Law of Copyright

Law of Copyright
By
Dr.P.R.L.Rajavenkatesan
Assistant Professor(Senior)
School of Law
VIT University
Chennai
Origin and Development of
Copyright
 Guttenberg to Information Age
 Copyright is a kind of intellectual property
right. It is a proprietary right(Bundle of Rights)
of the artist, author or creator and comes into
existence as soon as the work is created.
 Copyright is a right given by the law to the
creator of the literary, dramatic, musical works
etc.,
 It is the right to copy or reproduce the work in
which copyright subsists.
Copyright
 Protecting and rewarding creativity

 Balance should be maintained between the
interest of the creator and of the community.
Copyright
 Invention of Guttenberg’s printing press in
Germany in 1436
 Book sellers and Printers
 The art of printing spread quickly in Europe
 England emerged as a major centre of printing
trade in Europe -1483
 Book sellers and printers were called the
“stationer’s” in England.
Copyright
 In 1557, Queen Mary I, granted the privilege of
regulating the book trade to the Stationer’s
company of London. In 1662, the Licensing Act
was passed in England, which prohibited the
printing of any book which was not licensed and
registered with the Stationers’ Company.
 Statute of Anne,1709-Limited period and Public
domain
 Before enactment-Rights of Authors-21 Years
 After enactment of Statute of Anne-14 Years
Copyright
 Prior to the enactment of the statute, common law
provided that the sole right of printing and
publishing shall continue ad- infinitum(again and
again in the same way).
 Promoting Learning
 Prior to the Statute of Anne, the common law of
England recognised a perpetual right of property in
the author’s “copy” in the manuscript.
 Every man has a natural right of property to the
fruits of his labour’
Case Law
 Millar v. Taylor,
 Stationer as their perpetual protection of
common right was upheld
 Donaldson v. Beckett, 98 Eng Rep 201 (KB
1769).
 Exclusive rights of the author or publisher
Copyright Law in India
 Copyright law happened in 1847 through an
enactment during the East India Company’s
regime.
 Term of copyright was for the lifetime of the
author plus seven years post-mortem
 “highest local court exercising original civil
jurisdiction”-Infringement.
 Under a contract of service copyright in “any
encyclopaedia, review, magazine, periodical
work or work published in a series of books or
parts” shall vest in the “proprietor, projector,
publisher or conductor”.
 The copyright in a work was not automatic
unlike today. Registration of the work with
Home Office was mandatory for the protection
of rights
 The Copyright Act 1911, while repealing earlier
statues on the subject, was also made applicable
to all the British colonies including India. In
1914, the Indian Copyright Act was enacted
which modified some of the provisions of
Copyright Act 1911 and added some new
provisions to it to make it applicable in India.
 It remained applicable in India until it was
replaced by the Copyright Act 1957.
 In India, the Copyright Act, 1957 , the Rules
made there under and the International
Copyright Order, 1999 govern Copyright and
neighbouring rights. This Act has been amended
six times i.e1983,1984,1992,1994,1999 and most
recently in 2012.The Act is divided into 15
chapters with 79 sections.
The Copyright Act,1957
 In harmony with the Berne Convention 1886
and the Universal Copyright Convention 1952.
 Copyright office was established under the
control of a registrar of copyright.
 The registrar had certain powers like
entertaining and disposing of applications for
compulsory licenses and to inquire into
complaints of importation of infringing copies.
 The Act for the first time made a provision for
the setting up of a Copyright Board.
 The exclusive right to communicate works by a
radio diffusion; the cinematograph film was
given a separate copyright; the term of copyright
protection was extended from 23 to 50 years.
 The right to produce a translation of a work
was made coextensive with other rights arising
out of copyright.
 Assignment of ownership and licensing of
copyright including compulsory licensing in
certain circumstances
 Rights of broadcasting organizations
 International copyright, Definition of
infringement of copyright
 Fair Use Provisions
 Civil, Criminal and Administrative remedies
The Copyright Amendments
Act,1983
 Section 32A was introduced for issuing
compulsory licences for reproduction of an
edition of literary, scientific or artistic work,
whether or not the work is Indian, for the
purposes of systematic instructional activities
where copies are not made available in India or
have not been put on sale in India for a period
of six months after the expiration of certain
prescribed periods from the date of the first
publication.
The Copyright Amendment
Act,1983
 Section 32A, Copyright Act 1957. The periods
prescribed are: (a) seven years for work relating
to poetry, fiction, drama, music or art, (b) three
years for work relating to natural science,
physical science, mathematics or technology and
(c) five years for any other work. The authority
for granting the license is the Copyright Board.
Act,1983
 Section 31A was inserted which provided that in case
of unpublished work where the author is dead or
unknown or owner of copyright cannot be traced, any
person wishing to publish material or translation
thereof may advertise his proposal and apply to the
Copyright Board for permission which would grant
such permission and fix an appropriate royalty. The
royalty could be deposited in public account for specific
period so as to enable the owner of copyright or his
heirs, executors or the legal representatives to claim
such royalty at any time.
Act,1984
 There are three types of piracy: piracy of
printed word; of sound recordings; and of
cinema films. The object of pirates in all such
cases is to make money and avoid payment of
legitimate taxes and royalty. In respect of books,
it is estimated that 400-500 titles are pirated
every year in India and on each of the pirated
titles, the loss to the government in the form of
tax evasion.
 Video Films
Act,1984
 The amendment made infringement of
copyright cognizable and a non-bailable offence.
 Video film‘ was added to the definition of
cinematograph film‘ and computer programs‘ to
the definition of literary work‘ and a new
definition of duplicating equipment was also
inserted.
Act,1992
 The term of copyright protection was extended

