Case-Summary-: Dr.P. Sree Sudha Associate Professor Dsnlu

CASE-SUMMARY-
COPYRIGHT LAW
DR.P. SREE SUDHA
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
DSNLU
On completion of this unit students should be able
to:
Acquaint with the concept of Copyright

and infringement of copy right.
Understand the copyright works come
under the copyright law.
Interpret the rights of authors, Fair use
Provisions and Remedies.
Prescribed Case Law
1. Folsom v. Marsh - , 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841)
2. Blackwood v. Parasuraman - AIR 1959 Mad 410
3. R. G. Anand vs. Delux Films Ltd - AIR 1978 SC 1613
4. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd - 2 2003 (5)
BomCR 404.
5. Diljeet Titus, Advocate v Mr. Alfred A. Adebare & Ors - 130 (2006)
DLT 330, 2006 (32) PTC 609 Del.
6. Eastern Book Company and Others vs. D.B. Modak - (2008) 1 SCC
1 at p. 131
7. John Wiley and Sons Inc. and Ors. vs. Prabhat Chander Kumar
Jain - 2010 (44) PTC 675 (Del)
8. Singham Case - I.A. No. 11242/2011 in CS(OS) No. 1724/2011
9. Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Piyush Agarwal - MIPR 2013 (1) 201; 2013
(54) PTC 222 (Del).
Prescribed Case Law
1. Happy New Year- Red Chilies Entertainments Private Limited vs.
Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd. & Ors - SUIT (L) NO. 993 OF
2014 (Bombay High Court).
2. The Chancellor, Masters & ... vs Rameshwari Photocopy Services
& ... on 16 September, 2016 - CS(OS) 2439/2012
3. International News Service v. Associated Press 248 U.S. 215: 39
S.Ct. 68 (1918)
4. NBA vs. Motorola -105 F.3d 841, 843 (2d Cir. 1997)
5. Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v Rajnish Chibber & Anr.
1995 PTC (15) 278
6. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books - 575 F. Supp. 2d
513
7. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd vs. Super Cassette Industries
Ltd & Ors. - AIR 2004 Delhi 326, 112 (2004) DLT 549
Folsom v. Marsh - , 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass.
1841)
-Justice William W. Story
 piracy of the copyright of the writings of Washington
 Jared Sparks was the author of a work entitled, 'The
Writings of George Washington,” being his
correspondence, addresses, messages, and other
papers, official and private, selected and published
from the original manuscripts, with a life of the
author, notes, and illustrations, by Jared Sparks,'
consisting of 12 volumes,
 of all of which the copyright was duly taken out, the
term of which copyright has still more than eight
years to run
Facts
 'The Life of Washington in the Form of an Autobiography, the
narrative being to a great extent conducted by himself, in
extracts and selections from his own writings, with portraits and
other engravings,' consisting of 866 pages, which they still
continue to expose to sale, having had due notice, and well
knowing, that the same is a copy from, and an infringement and
piracy of, the said Life and Writings of George Washington so
published by the plaintiffs.
 That 388 pages of the said piratical book are copied verbatim et
literatim from the said work compiled by the said Sparks,
consisting of matter published originally by the said Sparks,
under his copyright, and which had never before been published
or printed, and which the said Sparks had the exclusive right
and privilege to print, publish, and sell.
The plaintiffs pray that:
 the defendants be decreed to render an account of the copies
of the said piratical work, which they have sold,
 and to pay over the profits thereof to the plaintiffs;
 to surrender and deliver up all the copies on hand,
 and the stereotype plates of the said work, to an officer of the
court,
 to be cancelled and destroyed;
 to pay the plaintiffs their costs, and that they be restrained by
injunction from selling or exposing to sale, or causing to be
exposed to sale or sold, or otherwise of disposing of any
copies of the said piratical work,
 and for such other relief as shall seem meet, or as equity shall
require.
The answer stated as follows:
 That the defendants, not confessing or acknowledging any of the
matters and things alleged in the bill, are informed and believe that
the said complainants are the publishers of the said Life and
Writings of Washington, as alleged by the complainants, and that the
said Sparks is author thereof.
 But that they totally deny that the said Sparks has, or has heretofore
had, any copyright, whereby he is entitled to any exclusive
publication of the said writings, correspondence, addresses,
messages, and other papers.
 That the defendants did, on August the 5th, 1840, publish and sell,
and before and since have, without the allowance and consent of the
plaintiffs, published and sold copies of the said work, in two
volumes, entitled a 'Life of Washington, in the Form of an
Autobiography,' but that the said work is not a copy from, nor a
piracy of the said work, by the said Sparks.
The defendants deny that:
 any part of the said work, published by the defendants, is copied verbatim
et literatim from any portion of the said work by the said Sparks, to
which he has any exclusive right and privilege to print, or publish, or sell.
 But they aver, that they have, in the work published by them, made such
use as they might lawfully do, of the writings, correspondence, messages,
addresses, and other papers, by George Washington, printed in the work
compiled by the said Sparks, and that they have copied many pages of the
said writings, from the original manuscript thereof, and from printed
works, printed and published before the publication of the said work by
the said Sparks, and that they have made such use thereof,
 as they might do in a work entirely distinct from and independent of the
said work by the said Sparks,
 and they allege, that the said work published by them, is entirely a
distinct and independent work from the work by the said Sparks.
the cause was referred to George Hillard, Esq., master in
chancery, to ascertain and report the facts to the court. His
report in substance stated as follows:
 he work, of which the plaintiffs are the proprietors, is
comprised in twelve octavo volumes, varying in
length from five hundred and forty to five hundred
and ninety-two pages, and containing in the whole six
thousand seven hundred and sixty-three pages,
including one hundred and fifty-eight pages of index
in the twelfth volume.
 The first volume consists of an original life of
Washington by Mr. Sparks, one of the plaintiffs, and
the remaining eleven, of the writings and
correspondence of Washington, with editorial notes
and illustrations by Mr. Sparks.
Details of the Report
 The second volume consists of four hundred and twenty-three pages,
including thirty-five pages of glossary and index.
 The whole amount of pages of the two volumes, is, therefore, eight
hundred and sixty-six, including seventy-six pages of glossary and
index.
 I find the whole number of pages in the two volumes of the defendants'
work, which correspond with the passages in the plaintiffs' work, and
are identical with them, to be (discarding fractions) three hundred and
fifty-three.
 Of these pages, three hundred and nineteen have never appeared in
print before the publication of the plaintiffs' work, and I accordingly
report them to have been copied by the defendants from the work of
the plaintiffs.
 The remaining thirty-four pages have appeared before, in various other
publications, with the variations hereinbefore stated.
Details of the Report
 The whole of these three hundred and fifty-three pages, in the two
volumes of the defendants' work, are taken from the last eleven volumes
of the work of the plaintiffs. Of the three hundred and nineteen pages,
above mentioned, which are in the work of the defendants, and which
have not been published in any other work than that of the plaintiffs,
 I report sixty-four pages to be official letters and documents, and two
hundred and fifty-five pages to be private. Of the remaining thirty-four
pages, I report fifteen pages to be private, and nineteen pages to be
official. Under the head of 'official' letters and papers, I class the
following: Letters addressed by Washington, as commander-in-chief, to
the president of congress.
 Official letters to governors of states and speakers of legislative bodies.
Circular letters. General orders.
 Communications (official) addressed as president to his cabinet. Letter
accepting the command of the army, on our expected war with France.
 All others I class as 'private.'
The points made by the defendants were
as follows:
 The papers of George Washington are not subjects of copyright.
 They are manuscripts of a deceased person, not injured by
publication of them.
 They are not literary, and, therefore, are not literary property.
 They are public in their nature, and, therefore, are not private
property.
 They were meant by the author for public use.
 Mr. Sparks is not the owner of these papers, but they belong to
the United States, and may be published by any one.
 An author has a right to quote, select, extract or abridge from
another, in the composition of a work essentially new.
STORY, Circuit Justice.
 A wide interval might, of course, exist between these two

