared to be the guest of the hotel by either staying there or
dinning there.
Held: Infringement was established, as they tried earning profits by
inviting people for stay and dinner through a performance. Profits
was earned by defendants. The defendants infringes the copyright
when the public performance is made onpayment.
 MACMILLAN & CO. VSK.J COOPER

Facts: Plaintiff’s book consisted of selected passages by Plutarch’s life of Alexander

the great, joined together by few words to give a different appearance. The book
also contained introduction and notes useful for education. A similar book was
published by defendants with notes. The original work contained 40,000 words
while the defendants had copied 20,000 words and 7000 words in notes.
Issue: Whether the defendants work infringed the copyright in the plaintiff’s works?
Held: Defendants work infringed the copyright.
 T-SERIESVSGURUJI.COM

T-SERIESVSGURUJI.COM
Facts: T- series is a top music label company and Guruji.com is an indigenously made
music search engine founded by two IIT graduates in 2006
•Guruji.com slowly gained popularity as pirated music search engine, it didn’t hold
any pirated music but it promoted pirated music through its homepage search
results. It was sharing mega data instead of onlylinks.
They also displayed ads like Songs.pk
• 2008 T-series issued notice to Guruji.com
 CONTD…

Where did the defendant go wrong? They didn’t maintain anonymity, other music
piracy websites have servers outside India/ outside Indian’s court purview
THEJUDGEMENT
•Defendant removed search links for music from its site
• Shut down music search site in 2011
• Arrest of Anurag Dod, CEOof Guruji.com
•Seizure of servers, storage media and other equipment • Arrest of employees of
Guruji.com
 EXCEPTIONSTOINFRINGEMENT

private use, including research; criticism or review ,

reporting current events in any print media or
by broadcast or in a cinematographic film or by means of photographs,
reproduction for the purpose of a judicial proceeding or
of a report of a judicialproceeding;
the reading or recitation inpublic,
the publication in acollection,
the making of sound with owner’sconsent,
reproduction or publication of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work
 THEDOCTRINE OFFAIRDEALING

The term “fair dealing” has not been defined in the Act. It is a legal doctrine, which allows a
person to make limited use of copyrighted work without the permission of the owner.
The fair nature of the dealing depends on the following four factors:
 1. the purpose of use
 2.the nature of the work
 3.the amount of the work used,and
 4.the effect of use of the work on the original.
Certain changes were incorporated by way of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.The
existing clause (1)(a) has been amended to provide fair dealing with any work for the
purposes of private and personal use with an exception that of a computerprogramme
 REMEDIESAVAILABLEFORINFRINGEMENT

Administrative : include detention of the infringing goods by the

customs authorities.
Civil:
• Injunction
• Pecuniary Remedies
• Anton Pillar Orders
• Mareva Injunction
• Norwich Pharmacal Order
 REMEDIESAVAILABLEFORINFRINGEMENT

Criminal :Imprisonment up to 3 years but, not less than 6

months
 Fine which may not be less than 50,000 but, mayextend
up to 2,00,000,
 Search and seizure of infringing goods ,
 Delivery of infringing goods to the copyright owner
THANKYOU