from 23 to 50 years which was again extended to
60 years in 1992
Act,1994
 After enactment of TRIPS Agreement
 It introduced protection for performers by
giving them a right to reproduce their live
performances by way of sound or video
recordings.
 Assignment of copyright by an author or artist
to protect the interests of both the assignor and
assignee and also for the protection of computer
programs, cinematograph films and sound
recordings.
Act,1994
 Sec.2.(q) "performance", in relation to
performer's right, means any visual or acoustic
presentation made live by one or more
performers;
 Sec.2.(qq) "performer' includes an actor, singer,
musician, dancer, acrobat, juggler, conjurer,
snake charmer, a person delivering a lecture or
any other person who makes a performance;
Act,1994
 Copyright societies seeking to promote
effective administration of rights of the authors,
composers and other creative artists.
 Sec.2. (ffa) of the Copyright Act,1957-
"composer', in relation to a musical work, means
the person who composes the music regardless
of whether he records it in any form of graphical
notation;
The Copyright Amendment Act,1999
 This amendment increased the protection of
performers from 25 to 50 years as required by TRIPS.
Rental right was introduced in case of computer
programs to strengthen the right of reproduction of
authors of computer programs in accordance with
WCT 1996.
 Sec.2. (ffb) of the Copyright Act,1957 "computer"
includes any electronic or similar device having
information processing capabilities;
 Sec.2.(ffc) of the Copyright Act."computer
programme" means a set of instructions expressed in
words, codes, schemes or in any other form, including a
machine readable medium, capable of causing a
computer to perform a particular task or achieve a
Act,1999
 Section 42A was added whereby power was
given to the Central Government to restrict the
rights of foreign broadcasting organization and
performers if it appears to the government that
such a foreign country does not give or has not
undertaken to give adequate protection to the
rights of broadcasting organization or performer
of our country
Subject Matter of Copyright
 Quality and Originality
 Copyright is a right which subsists in a number
of different kinds of works, such as literary,
dramatic, musical or artistic works, sound
recording, and cinematograph films.
 Section 14 of the Copyright Act,1957 defines
‘copyright’ means an exclusive right to do or
authorise the doing of any of the works.
 Literary Work
 Sec.2(o) of the Copyright Act,1957- "literary
work" includes computer programmes, tables
and compilations including data bases.
 Sec.13.Works in which copyright subsists
 Section 16 of the Act, makes it clear that there
cannot be copyright which exist in any work
except as provided by the statute. There is no
common law copyright.
 Sec.22 of the Copyright Act- Life Plus Sixty
Years
 Ideas and opinions are not the subject matter of
copyright, but only the form in which ideas and
opinions are expressed.
 Copyright law is a negative right, which
prevents the copying of physical material
existing in the field of literature and arts. The
exclusive right is a negative right, which is a right
granted to the authors by preventing others not
to copy or reproduce his work without
permission
 Protection of expressions of ideas rather than
the idea themselves
 Must be fixed in any medium
 work must be original
 Copyright is granted to creative expression
 The originality relates to the expression of
thought by an author and the work alleged to be
copy of another should not be copied from
another work
 Gramophone Co. v. Birender Bahadur Pandey,
AIR 1984 SC 667.
 “An artistic, literary or musical work is the
brainchild of the author, the fruit of his labour
and so, considered to be his property. So highly
it is prized by all civilized nations that it is
thought worthy of protection by national laws
and international conventions.
Case Law
 Penguin Books Ltd. Vs Mls India Book
Distributors-AIR 1985 DEL 29(35).
 Justice Rohtagi observed: "Copyright is a
property right, throughout the world retarded as
a form of property worthy of special protection
in ultimate public interest. The law starts from a
premise that protection must be as long as broad
possible and should provide only those
expectations, limitations which are essential in
public interest.'
Periyar Self Respect Propaganga Institution v.
Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam 2009(41) PTC 448
 Whether republication of the works of Periyar
by the respondent will amount to infringement
of copyright works of the plaintiff association?
 In 1925 periyar started a Journal Kudi
Arasu(Peoples Rule)
 Puratchi(Revolution)
 Pagutharivu-(Rationalism)
 Priced Cheap and Printed in inexpensive paper
 Knowledge must be disseminated
 Sec.52(1)(m) Reproduction of in a newspaper
University of London Press v University Tutorial
Press Ltd (1916) 2 Ch. D. 601
 “the work original does not mean that the work must
be the expression of original or inventive thought.
Copyright Acts in all the countries are not concerned
with the origin of idea, but with the expression of
thought and in the case of ‘literary work’ with the
expression of thought in print or writing. The
originality which is required related to the expression of
the thought, but the Act does not require that the
expression must be in an original or novel form, but
that the work must not be copied from another work
that it should originate from the author.”
Macmillan and Co. v K & J. CooperAIR 1924,
P.C.75
 Lord Atkinson observed that, “the labour, skill and
capital of one man must not be appropriated by
another and if he expended sufficiently to impart to the
work some quality or character which the other did not
possess and which differentiates the end result of the
new work. By his skill and labour the author brings in a
work which is though not novel or ingenious, but
claimants original work which originated from him and
not copied. Hence, providing others an opportunity to
produce a work though with the same result and
though they are not the first in the field, the work being
independently made and was original within the Act.”
Macmillan and Co. v K & J.
Cooper AIR 1924, P.C.75
 Neither original thought nor original research is