extremes, calling for great caution and involving great
difficulty, where the court is approaching the dividing
middle line which separates the one from the other.
 So, it has been decided that a fair and bonb̂ona fide
abridgment of an original work, is not a piracy of the
copyright of the author.
 See Dodsley v. Kinnersley, 1 Amb. 403; Whittingham v.
Wooler, 2 Swanst. 428, 430, 431, note; Tonson v. Walker, 3
Swanst. 672-679, 681. But, then, what constitutes a fair and
bonb̂ona fide abridgment, in the sense of the law, is one of
the most difficult points, under particular circumstances,
which can well arise for judicial discussion.
Findings of the Court
It is clear, that a mere selection, or different
arrangement of parts of the original work, so as
to bring the work into a smaller compass, will
not be held to be such an abridgment. There
must be real, substantial condensation of the
materials, and intellectual labor and judgment
bestowed thereon; and not merely the facile use
of the scissors; or extracts of the essential parts,
constituting the chief value of the original work.
See Gyles v. Wilcox, 2 Atk. 141.
 The master finds, by his report, that the whole number of pages in
Mr. Upham's work, corresponding and identical with the passages in
Mr. Sparks's work, are three hundred and fifty-three pages out of
eight hundred and sixty-six, a fraction more than one third of the two
volumes of the defendants.
 Of these three hundred and fifty-three pages, the report finds that
three hundred and nineteen pages consist of letters of Washington,
which have been taken from Mr. Sparks's work, and have never been
published before; namely, sixty-four pages are official letters and
documents, and two hundred and fifty-five pages are private letters
of Washington.
 The question, therefore, upon this admitted state of the facts,
resolves itself into the point, whether such a use, in the defendants'
work, of the letters of Washington, constitutes a piracy of the
work of Mr. Sparks.
 Now, in relation to the last objection, it is most manifest,
that President Washington deemed them his own private
property, and bequeathed them to his nephew, the late Mr.
Justice Washington, through whom the late Mr. Chief
Justice Marshall and Mr. Sparks acquired an interest
therein; and,
 as appears from the contract between these gentlemen,
annexed to the report, the publication of these writings was
undertaken by Mr. Sparks, as editor, for their joint benefit;
and the work itself has been accomplished at great expense
and labor,
 and after great intellectual efforts, and very patient and
comprehensive researches, both at home and abroad.
Letters are Literary work?
 Many letters of business also embrace critical remarks and expressions of
opinion on various subjects, moral, religious, political and literary. What
is to be done in such cases?
 Even in compositions confessedly literary, the author may not intend,
nay, often does not intend them for publication; and yet, no one on that
account doubts his right of property therein, as a subject of value to
himself and to his posterity.
 If subsequently published by his representatives, would they not have a
copyright therein? It is highly probable, that neither Lord Chesterfield,
nor Lord Orford, nor the poet Gray, nor Cowper, nor Lady Russell, nor
Lady Montague, ever intended their letters for publication as literary
compositions, although they abound with striking remarks, and elegant
sketches, and sometimes with the most profound, as well as affecting,
exhibitions of close reflection, and various knowledge and experience,
mixed up with matters of business, personal anecdote, and family gossip.
Letters are Literary work?
 whether they are literary compositions, or familiar letters, or
letters of business, possess the sole and exclusive copyright
therein;
 and that no persons, neither those to whom they are
addressed, nor other persons, have any right or authority to
publish the same upon their own account, or for their own
benefit.
 But, consistently with this right, the persons to whom they
are addressed, may have, nay, must, by implication, possess,
the right to publish any letter or letters addressed to them,
upon such occasions, as require, or justify, the publication or
public use of them; but this right is strictly limited to such
occasions. Gee v. Pritchard, 2 Swanst. 415, 419
Cases relied
 Thompson v. Stanhope, Amb. 737, and of Lord Keeper Henley, in the
case of Duke of Queensberry v. Sheffeare, 2 Eden, 329 (cited 4
Burrows, 2329), which Lord Eldon has not scrupled to hold to be
binding authorities upon the point in Gee v. Pritchard, 2 Swanst.
403, 414, 415, 419, 426, 427. But I do not understand that Sir
Thomas Plumer did, in Perceval v. Phipps, deny the right of property
of the writer in his own letters; and so he was understood by Lord
Eldon in Gee v. Pritchard - the copyright act of 1831, c. 16, § 9, [4
Stat. 436], fully recognizes the doctrine for which I contend.
 It gives by implication to the author, or legal proprietor of any
manuscript whatever,
 the sole right to print and publish the same, and expressly authorizes
the courts of equity of the United States to grant injunctions to
restrain the publication thereof, by any person or persons, without
his consent.
Property Rights on Manuscripts
 Congress have, indeed, authorized the purchase of these manuscripts from
the owner and possessor thereof, and paid the liberal price of 25,000 dollars
therefor; and they have thus become national property.
 But it is an entirely inadmissible conclusion that, therefore, every private
person has a right to use them, and publish them.
 It might be contended, with as much force and correctness, that every
private person had an equal right to use any other national property at his
pleasure, such as the arms, the ammunition, the ships, or the custom houses,
belonging to the government. But a reason, which is entirely conclusive
upon this point, is, that the government purchased the manuscripts, subject
to the copyright already acquired by the plaintiffs in the publication thereof.
 The vendor took them subject to that copyright, and could convey no title
which he did not himself possess, or beyond what he possessed.
 Nor is there any pretence to say that he either did convey, or intended to
convey, to the government, the property in these manuscripts, except subject
to the copyright already acquired.
The question, then, is, whether this is a justifiable
use of the original materials
 Lord Cottenham, in the recent cases of Bramwell
v. Halcomb, 3 Mylne & C. 737, 738, and
Saunders v. Smith, Id. 711, 736, 737, adverting to
this point, said: 'When it comes to a question of
quantity, it must be very vague.
 One writer might take all the vital part of
another's book, though it might be but a small
proportion of the book in quantity. It is not only
quantity, but value, that is always looked to. It is
useless to refer to any particular cases, as to
quantity.
Is defendants act is a piracy?
 If a person should, under color of publishing 'Elegant
Extracts' of poetry, include all the best pieces at large of a
favorite poet, whose volume was secured by a copyright, it
would be difficult to say why it was not an invasion of that
right, since it might constitute the entire value of the
volume. The case of Mawman v. Tegg, 2 Russ. 385, is to
this purpose. There was no pretence in that case, that all
the articles of the encyclopedia of the plaintiffs had been
copied into that of the defendants; but large portions of the
materials of the plaintiffs' work had been copied. Lord
Eldon, upon that occasion, held, that there might be a
piracy of part of a work, which would entitle the plaintiffs
to a full remedy and relief in equity.
 InWilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422, 424, he said: 'There is no doubt, that a
man cannot, under the pretence of quotation, publish either the whole or a
part of another's book, though he may use, what in all cases it is difficult
to define, fair quotation.' In Roworth v. Wilkes, 1 Camp. 94,
 Lord Ellenborough said: 'A review will not, in general, serve as a
substitute for the book reviewed; and even there, if so much is extracted,
that it communicates the same knowledge with the original work, it is an
actionable violation of literary property.
 The intention to pirate is not necessary in an action of this sort; it is
enough, that the publication complained of is in substance a copy,
whereby a work vested in another is prejudiced.
 A compilation of this kind (an encyclopedia) may differ from a treatise
published by itself; but there must be certain limits fixed to its transcripts;
it must not be allowed to sweep up all modern works, or an encyclopedia
would be a recipe for completely breaking down literary property.'
 The vice chancellor (Sir L. Shadwell), in Sweet v. Shaw, 1 Jur.
(London) 212 [3 Jur. 217], referring to the remarks of Lord
Ellenborough, cited by counsel, said: 'That does not mean a
substitute for the whole work.
 From what you state, suppose a book to contain one hundred
articles, and ninety-nine were taken, still it would not be a
substitute.' And in this very case he granted an injunction, being
of opinion, that there was p̂rima facie, at law, an invasion of the
plaintiffs' right; not only an injury, but also a damage to the
plaintiffs, in copying from several volumes of Reports,
published by the plaintiffs, although eleven only had been
copied verbatim, but a considerable number of what were called
'abridged cases,' were, in truth, copies of the plaintiffs' volumes,
with little, or trifling, alterations.
 In Lewis v. Fullarton, 2 Jur. (London) 127 [3 Jur. 669], 2
Beav. 6, Lord Langdale, in the case of a topographical
dictionary, held, that largely copying from the work in another
book having a similar object, was a violation of that copyright,
although the same information might have been (but, in fact,
was not) obtained from common sources, open to all persons.
 On that occasion, he said: 'None are entitled to save
themselves trouble and expense, by availing themselves, for
their own profit, of other men's works, still entitled to the
protection of copyright;' and, accordingly, in that case, he
granted an injunction as to the parts pirated, although it was
admitted, on all hands, that there was much which was
original in the new work.’
Judgment
 thepresent case, I have no doubt whatever, that there
is an invasion of the plaintiffs' copyright; I do not say
designedly, or from bad intentions; on the contrary, I
entertain no doubt, that it was deemed a perfectly
lawful and justifiable use of the plaintiffs' work.
 But if the defendants may take three hundred and
nineteen letters, included in the plaintiffs' copyright,
and exclusively belonging to them, there is no reason
why another bookseller may not take other five
hundred letters, and a third, one thousand letters, and
so on, and thereby the plaintiffs' copyright be totally
destroyed.
Judgment
I have come to this conclusion, not without some regret, that it may
interfere, in some measure, with the very meritorious labors of the
defendants, in their great undertaking of a series of works adapted to
school libraries. But a judge is entitled in this case, as in others, only to
know and to act upon his duty.
 I hope, however, that some means may be found, to produce an amicable
settlement of this unhappy controversy. The report of the master must
stand confirmed, and a perpetual injunction be awarded, restraining the
defendants, their agents, servants and salesmen, from farther printing,
publishing, selling, or disposing of any copy or copies of the work
complained of; the 'Life of Washington,' by the Rev. Charles W. Upham,
containing any of the three hundred and nineteen letters of Washington,
stated in the report of the master, and never before published; and that it
be referred to a master, to take an account of the profits made by the
defendants, in the premises; with leave for either party to apply to the
court for farther directions.
Blackwood v. Parasuraman - AIR 1959 Mad 410
 The plaintiffs are Messrs. Macmillan and Co. Ltd. while the defendants
are a firm of publishers carrying on business in Madras under the name
and style of "The Little Flower and Co." Madras.
 The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to the copyright by
assignment in respect of two works (1) The Return of the Native by
Thomas Hardy, and (2) A collection of stories by Rabindranath Tagore
published under the style of "Stories from Tagore".
 The Return of the Native was prescribed by the University of Madras
for the B. A. degree examination 1956, Part I English.
 The defendants published in 1954 in Madras without the consent of the
plaintiffs a "Guide to the Study of Hardy's Return of the Native."
 The other work "Stories from Tagore" published by Messrs. Macmillan
and Co. was prescribed as a text book for the Intermediate
Examination of the University of Madras also of 1956 for Part I
English.
Facts
In regard to this work also the defendants
published a guide in 1954.
The complaint of the plaintiff was that these
two "guides" reproduced substantial parts of
the two original works and that though
called "guide" they were in reality copies of
the original works which competed with
their, sales of these latter and therefore
prejudicially affected the plaintiffs
The defendants raised the following pleas:
1. The plaintiffs based their claim on the Imperial Copy Right Act of 1911. The first
plea raised was (a) that Thomas Hardy's work "Return of the Native" was first
published in the United States of America and was not simultaneously published
in any part of His Majesty's Dominions so as to enable the author to claim
copyright under the said Act;
(b) that the Copyright Act of 1911 being a legislation of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom ceased to be operative in India when India became Independent
in 1947 and a fortiori after the country attained Republican Status in January
1930.
2. They put the plaintiffs to proof that they acquired the right to the copyright which
Thomas Hardy was entitled, assuming that Thomas Hardy had rights under the
Copyright Act of 1911 and that the lights acquired under the said Copyright Act
could be enforced in India after India became a Republic in January 1950.
3. They denied infringement by stating that their guide did not contain the
reproduction of any substantial part of Hardy's novel.
4. They also pleaded that in any event, their guide was "a fair dealing" protected by
proviso (i) to Section 2(1) of the Copyright Act of 1911.
4. In regard to "Stories from Tagore" the pleas of the
defendants were :
(a) that the plaintiffs' right based on the Copyright Act, 1911, being
inconsistent with the Republican status of India ceased to be operative
after 26-1-1950;
(b) that the Stories from Tagore included in the plaintiffs' volume were
first written and published in Bengali by Rabindranath Tagore and that
they were not translated into English and those translations published
within ten years as required by Section 4 of the Indian Copyright Act,
1914 The defendants, therefore, urged that there was no copyright in
the said translations according to the provisions of Section 4 of the
Indian Copyright Act, III of 1914;
(c) the other defences on the merits, namely, the denial of the
infringement based on their guide being no substantial reproduction of
the copyright work and the plea of fair, dealing bringing the defendants
within the first proviso to Section 2 of the Copyright Act of 1911 was
the same as was raised in relation to Thomas Hardy's work.
On these pleadings the following points arise for consideration in
regard to Thomas Hardy's work:
◦ Does the Copyright Act of 1911 continue to be in force as part of the law
of India after India attained Independence in 1947 or after it became
Republic when the Constitution came into force on 26-1-1950. This point
is common to both the works involved in this suit.
◦ Was Thomas Hardy's work "The Return of the Native" first published in
America as contended for by the defendants or was it first published
within His Majesty's dominions as pleaded by the plaintiffs.
◦ Have the plaintiffs established their title as assignees of the copyright
through the author Thomas Hardy.
◦ Does the Guide of the defendants published constitute an infringement of
Thomas Hardy's Novel as containing a substantial reproduction of the
novel.
◦ Is the defendants' Guide protected as being a fair dealing with the
plaintiffs' work; and
◦ If these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiffs to what reliefs are
the plaintiffs entitled.
Judgments Referred:
Lord Atkinson in
Macmillan and Co Ltd. v. K & J. Cooper 40 Mad
LJ 637: (AIR 1.924 PC 751 "the text of which
consists of a number of detached passages
selected from the author's work often not
contiguous but separated from those which
precede and follow them by considerable bodies
of print knit together by a few words so as to
give these passages when reprinted, the
appearance as far as possible of a continuous
narrative".
Section referred
 The learned Judge has turn to Section 4 of the Copy Right Act, 1914 on the
basis of which the contention in paragraph 15 of the written statement of the
defendant is raised. The relevant portion of Section 4 consists in its first sub-
section which runs: “"4 (1). In the case of works first published in (India)
Copyright shall be subject to this limitation that the sole right to produce,
reproduce perform or publish a translation of the work shall subsist only for
a period of ten years from the date of the first publication of the work;
 Provided that if within the said period the author or any person to whom he
has granted permission so to do publishes a translation of any work in any
language copyright in such work as regards the sole right to produce,
reproduce, perform or publish a translation in that language shall not be
subject to the limitation prescribed in this sub-section.“
Based on this provision the argument was that unless a translation was
published within ten years from the date of the first publication of a work
there was no copyright in the translation.
The contention of the defendant is, therefore, overruled.
quantitative analysis of the amount of
copying:
 The total number of words in the original work as calculated
by him is 42264 and the total number of words in the guide is
about 32,600. The offending words are said to be 6543.
 If this totalling were correct it would mean that the offending
words constitute about fifteen per cent., of the original and a
little over thirty per cent, of the defendants' work.
 Learned counsel also told me that 727 lines out of 4580 lines
in the plaintiffs' work were alleged to have been copied and if
the number of lines in the defendant's work were taken into
account it would mean 727 out of 2730.
 ”After comparing the two books his Lordship came to the
conclusion that the defendants' copying constituted an
infringement of copyright as regards quality and quantity.
Doctrine of Fair Dealing
This is based on the first proviso to