essential for a literary work to be original.
 Thus, it depends on the skill, labour knowledge
of the author.
 Originality can be claimed in encyclopaedia,
dictionaries, compilations, gazetteers, almanacs,
guide books, maps, etc as they involve skill and
labour in compilation.
Government of West Bengal v
Nitya Gopal Basak 1985 Cr LJ202
 If any person by pain and labour collected and
reduced into the form is sufficient to constitute
an original work, of which the copyright would
be protected.
 Another person might originate another work in
the same general form, provided he did so from
his own resources and made the work he so
originated a work of his own by his own labour
and industry bestowed upon it
 Jagdish Prasad Vs Parmeshwar Prasad, AIR
1966 PAT 33.
 Question papers set for the examination
 Fatesh Singh Mehta Vs Singhal, AIR 1990 RAJ
8(14).
 Research theses and dissertations prepared by
students
 Blackwood Vs Parasuraman AIR 1959 MAD
410
 Madras High Court held that: "translation of
literary work is itself a literary work and is
entitled to copyright protection; reproduction of
publication of translation without consent or
license of the owner of copyright in the original
would amount to infringement.
 White v. Geroch, (1819) 2 B & Aid 298
 Publication- there shall be an 'issue of work',
not only the copies are to be made but the
copies must be issued to the public, more
clearly, issue for the purposes of sale is not
essential, although no doubt, its reproductions
are issued for such a purpose which would
amount to a publication of work.
 Novello Vs Ludlow(1952) 12 CB 177
 There can be no publication of a literary,
dramatic, musical or artistic work, or of record,
if they exist in a single copy thereof. To
constitute publication, not only the copies of the
work or record must be made but they must be
issued to the public for any purposes
whatsoever, whether for sale or for any other
purposes. Communication of the work can take
place when the work is heard, seen or otherwise
enjoyed.
 A.C. Sampath Ayyangar V. Sarvashri Jamshed
G. Kanga & A. Palkhiwala and Messrs N.M.
Tripathi Ltd -C.S. No. 350 of 1951.
 The plaintiff who was the author of the book 'The
Indian Income Tax Act' sued the defendants in the
High Court of Madras for infringement of his
publication by another book entitled 'The Law &
Practice of Income-Tax' of which the defendents no. 1
and 2 were joint authors and the 3rd defendants for
publishing the alleged infringing copies. The defendents
denied any act of piracy and asserted that their book or
compilation was an independent effort. Dismissing the
suit,
A.C. Sampath Ayyangar V. Sarvashri Jamshed G.
Kanga & A. Palkhiwala and Messrs N.M. Tripathi
Ltd
 Panchapakesa Ayyar J., observed : A perusal of

the book (of defendants) has convinced me that
it will sell by its own merit. It was further stated
that though infringement is alleged on the basis
of common headings, common conclusions,
quoting of common extracts, common criticism
of sections, and common mistakes yet that
doesn't make out the case since both the
commentators had gone to the common sources
like the sections of the Act or the Income Tax
E.M. Foster V. A.N. Parasuram
 The respondent published a guide book to the novel "A
Passage to India" by E.M. Foster, which was prescribed
by the University of Madras as a text book for students
taking the B.A. degree. The guide was styled as "E.M.
Foster, A Passage to India, Everyman's Guide". It
contained an introduction which included studies of the
life and works of Foster, Foster as a Novelist, the story
in outline, the plot as analysed by the Respondent's
textual essays skillfully arranged, sketches and character
contrasts. It was held that the guide was an independent
creation and was not a copyright infringement of the
original novel.
Lecture
 Lecture-U.K. Copyright Act 1956, Section 48
(1); Indian Copyright Act 1957, Section 2 (n).
 Copyright, however, can only subsist in lecture
if it is a literary work, i.e. a work expressed in
print or writing", and it would appear, therefore,
that there is still no copyright in a mere
extempore speech. It i s submitted, however,
that where a speech is made from notes, it might
be held that anyone copying the speech was
infringing the copyright in the notes.
 It is the creation of their mind, it is called the
intellectual property. Every intellectual property,
which adds to the cultural, social, scientific and
economic development of the society, must be
protected and encouraged.
 Sec.2. (h) of the Copyright Act,1957- "dramatic
work" includes any piece for recitation,
choreographic work or entertainment in dumb
show, the scenic arrangement or acting form of
which is fixed in writing or otherwise but does
not include a cinematograph film;
 In the English Copyright Act of 1956, dramatic
work is defined to include “a choreographic
work or entertainment in dumb show if reduced
to writing in the form in which the work or
entertainment is to be presented but does not
include a cinematograph film as distinct from a
scenario or script for a cinematographic film
Frankel v. Irwin 34 F (2d) 142.
 It was observed that piracy may also consist in
appropriating the action of a play without any of
the words. In order to constitute infringement,
the production on the stage must tell the
same story as the copyrighted drama. If
the production tells a different story, or enacts
another and different sequences or events. If a
substantial number of incidents, scenes and
episodes, in an alleged infringing play are so
nearly identical, in detail
 Sec.2(p) of the Copyright Act,1957- musical
work" means a work consisting of music and
includes any graphical notation of such work but
does not include any words or any action
intended to be sung, spoken or performed with
the music.
 For a new song or other work, copyright begins
at the moment of fixation — when the music
and lyrics have been set down on paper,
recorded, or stored on a computer. Copyright
protects the musician even if the song is never
registered with the Copyright Office.
 Sec.2 (ffa) of Copyright Act. "composer', in
relation to a musical work, means the person
who composes the music regardless of whether
he records it in any form of graphical notation;
I.P.R. Society v. E.I.M.P Association, A.I.R. 1977
S.C.1443
 The Indian Performing Rights Society announced a
tariff of fees , charges and royalties for public
performance of composers of musical works and others
on 29 September , 1969. The litigation arose between
IPRS and the Exhibitors Association of India before
the Copyright Board.
 SC held that Under proviso to Section 17(b) , the
owner at whose instance the film is made become the
first owner of the copyright.
 The lyricist or composer cannot interfere with the
exclusive rights of the producer of the sound recording,
which includes the right to communicate the sound
recording to the public by way of radio transmission.
 Artistic Work-
 Sec.2(c) "artistic work" means- (i) a painting, a
sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map,
chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph,
whether or not any such work possesses artistic
quality; (ii) work of architecture;7 and (iii) any
other work of artistic craftsmanship.
 Sec.2.(f) "cinematograph film" means any work
of visual recording on any medium produced
through a process from which a moving image
may be produced by any means and includes a
sound recording accompanying such visual
recording and "cinematograph" shall be
construed as including any work produced by
any process analogous to cinematography
including video films;
Producer
 Sec. 2. (uu) of Copyright Act.“Producer', in
relation to a cinematograph film or sound
recording, means a person who takes the
initiative and responsibility for making the work;
 Ultimate authority to decide all works
 Fortune Films Ltd v. Dev Anand A.I.R. 1979
Bom 17.
 The copyright was denied to actor acting in a
film.
Sound Recording
 Sec.2(xx) of the Copyright Act,1957. "sound
recording" means a recording of sounds from
which such sounds may be produced regardless
of the medium on which such recording is made
or the method by which the sounds are
produced.
Music Broadcast Private Limited v. Indian
Performing Right Society- Bombay High Court, on
25th July 2011
 The Court upheld the rights of the music
companies over sound recordings, to the
exclusion of the lyricists and composers whose
works were the underlying materials for the
sound recording.
 while the lyricist and composer are entitled to
copyright in respect of their work (literary and
musical), the producer of the sound recording is
entitled to copyright in respect of the sound
recording.
Legal Issues
 The Singer and Music composer have together
produced generation spanning hits including
Keladi Kanmani,Illaya Nilla, Nalam Vaazha
Ennalum,Pothivacha Malligai Mottu,Kadhalin
Deepam Ondru, and Enna Satham Intha
Neram.
 The Madras High Court had in 2015,given an
injunction against four music labels from
monetising Illayaraaja’s musical works. The
composer had said that he held the exclusive
right to all his songs.
Sound Recording
 Under Section 17 (b), if the cinematograph film
producer commissions a composer of music or a
lyricist for reward or valuable consideration to
composing music or lyric for the purpose of
making his cinematograph film, the producer of
the film or sound recording, becomes the first
owner of the copyright therein and no copyright
subsists in the composer of the lyric or music,
unless there is a contract to the contrary.
Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd v Indian Performing
Rights Society (2007 (34) PTC 174 (Cal))
 The Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court, in the course of

disposing an interim application, was seized with the
question of whether “Radio Today” would be obliged
to pay royalty or licence fee to Indian Performing
Rights Society (a society of lyricists and composers), if
songs, whose lyrics were penned and music composed
by the members of the society, are broadcast through
the radio station, in addition to the licence fees paid to
the producers (Phonographic Performance Limited, a
society of producers).
Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd v Indian Performing
Rights Society (2007 (34) PTC 174 (Cal))
 The Court ruled against “Radio Today” and held

that unless it can be shown that the members of
Indian Performing Rights Society had assigned
their exclusive rights to the producers by way of
an agreement, Indian Performing Rights Society
is entitled to claim royalties from “Radio
Today”. Section 14(e)(iii), grants the producers
of sound recordings, the exclusive right to
communicate the sound recording to public or
authorize any other person to do so
Authorship and Ownership of