Section 2 (1) of the Copyright Act, 1911,
which runs:
"Provided that the following acts shall not
constitute an infringement of copyright:
(i) any fair dealing with any work for the
purposes of private study, research,
criticism, review or newspaper summary."
As stated by Copinger
"Private study only covers the case of a
student copying out a book for his own
use, but not the circulation of copies
among other students".
Vide University of London Press Ltd. v.
University Tutorial Press Ltd., 1916-2 Ch
601. I find it not possible to hold that the
defendants' guide could be said to be
works of research.
Research Means
In Funk and Wagnalls English dictionary
"research" is said to mean, I am extracting that
meaning which appears to be most relevant to
the present context, "Diligent protracted
investigation especially for the purpose of
adding to human knowledge, studious enquiry."
In "The Shorter Oxford Dictionary" the
meaning attributed is "An investigation directed
to the discovery of some fact by careful study
of a subject; investigation, inquiry into things."
Reasoning of the Court
 in the light of these meanings the defendants'
guides -- Chapter summaries, which constituted
an infringement cannot obviously be said to
comprise quotations for the purposes of
"research"; nor is there any substance in the
contention that the guides constitute "criticism" of
the copyright works.
 They were nothing more than summaries and a
summary which extracts and reproduces
substantial parts of the copyright work for the
purpose of narrating the story is not "criticism".
Judgment
The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to the