Copyright
Authorship of any work confers the author the
primary ownership of the copyright over his work.
 The ownership of the copyright does not always
signify that the owner is the author of the work.
 Author enjoys moral rights on his creation and
owner of the copyright owns the economic rights
for exploiting the copyright.
 Sec.17 of the Copyright Act. The author of a work
is the first owner of the copyright existing in the
work.
Copyright
 Sec.2(z) of the Copyright Act,1957-Joint
Authorship. In the work of joint authorship, the
contribution of each author associated in
creating the work is not separately identifiable
from others.
 In collective work the respective contributions
are distinguishable making each a separate
independent work.
Copyright
 Work Produced in course of employment
 In a suit of infringement of copyright particularly if the
employer claims the first ownership of the work done
by his employee, the proof of employment assume
importance.
 Ram Singh & Others v. UT Chandigarh & Othrs 2004
(1) SCC 126
 Control is one of the most important test
 Power to select and dismiss to pay remuneration,
deduct insurance contribution, organise the work,
supply tools and materials.
Copyright
 Rupendra Kashyam v. J.Wan Publishing
House(P) Ltd.1994 (53)DLT 166.
 In absence of any agreement between the paper
setter and Central Board of Secondary
Education to the effect that the CBSE will be
the first owner of the copyright of the questions
set by the paper-setters, the CBSE cannot claim
first ownership of the copyright over the
questions.
Copyright
 Public Lecture
 Stevenson Jordan v. Macdonald & Evans(1952)
69 RPC 10
 Public lecture given by the accountant-employee taking
the help of libraries and secretarial assistance of the
secretaries of the company, the lectures were
considered ,neither prepared nor delivered under the
order of the company. The copyright over the lectures
therefore owned by the employee-accountant not the
company.
Copyright
 Byrne v. Statist Co(1914) 1 K.B. 622.
 When an employee creates an work in his own
time and not in the course of employment, the
employee concerned is the first owner of the
copyright on the work.

Copyright
Computer Program or Software
 Computer program comes under the literary
works and therefore the authorship of the
software program will remain with the person
who created the software unless the program is
created by him not in the course of employment
under another person.
 Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 2006(33) PTC 652 (SC)
 Originator of the software holds the
incorporeal rights to it.
Moral Rights
 Sec.57 of the Copyright Act,1957.The author of
a work has the right to claim authorship of the
work and to restrain or claim damages in respect
of any distortion, mutilation, modification or
other act in relation to the work, if such
distortion, mutilation, modification or other act
is prejudicial to his honour or reputation. Moral
rights are available to the authors even after the
economic rights are assigned.
KPM Sundaram v/s M/s Rattan Prakashan Mandir,
AIR 1983 Del. 461 (468, 469)
 The plaintiff, an author of certain books

instituted the suit against the defendants for
injunction, restraining them from printing,
publishing and selling the specified books,
rendition of accounts for the illegal gains made
by the defendants for all unauthorized
publications, and, for damages under the
provisions of sections 55 and 57 of the Act.
KPM Sundaram v/s M/s Rattan Prakashan Mandir,
AIR 1983 Del. 461 (468, 469)
 The plaintiff claimed that the defendants mutilated and

distorted the original works of the plaintiff by
publishing various books in modified form in gross
violation of the plaintiff’s copyright. The plaintiff
alleged that the defendants had changed the original
works’ title and made a distortion and mutilation of the
plaintiff’s work prejudicial to the plaintiff’s reputation.
The plaintiff claimed that he never gave any authority
to the defendants to print and publish the books in that
manner. The court granted injunction restraining the
defendants from printing, publishing and selling the
goods written by the plaintiff .
Smt. Mannu Bhandari, Appellant v. Kala Vikas
Pictures Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1987 Delhi 13
 The court observed that “section 57 lifts the
author’s status beyond the material gains of
copyright and gives it a special status. An
author’s right to restrain distortion etc. of his
work is not limited to a case of literary
reproduction of his work. The restraint order in
the nature of injunction under section 57 can be
passed even in cases where a film is produced
based on the author’s novel. The language of
section 57 is of the widest amplitude and cannot
be restricted to ‘literary’ expression only.
Smt. Mannu Bhandari, Appellant v. Kala Vikas
Pictures Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1987 Delhi 13
 Visual and audio manifestations are directly covered.

The court observed that by reading the contract with
section 57, it is obvious that modifications, which are
permissible, are such modifications, which do not
convert the film into an entirely new version from the
original novel. The modifications should also not
distort or mutilate the original novel. The fact that
Mannu Bhandari is the author of the story will be
published in all the credits. This is for giving due
recognition to the author’s reputation.” The court
therefore, directed certain modifications and deletions
to the film before screening it.
Amar Nath Sehgal V. Union of India &
Anr 2005 (30) PTC 253
 Mr. Amar Nath Sehgal is the world-renowned
sculpturist and has been conferred with several awards
for his beautiful creations and contribution to the
Indian heritage. In the year 1957, the Government of
India commissioned Mr. Sehgal for the creating bronze
mural for the most prominent International
Convention Hall in the Capital of the Country. The
Bronze sculpture of about 140ft. span and 40ft. sweep
took five years to complete and was placed on the wall
of the Lobby in the Convention hall. This
embellishment on a national architecture became a part
of the Indian art heritage.
Amar Nath Sehgal V. Union of
India & Anr 2005 (30) PTC 253
 The background of the present dispute was set in the
year 1979 when government pulled down the sculpture
from the walls of ‘Vigyan Bhawan’ and dumped it in
the storeroom. When Mr. Sehgal came to know of this
ill treatment, he made representations to the
government authorities for restoration of the mural.
Unfortunately, all his pleas fell on deaf ears. Aggrieved
by the apathy of the government officials, Mr. Seghal
filed a petition in the Delhi High Court for recognition
and enforcement of his rights on the mural.
India & Anr 2005 (30) PTC 253
 Mr. Seghal contended that the mural created by
him was a part of the national heritage and
hence was valuable not only for him but for the
entire country. The mutilation of the work was
prejudicial to his reputation as it reduced the
volume of the corpus of his work. He further
argued that where the right to integrity is
violated, the remedy is not limited to injunction
or damages. The author has the right to preserve
the mutilated work as well.
India & Anr 2005 (30) PTC 253
 "The Court passed mandatory injunction against
the UOI directing it to return the mural to Mr.
Sehgal within two weeks from the date of
judgment. Court passed a declaration
transferring all the rights over the mural from
UOI to Mr. Sehgal and an absolute right to
recreate the mural and sell the same. The Court
also granted damages to the tune of Rs.5 lacs
and cost of suit to Mr. Sehgal against UOI.
Neha Bhasin vs Anand Raj Anand And Anr. on 20 April, 2006
 The plaintiff (Neha Bhasin), a singer, claims that her