appropriate reliefs, namely, (1) permanent
injunction as prayed for in the suit, (2) an
enquiry into the profits made by the
defendants by the publication of the guide
and (3) delivery over to the plaintiffs of the
remaining copies of the offending work. The
claim in regard to damages which is really
alternate to the claim to enquiry into profits,
which were granted by the judge is dismissed.
R. G. Anand vs. Delux Films Ltd- AIR
1978 SC 1613
 Where the Appellant, R. G. Anand, was an architect
by profession and a playwright, dramatist and
producer as well. He had written and produced a play
called ‘Hum Hindustani’ in 1953, which received
huge success and was re-staged numerous times.
 With the increasing popularity of the play, the second
Respondent, Mr. Mohan Sehgal, got in touch with the
Appellant. During the Appellant’s meeting with the
second and third Respondents, the Appellant narrated
the entire play ‘Hum Hindustani’ to the second and
third Respondents.
Facts
 Appellant had elaborate discussions regarding filming the play in
January 1955. However, no further communication made to the
Appellant post the discussion. Respondents in the month of May 1955
commenced the making of the film ‘New Delhi’, which the Appellant
believed to be based on his play. Nevertheless, the Respondents
guaranteed him that the movie had no resemblance and not related to
his play. However, after watching the movie in September 1956 the
Appellant comes to the conclusion that the movie was indeed a copy
of his play and consequently filed a suit for permanent injunction
seeking a restraint against the Respondents from infringement his
Copyright in the play ‘Hum Hindustani’.
 The Trial Court along with the High Court decided in favour of the
Respondents asserting that the act of the Respondents (of
producing/exhibiting the film ‘New Delhi’) is not a copyright
infringement.
the court in this case laid seven principles:
 There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical

or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the
form, manner and arrangement are expression of the idea by the author of the
copyright work.
 Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that
the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case, the
courts should determine whether the similarities are on fundamental or
substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work.
If the defendant's work were nothing but a literal limitation of the copyrighted
work with some variations here and there, it would amount to violation of the
copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a
substantial and material one, which at once leads to the conclusion that the
defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.
 One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a
violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having
read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable
impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
Judgment
 Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the
subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of
copyright arises. Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two
works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention
to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly
incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence.
 As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy, it should be proved by clear
and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case law
discussed above.
 Where however the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by a
film producer or a Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove
piracy.
 It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader prospective, a
wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a
variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in
which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after
seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film is a copy of the original
play, violation of the copyright maybe proved.
Diljeet Titus, Advocate v Mr. Alfred A. Adebare &
Ors - 130 (2006) DLT 330
 The present suit deals with bitterness arising amongst
legal personnel. Diljeet Titus, the Plaintiff and Alfred
A. Adebare, one of the opposing parties to the suit
were associates in the firm M/s. Titus & Co.
 The Plaintiff had been in practice since 1989 and set
up M/s Titus & Co., as a sole proprietorship firm in
1997. Prior to his own venture, he was part of M/s.
Singhania & Co., along with two of the four
members of the opposition to the suit.
 They left the concern collectively, when the Plaintiff
setup M/s. Titus & Co
Facts
 While the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant was an
employee, working for remuneration, the same was
denied on the grounds that the nature of work was
more on the lines of partnership.
 Their parting being on unpleasant terms was
accompanied by the Defendant’s taking away
privileged information of the law firm, use of which by
anyone but the Plaintiff, could make him liable to his
clients.
 In this regard, Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction apart
from criminal complaints, grieving infringement of
copyright
Reliefs Sought
 Interim injunction was also claimed against the
Defendants, in the event of continuing existence of
the data with the Defendant. In response to this, the
Defendants filed a counter suit alleging that they were
the rightful owners of copyright in what they had
created.
 Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for
Mr. Titus emphasized on the essence of copyright:
'thou shall not steal'. It was thus pleaded that there
was an implicit term of confidentiality in any such
relationship between advocates and the defendants
were thus alleged to have breached this implicit term.
The nature of information stated to have been
taken away by the defendants was
 primarily of a two-fold nature, i.e., (i) the list of clients and
law firms; and ('i) opinions and advises in respect of which
the plaintiff itself had an obligation to maintain
confidentiality.
 Learned senior counsel referred to the principles of damnum
sine injuria conceding that some injury is inevitable where a
junior leaves the office of a senior associate.
 This was, however, contended not to include a legal injury
on the principles of damnum sine injuria.
 The sub-stratum of submissions were based on the nature of
relationship between the parties as the same is of prime
importance in determination of the rights of the parties.
Arguments on behalf of the Plaintiff:
• The Defendants were the employees of the Plaintiff,

though not in the strict sense of the term. All billing to
the clients was in the name of the Plaintiff alone. The
Defendants were under the discipline and regime of the
Plaintiff and it is under Plaintiff’s guidance and control
that the Defendants, using the Plaintiff’s knowledge,
resources and investment, developed and created those
confidential and vital electronic records.
 • Further, the Defendants were under a contract of
service of working under the direction, supervisions
and control of the Plaintiff as per the normal practice
in the legal profession in India.
The counsel relying on
 Mr. S.D. Gupta v. Dasuram Murzamull- AIR
1973 SC 48
submitted that where there was no written down
partnership contract and no record of terms and
conditions of oral partnership, no account for
partnership is maintained, an inference cannot
be drawn as to the existence of a partnership
firm. The parties in the present case are
advocates who would like their relationship to
be governed by clear stipulation
The counsel relying on
Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v.
Rajnish Chibber and Anr - 1995 PTC (15)
278 it was submitted that as per section
17(c) of the Copyright Act, any work which
is made in the course of other’s employment
under a contract of service, belongs to the
employer. Thus, all documents in this case
belong to the Plaintiff even if they have
made by the Defendants during the course of
their employment.
Nature of the Documents:
• The documents are slated to be governed strictly by the
norms of client-attorney privilege.
• Plaintiff asserted that his associates and advocates were not
permitted to disclose confidential client related documents
especially in regard of the Bar Council of India Rules.
Referring to Section 49(1)(c) of The Advocates Act, 1961,
Rule 17 in Section II and Section 126 of the Evidence Act,
it was stated that the documents were generated to render
services to clients, and hence the Plaintiff being solely
entitled to be in possession of the same. He was considered
bound by a duty to maintain confidentiality of his clients,
and the Defendant and others had committed a breach in
this regard.
Learned senior counsel referred to the :
• Further, according to the principle of damnum
sine injuria, where the junior leaves the office of a
senior associate some injury is inevitable.
 Learned senior counsel referred to the treaties of
David Bainbridge on Software Copyright Law
(fourth edition) to emphasise that what the
defendants had taken away was something in
which the plaintiff had a copyright as list of
clients and their addresses or full text of various
documents or set of co- ordinates would fall
within the same.
In chapter 6 dealing with databases it was observed as under:
A computer database is a collection of information stored on computer