voice has been used by the defendants for the three
versions1 of the song "ek look ek look" in the hindi
feature film "Aryan " unbreakable" produced by the
defendant No. 2 (Poonam Khubani). What is more, the
plaintiff alleges, the defendant No. 2, in connivance
with the music director (defendant No. 1-Anand Raaj
Anand), has shown herself to be the singer Along with
the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff has been shown as a
backup vocalist in all the three versions of "ek look ek
look". The credits for the three versions are apparent
from the jacket/inlay card of the audio compact disc of
"Aryan unbreakable"
Neha Bhasin vs Anand Raj
Anand And Anr. on 20 April, 2006
 The plaintiff is entitled to an interim order
restraining the defendants, their dealers,
distributors, stockists and all other persons
acting on their behalf from in any manner using,
selling, distributing, exhibiting, advertising the
motion picture as well as cassettes, CDs, promos
Page 1756 of the film "Aryan - Unbreakable"
containing the song "Ek Look Ek Look" in any
of the three versions as contained in the Original
CD without displaying the name of the plaintiff
Assignment and Licences
 The Copyright confers a bundle of exclusive
rights to its owner of copyright and he enjoys
unrestricted authority to deal each right under
the copyright individually or wholly.
 Sec.2. (d) "author' means,- (i) in relation to a literary or
dramatic work, the author of the work; (ii) in relation to
a musical work, the composer; (iii) in relation to an
artistic work other than a photograph, the artist; (iv) in
relation to a photograph, the person taking the
photograph; (v) in relation to a cinematograph or sound
recording the producer
 Sec.2. (j) of the Copyright Act,1957-"exclusive
licence" means a licence which confers on the
licensee or on the licensee and persons
authorised by him, to the exclusion of all other
persons (including the owner of the copyright),
any right comprised in the copyright in a work,
and "exclusive licensee" shall be construed
accordingly.
 Sec. 18 of the Copyright Act,1957. Assignment
of copyright. -(1) The owner of the copyright in
an existing work or the prospective owner of the
copyright in a future work may assign to any
person the copyright either wholly or partially
and either generally or subject to limitations and
either for the whole term of the copyright or any
part thereof: Provided that in the case of the
assignment of copyright in any future work, the
assignment shall take effect only when the work
 Sec.19.Mode of assignment.- (1) No assignment of the
copyright in any work shall be valid unless it is in
writing signed by the assignor or by his duly authorised
agent. (2) The assignment of copyright in any work
shall identify such work, and shall specify the rights
assigned and the duration and territorial extent of such
assignment. (3) The assignment of copyright in any
work shall also specify the amount of royalty payable, if
any, to the author or his legal heirs during the currency
of the assignment and the assignment shall be subject
to revision, extension or termination on terms mutually
agreed upon by the parties.
 If the period of assignment is not stated, it shall be
deemed to be five years from the date of assignment.
 Sec.19.A.Disputes with respect to assignment of
copyright
 (1) If an assignee fails to make sufficient
exercise of the rights assigned to him, and such
failure is not attributable to any act or omission
of the assignor, then, the Copyright Board
may, on receipt of a complaint from the
assignor and after holding such inquiry as it
may deem necessary, revoke such assignment.
 Sec.21. Right of author to relinquish copyright.-
(1) The author of a work may relinquish all or
any of the rights comprised in the copyright in
the work by giving notice in the prescribed form
to the Registrar of Copyrights
 Sec.30.Licences by owners of copyright.- The
owner of the copyright in any existing work or
the prospective owner of the copyright in any
future work may grant any interest in the right
by licence in writing signed by him or by his
duly authorised agent:
 Sec.31. Compulsory licence in works withheld from
public.-(1) If at any time during the term of copyright in
any Indian work which has been published or
performed in public, a complaint is made to the
Copyright Board that the owner of copyright in the
work- (a) has refused to republish or allow the
republication of the work or has refused to allow the
performance in public of the work, and by reason of
such refusal the work is withheld from the public.
 (2) Where two or more persons have made a complaint
under sub-section (1), the licence shall be granted to the
complainant who in the opinion of the Copyright
Board would best serve the interests of the general
public.
 Sec.31A.Compulsory licence in unpublished
Indian works.-(1) Where, in the case of an
Indian work referred to in sub-clause (iii) of
clause (a) of section 2, the author is dead or
unknown or cannot be traced, or the owner of
the copyright in such work cannot be found, any
person may apply to the Copyright Board for a
licence to publish such work or a translation
thereof in any language.
 Sec.32.Licence to produce and publish
translations
 Any person may apply to the Copyright Board
for license to produce and publish a translation
of literary of dramatic work in any language after
the period of sevan years from the first
publication of the work.
Registration of Copyright
 Sections 44 to 50 of the Copyright Act,1957
 No compulsory registration-It is not mandatory.
 Mishra Bandhu Karyalaya Case AIR 1970 MP
261
 The High Court held that under sections 13 and
45, the registration of book with the Registrar of
Copyrights is condition precedent for acquiring
copyright in regard to the work.
 M/S Manoj Cini Production v. A.Sundersan
AIR 1976 Mad 22.
 The Court held that registration is not
condition precedent for copyright or acquisition
of ownership thereof. The settled legal position
is that copyright exists independent of the fact
that whether it is registered or not under the
Act.
 Sec. 48. Register of Copyrights to be prima facie
evidence of particulars entered therein. -The
Register of Copyrights shall be prima facie
evidence of the particulars entered therein and
documents purporting to be copies of any
entries therein, or extracts therefrom certified by
the Registrar of Copyrights and sealed with the
seal of the Copyright Office shall be admissible
in evidence in all courts without further proof or
production of the original.
Infringement of Copyright
 Unauthorized Use of the copyright right of the
author/owners
 Sec. (m) "infringing copy" means,- (i) in relation
to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a
reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form
of a cinematographic film; (ii) in relation to a
cinematographic film, a copy of the film made
on any medium by any means; (iii) in relation to
a sound recording, any other recording
embodying the same sound recording, made by
any means;
 Sec.51. When copyright infringed. -Copyright in
a work shall be deemed to be infringed- (a)
when any person, without a licence granted by
the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of
Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of
the conditions of a licence so granted or of any
condition imposed by a competent authority
under this Act-
Forms of Infringement
 (1) Primary Infringement
 When copyright is infringed directly, the
persons involved in such acts will be guilty of
primary infringement.
 Rough practical Test- “What is worth copying is
prima facie worth protecting”.
 The University of London case emphasized
copy of any part of the work in which copyright
exists will amount to an act of infringement.
 Lay observers Test or Lay Recognition Test
 It determines the infringement of drawing,
design or artistic work emphasize whether to the
persons who are not experts in relation to
objects of that description , the object appears
to be reproduction.
 Artistic Work-Visual appearance or Look-like
factor
 Casual Connection Test
 The casual connection test demands that the plaintiff
alleging infringement must establish that the work of
the infringer was derived from the work of the
claimant, which may not be directly copied from the
original work of claimant.
 If the infringing work contains same mistakes
or omissions of the original work, it would be
presumed to be copy of original work.
 Burden of proof lies upon the defendant to
establish that his work does not infringe the
original copyright work.
Infringement
 Subconscious Copying
 The copying could occur subconsciously where
a person reads, sees or hears a work, forgets
about it but then reproduces it, genuinely
believing it to be his own." In such a case, proof
of copying is said to depend on "a number of
composite elements.
Infringement
 Substantial Copying
 Copying of substantial part or small part of
original work may amount to infringement but
no precise definition could be given as to what
amounts to copying of the substantial part.
 It has to be determined on the basis of fact of
each case and degree of copying.
Infringement
 Indirect Copying
 Work may be copied by imitating a copy of it.
 If a novel is turned into a play, which is in turn
converted into a ballet, the same will apply.
 Substantial part of it copied
 R.G.Anand v M/S Delux Films Ltd. AIR 1978
SC 1613
Infringement of copyright in a
film
 Sec.51 of the Copyright Act,1957
 Without permission(licence) using the copyrighted works of
others
 R.G.Anand v. Delux Films Ltd AIR 1978 SC 1614
 Hum Hindustani, New Delhi
 There can be no copyright in idea
 Where the same idea is being deployed in
 A Play is a dramatic work under Section 2(h) of the Copyright
Act, 1957. The movie will be an ‘adaptation’ as per Section
2(a)(i). For a dramatic work, making an adaptation is a
statutory right provided under Section 14 (a)(vi) of the
Copyright Act, 1957. A movie which copies a play will be an
 Sec.63. Offence of infringement of copyright or other
rights conferred by this Act. Any person who
knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of- (a)
the copyright in a work, or (b) any other right conferred
by this Act, [except the right conferred by section 53A]
[shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to three years and with fine which shall not be
less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to
two lakh rupees :
Remedies
 Civil Remedies
 Criminal Remedies
 Administrative Remedies
 Sec.63B. Knowing use of infringing copy of computer
programme to be an offence.
 Any person who knowingly makes use on a computer
of an infringing copy of a computer programme shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than seven days but which may extend
to three years and with fine which shall not be less than
fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh
rupees: Provided that where the computer programme
has not been used for gain or in the course of trade or
business, the court may, for adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, not impose
any sentence of imprisonment and may impose a fine
which may extend to fifty thousand rupees."
 Sec.64. Power of police to seize infringing copies . -(1)Any
police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, if
he is satisfied that an offence under section 63 in respect of
the infringement of copyright in any work has been, is being,
or is likely to be, committed, seize without warrant, all copies
of the work, and all plates used for the purpose of making
infringing copies of the work, wherever found, and all copies
and plates so seized shall, as soon as practicable, be produced
before a Magistrate.
Taking Cognizance
 Sec. 70. Cognizance of offences. - No court
inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or
a Judicial Magistrate of the first class] shall try
any offence under this Act.