media. The information may be a list of clients and their addresses or the
full text of various documents or a set of co-ordinates relation to a three-
dimensional building structure or a collection of representations of pre-
Raphaelite paintings.
 The range of things which may be included in a computer database is
enormous.
 The information contained in the database may be confidential and protected
by the law of breach of confidence but what is the copyright position'
 The simplest way of looking at a computer database is to consider the work
it represents, for example, a printed listing of names and addresses, a printed
set of documents or drawings of buildings or a collection of paintings. Those
works may be protected individually by copyright as literary or artistic
works as appropriate but the collection of works may also be protected
additionally and separately by copyright and/or the database right,
notwithstanding the separate copyrights subsisting in the individual works
Arguments on behalf of the Defendants:
• Defendants and the Plaintiff stood at par with each

other in the firm. They have independently exercised
their professional skills and knowledge and were at
sole discretion to advise and serve clients without any
supervision of that of the Plaintiff.
 • Employer-employee relationship between advocates
is barred under the Bar Council of Indian Rules
Section VII dealing with other employment as per
rules 47 and 49. Rule 49 states that there cannot be an
employer-employee relationship in case of an advocate
as an advocate, cannot be a full-time salaried employee
of any person.
The relationship between the parties was one

of contract for service and not contract of
service.
• Further, the use of the Plaintiff’s name was
only for the purposes of convenience and the
Plaintiff, in fact, was estopped by virtue of
section 115 of the Evidence Act from
denying the relationship of Defendants as
partners since to third parties these
defendants were represented as partners.
• The Defendants claim to be the owners of the copyright in what they have
created and it is their contention that the creation was independent and
the same was so created by advising and counseling the clients and the
computer generated data was lying in the computer system of the
Plaintiff. Asserting that the documents prepared were pieces of original
literary work. In such a scenario, Section 17 (c) was held to be
inapplicable.
• The Counsel for the Defendant argued further on the grounds of
confidentiality. They stated that this aspect could not be an issue since
they held the copyright. In the absence of a ‘master-servant’ relationship,
the apprehensions held by the Plaintiff were said to be misconceived
notions, and that the attorney-client privilege was enjoyed by all lawyers.
• Also, as per Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the
Plaintiff has failed to produce the documents in the court whose
copyright infringement has been alleged.
Court’s Observations:
• There is no documentation placed by the Defendants on record

to substantiate any such written arrangement of partnership.
This aspect is important as all the parties are advocates and
would be expected to define their relationship and responsibility
properly and clearly.
On the contrary, it is not disputed that the Plaintiff has been
running the firm, in his name, is obliged for its profits and
losses and taxes. At the stage when the defendants left the
association with the plaintiff there was no separation of the
assets of the legal firm.
Also, it is a fact that the clients were that of the Plaintiff and the
billing used to be in the name of the Plaintiff. It is possible that
during the course of working the clients may have also
developed faith in the Defendants
 Great importance had to be attached to any breach of

trust or confidence. If an advocate permits his
associate to assist him, there is an implicit obligation
on such an associate to maintain the trust and
confidentiality reposed on him. The mere fact that
Defendants would have done work for the clients
would not give them the right to reproduce the list and
take it away.
 • Also, Rule 49 of Chapter VII of the bar Council of
India Rules would have no application to the principle
of an advocate being associated with any other
advocate.
The contention of a database being an original literary work was not

questioned in the light of Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Further, with reference to Section 17(c) of the Act, it was stated that the
work done by the Defendants for the clients of the Plaintiff would fall in
the definition of contract of service. It was further stated that
irrespective of this, a breach of trust or confidence had been committed,
which could not be ignored in view of Section 16 of the Copyright Act.
• Plaintiff had clearly established a prima facie case in respect of the rights
in the material taken away by the Defendants.
• Defendants were not entitled to utilize the agreements, diligence reports,
list of clients and other material, which they used or learnt of in course
of their relationship with the Plaintiff, rendering them to be confidential
per se.
Defendants were restrained from using the documents, data base, client
lists etc. of the Plaintiff for their own benefit.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises vs Gajendra Singh
2008(36) PTC 53

 The plaintiff Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., is one

of India's largest entertainment companies with its
operations spread across several countries in the world.
 It employed in 1994 defendant No, I, under a contract
of service as a 'Consultant' and later as a programme
director.
 During the course of his employment with the plaintiff,
the defendant No. 1 in consultation with other senior
employees and the plaintiff's programming team
originated the format of a television game show titled
'Antakshari'
Facts
 The plaintiff's programme was telecasting on Fridays
and Saturdays of every week for half an hour.
 The Limca Book of Records states that the plaintiff's
game show holds a record of being the longest
continuous show of Indian TV, holding the longest
sponsor deal of ten years between the plaintiff and
Hindustan Lever Limited, the largest period of
direction by a single Director, namely, the defendant
No. 1 and for being the only weekly show hosted
continuously by a single host, one Annu Kapoor .
Facts
In January, 2007, the plaintiff was given to
understand that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were
producing an identical TV game show titled
'Antakshari' and that defendant No. 3 was
exploiting the same on its TV channel 'Star One'.
In February, 2007, the defendant No. 3
commenced broadcasting the show titled
'Antakshari - The Great Challenge' on Fridays,
Saturdays and Sundays every week for one hour
on each of the days.
It was said:
 "the plaintiff has developed and indeed enhanced a
general idea, viz., the test of a person's knowledge and
memory of Hindi film music. It has now evolved new
and different methods of testing a person's knowledge
and memory of Hindi film music. It has not limited its
exercise of judgment and skill only to the traditionally
well-known method of requiring a person to sing a
song starting with the last syllable of the song sung by
the previous person. What the defendants have copied
therefore is not the mere general idea, not the well-
known concept, but the plaintiff's novel presentation
and pattern thereof both in form and content."
It was also observed that :
the plaintiff being entitled to the
copyright in his sketch, including the right
to its reproduction as a film, the
defendants have attempted to pass off
their production as a production of the
plaintiff's sketch and to make use of the
deputation which belonged to the
plaintiff's sketch in favour of their
production.
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd - 2 2003 (5)
BomCR 404. - A.P. Shah J.
 This suit has been brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for
breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information. The claim is
for various reliefs in respect of the plaintiffs' work titled 'Krish
Kanhaiyya'. In essence, the plaintiffs' case is as follows.
 The plaintiff No. 1 is a Company engaged in the business of television
programming, video programming, multi media programming and feature
films, television serial production etc. It consists of a group of
entrepreneurs, who have worked in different television networks and who
then decided to start their own business in January 2002.
 With this in mind, they have come up with various creative concepts for
television programmes, which they intend to produce for television
networks for broadcasting thereon.
 According to the plaintiffs, by the custom of their business, the concepts
generated by them are registered with Film Writers' Association and the
titles for such programmes are registered with Indian Motion Pictures
Producers' Association.
Facts
 The concepts generated are expressed through concept notes,
character sketches, detailed plots and episodes, main story lines
that are put down in writing. It is this written expression of their
original concepts and ideas which are registered with Film and
Writers' Association and the title under which such concepts are
sought to be translated into audiovisual form and telecast is
registered with Indian Motion Pictures Producers' Association.
 Apart from this, the concepts are also translated into
audiovisual form through production of what is known as a
pilot, which is a audiovisual representation produced on
videotape and representative of some episodes, which will
subsequently be duly reproduced in finished form for the
purpose of telecasting.
Facts
 In or about January 2002, immediately after
incorporation of the plaintiff No. 1 Company, the
plaintiffs worked on various concepts and came up
with a concept titled 'Kanhaiyya' which was registered
with the Film Producers' Association on 22nd
February 2002 in the name of plaintiff No. 2, who is
an employee of the plaintiff No. 1. The first concept,
as registered, was based on a family where
'Kanhaiyya' who is an avatar of Lord Krishna, appears
as a child and is a succor to them and helps them.
 He plays with them, performs small miracles for them
Facts
 The concept was thereafter worked on with a title changed from
'Kanhaiyya' to 'Krish Kanhaiyya' and a detailed concept note,
character sketches, detailed plot of first episode and ten episodic
plots were sent to the defendant No. 1. Encouraged by the positive
response of the defendant No. 1, the plaintiffs in association with
Cinevistaas Ltd. produced a pilot, since such pilot programme
duly represented on videotape would be a greater deciding factor
for the television channel to decide on production and
broadcasting, on the concept originated by the plaintiffs.
 The pilot of 'Krish Kanhaiyya alongwith the developed concept
was sent to the defendant No. 1 around 10th October 2002 and
was also sent to Star TV, Sony TV and Sahara TV since the
defendant No. 1 had not yet made up their mind as to whether to
air and broadcast the serial 'Krish Kanhaiyya'.
The pilot is structured around the
following:
"A rich dysfunctional family;
Internal feuds (within the family);
Affected family member cries and asks
God for help;
Lord Krishna appears in a human (child)
form (of Kanhaiyya) in front of the family
member who prays for help;
Kanhaiyya enters the house, posing as
Kish relative of the family member;
Structure of the Pilot:
 Kanhaiyya then proceeds to weave his magic and
miracles around the family that is on the verge of
breaking apart;
 The plaintiffs found that the defendant Nos. 2 and
3 have applied to Indian Motion Pictures
Producers' Association for registration of the
name 'Krish Kanhaiyya'.
 The plaintiffs also came across promotional
materials for the production 'Kanhaiyya' as also
harding announcing the launch of 'Kanhaiyya' by
the defendants.
As a result-
 M/s. Sony Entertainment Television has declined to sign
the contract after coming to know that M/s. Zee Television
of the defendants is going to produce and broadcast serial
'Kanhaiyya' from 9th March 2003.
 Enquiries by the plaintiffs have shown that rather
'Kanhaiyya' coming down to earth in the form of a boy as
per the concept of the plaintiffs, he comes down as a girl in
the show being produced and proposed to be aired by the
defendants. The name is also deceptively similar, being
'Kanhaiyya' rather than 'Krish Kanhaiyya' and the word
'Kanhaiyya' was also the original name, which has been
conceptualized by the plaintiffs.
 Kanhaiyya brings happiness to all
The plaintiffs have claimed injunction on three grounds:-
i) breach of confidentiality by the

defendants;
ii) infringement of their copyright in the
work of 'Krish Kanhaiyya';
iii) reverse passing off of the plaintiffs'
work i.e. the defendants are wrongfully
representing the plaintiffs' work as their
own.
The basic principles of the law of confidence are conveniently set out
in Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright (13th Edn.)
 "There is a broad and developing equitable doctrine that he who has