Civil Remedies
 Sec. 55. Civil remedies for infringement of
copyright. - (1) Where copyright in any work has
been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall,
except as otherwise provided by this Act, be
entitled to all such remedies by way of
injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise as
are or may be conferred by law for the
infringement of a right :
Civil Remedies
 If the defendant proves that at the date of the
infringement he was not aware and had no
reasonable ground for believing that copyright
subsisted in the work, the plaintiff shall not be
entitled to any remedy other than an injunction
in respect of the infringement and a decree for
the whole or part of the profits made by the
defendant by the sale of the infringing copies as
the court may in the circumstances deem
reasonable.
Civil Remedies
 The costs of all parties in any proceedings in
respect of the infringement of copyright shall be
in the discretion of the court.
 Sec.62. Jurisdiction of court over matters arising
under this Chapter. - (1) Every suit or other civil
proceeding arising under this Chapter in respect
of the infringement of copyright in any work or
the infringement of any other right conferred by
this Act shall be instituted in the district court
having jurisdiction.
Civil Remedies
 Sec. 61. Owners of copyright to be party to the
proceeding. - (1) In every civil suit or other
proceeding regarding infringement of copyright
instituted by an exclusive licensee, the owner of
the copyright shall, unless the court otherwise
directs, be made a defendant and where such
owner is made a defendant, he shall have the
right to dispute the claim of the exclusive
licensee.
Civil Remedies
 Srimagal and Co v. Books (India) Pvt.Ltd.AIR
1973 Mad 49.
 The damages is the second form of civil remedy
against infringement.
 But the loss cannot be assessed on the basis of
both , the claimant has an option to claim either
damages or profits he cannot have both.
Anton Piller Order
 Anton Piller order was originated from the
decision in Anton Piller K.G. V. Manufacturing
Process Limited (1976) 1 Ch.55.
 The order enables the owner of the copyright to
enter into premises where the offending
materials are kept and remove them for the
production at the time of trial.
 To obtain the order the plaintiff is to establish
prima facie case.
Groundless Threat of Legal
Proceedings
 The groundless threat of instituting legal
proceeding to any person with any alleged
infringement of copyright, constitute the ground
on which the person aggrieved by such threat is
entitled to seek legal remedy in the form of
obtaining injunction against the continuance of
the legal threat and recover damages from the
person threating in case he suffers any loss.
Administrative Remedies
 Administrative remedies consist of moving the
Registrar of copyrights to ban the import of
infringing copies into India when the
infringement is by way of such importation and
the delivery of the confiscated infringing copies
to the owner of the copyright and seeking the
delivery.
 Sec.53.Importation of infringing copies.
 The Customs Act,1962

Law of Copyright - Winter Semester.2018-19

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law of Copyright - Winter Semester.2018-19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

 Protecting and rewarding creativity

 The term of copyright protection was extended

 Neither original thought nor original research is

 Panchapakesa Ayyar J., observed : A perusal of

 The Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court, in the course of

 The Court ruled against “Radio Today” and held

 The plaintiff, an author of certain books

 The plaintiff claimed that the defendants mutilated and

 Visual and audio manifestations are directly covered.

 The plaintiff (Neha Bhasin), a singer, claims that her

You might also like