received information in confidence shall not take unfair advantage of it
or profit from the wrongful use or publication of it. He must not make any
use of it to the prejudice of his who gave it, without obtaining his consent
or, at any rate, without paying him for it. It has for long been clear that
the courts can restrain a breach of confidence arising out of a contract or
any right to property..... The ground of equitable intervention is that it is
unconscionable for a person who has received information on the basis
that it is confidential subsequently to reveal that information. Acceptance
of information on the basis that it will be kept secret affects the
conscience of the recipient of the information. In general it is in the
public interest that confidences should be respected, even where the
confider can point to no specific financial detriment to himself. If a
defendant is proved to have used confidential information, directly or
indirectly obtained from a plaintiff, without his consent, express or
implied, he will be guilty of an infringement of the plaintiff's rights."
Cases Relied by Plaintiff
 Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Campbell Engineering Co. Ltd., (1948) 65
RPC 203 and in particular in the statement of principles in the judgment of
Lord Greene (at page 213):-
 "If a defendant is proved to have used confidential information, directly or
indirectly obtained from a plaintiff, without the consent, express or implied
of the plaintiff, he will be guilty of an infringement of the plaintiff's rights.
 With regard to the requirement of form and degree of development of
information or ideas, learned counsel for the plaintiffs placed strong reliance
on Seager v. Copydex Ltd., (1967) 2 All ER 415. In this case the plaintiff, in
the course of discussion with the defendants of a carpet grip described as
'the germ of the idea' for a different form of carpet grip which the plaintiff
had devised. Later the defendants developed and marketed the carpet grip
which was unwittingly based on the plaintiff's alternate type of grip. The
Court of Appeal concluded that the plaintiff's idea was 'the springboard'
which enabled the defendants to devise their own grip and held that the
defendants were liable for breach of confidence.
 CMI Centers for Medical Innovation GMBH an Anr. v.
Phytopharm PLC, (1999) Fleet Street Reports 235 where the
Court held that for a plaintiff to succeed in a breach of
confidence action he had to address at least four matters; i.e.
(i) he had to identify clearly what was the information he was
relying on; (ii) he had to show that it was handed over in the
circumstance of confidence; (iii) he had to show that it was
information of the type which could be treated as confidential;
and (iv) he had to show that it was used without his licence or
there must be threat to use it. It was added that at interlocutory
stage, the plaintiff does not have to prove (ii) and (iv) as he
will at the trial. But he must address them and show that he
has at least a seriously arguable case in relation to each of
them
 In the case of Fraser v. Thames Television Ltd., reported in
(1983) 2 All E.R. 101, breach of confidence was claimed
when three actresses developed and idea for television series
in which they proposed to appear and this idea was disclosed
orally and in confidence to defendants and the defendants used
this idea to create television series with other actresses. It was
held that the court would prevent person who had received
idea expressed in oral or written form from disclosing it for a
unlimited period or until that idea becomes general public
knowledge provided (a) that the circumstances in which it was
communicated imported an obligation of confidence and (b)
that contents of the idea was clearly identifiable, original, or
potential commercial attractiveness and capable of reaching
the frutition.
 The decision of the Delhi High Court is in the case of Anil Gupta and
Anr. v. Kunal Das Gupta and Ors., In that case, the plaintiffs conceived
the idea of producing reality TV programme of match-making to the
point of actual spouse selection in which real everyday ordinary persons
would participate before TV audience. The plaintiffs decided to name
the concept 'Swayamvar' knowing that a large number of people would
associate the name with the idea of a woman selecting a groom in a
public fora and that would create the necessary instantaneous recall and
recognition of mythological Swayamvar in the minds of a large number
of people and give the programme a head-start. This concept was,
according to the plaintiffs, disclosed to the defendants, who later on in
breach of confidence, announced a serial which was based on the
plaintiffs' concept 'Shubh Vivah'. The learned Judge (Vijender Jain J)
upheld the claim of breach of confidentiality. The observations of the
learned Judge in paragraphs 27 and 29 were produced.
An idea per se has no copyright:
 But if the idea is developed into a concept
fledged with adequate details, then the same is
capable of registration under the Copyright Act.
The novelty and innovation of the concept of the
plaintiff resides in combing of a reality TV show
with a subject like match making for the
purpose of marriage.
The Swayamvar quoted in Indian mythology
was not a routine practice. In mythology, we
have come across broadly
Originality of Concept note
 understood only two Swayamvars, one in Mahabharat
where the choice as not left on the bridge but on the act of
chivalry to be performed by any prince and whosoever
succeeded in such performance got the hand of Draupdi.
Similarly, in Ramayana choice was not left to the bridge but
again on performance of chivalrous act by a prince who
could break the mighty Dhanusha (Bow).
 Therefore, originality lies in the concept of plaintiff by
conceiving a reality TV programme of match making and
spouse selection by transposing mythological Swayamvar
to give prerogative to woman to select a groom from variety
of suitors and making it presentable to audience and to
explore it for commercial marketing
Defendants Plea
 The learned counsel for the defendants strenuously urged that

the plaintiffs' plea of confidentiality is not supported in law.
He submitted that the idea / concept of the plot conceived by
the plaintiffs is neither original nor novel. In the absence of
any originality in the idea conceived by the plaintiffs, the
principles of confidentiality do not apply. According to him
Lord Krishna appearing either in divine form or human form
is not novel or a new concept. Similar themes have been used
in TV serial 'Amanat' and the move 'Yahi Hai Zindagi'.
 We are unable to accede to the submission of the learned
counsel. Merely because some of the components of the story
are common or in public domain, the concept or idea does not
become incapable of protection.
Cases cited by Defendant
In Coco case, Megarry J. observed tat something
that has been constructed solely from materials
in the public domain may possess necessary
quality of confidentiality; for something new
confidential may have been brought into being
an application of skill and ingenuity of the
human brain. Novelty depends upon the thing
itself, and not upon the quality of its constituent
parts. Indeed, often the more striking the novelty,
the more commonplace its components.
 Thomas Marshal (Exports) Ltd. v. Guinel, (1978) 3 All ER 193 the Vice
Chancellor observed at pages 209-210 as under:-
 "If one turns from the authorities and looks at the matter as a question of
principle, I think (and I say this very intentively, because the principle has not
been argued out) that four elements may be discerned which may be of some
assistance in identifying confidential information or trade secrets which the
court will protect. I speak of such information or secrets only in an industrial
or trade setting. First, I think that the information must be information the
release of which the owner believes would be injurious to him or of advantage
to his rivals or others. Second, I think the owner must believe that the
information is confidential or secret, i.e. that it is not already in the public
domain. It may be that some or all of his rivals already have the information;
but as long as the owner believes it to be confidential I think he is entitled to
try and protect it. Third, I think that the owner's belief under the two previous
heads must be reasonable. Fourth, I think that the information must be judged
in the light of the usage and practices of the particular industry or trade
concerned.”
Supreme court in the case of R.G. Anand
v. Delux Films and Ors., where the Court
has held that there is no copyright in an
idea, subject matters, themes, plots or
historical or legendry facts and violation
of the copyright in such cases is confined
to the form, manner and arrangement and
expression of the idea by the author of the
copyrighted work.
the case of Indian Express Newspapers (
Bom) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jagmohan - To quote the
words of the learned Judge Hand in
Sheldon v. Metro Goldwyn Pictures
Corporation (1993) 81 F 2nd 49 that "It is
enough that substantial parts were lifted;
no play right can excuse wrong for
showing how much of his work he did not
pirate.“
Corelli v. Gray (1913) 29 TLR 570 Sargant J
observed as follows:-"The plaintiff's case is
entirely founded on coincidences or
similarities between the novel and the sketch.
Such coincidences or similarities may be due
to any one of the four hypotheses - namely
(1) to mere chance, or (2) to both sketch and
novel being taken from a common source; (3)
to the novel being taken from the sketch, or
(4) to the sketch being taken from the novel.
 Harman Pictures N.V. v. Osborne, (1967) 1 WLR 723, it was
held that similarities of incidents and situations undoubtedly
afforded prima facie evidence of copy and in the absence of any
explanation by the defendant regarding the sources, the plaintiffs
must succeed. In this connection Goff J observed as follows:
 'But I have read the whole of the script very carefully and
compared it with the book and I find many similarities of detail
there also..... Also it is prima facie not without significance that
apart from the burial of Captain Nolan the play ends with the
very quotation which Mrs Woodham Smith used to end her
description of the battle..... As Sir Andrew Clark points out, some
of these might well be accounted for as being similar to other
events already in the script, and in any event abridgment was
necessary, but that may not be a complete answer.'"
 In the case of Mohendra Chundra Nath Ghosh v. Emperor,
the court while defining what a copy is held that copy is one
which is so near to original as to suggest original to the
mind of spectator and observed as follows:
 "But the question is whether the offending pictures are
copies of substantial portions of the copyright picture....
The figures may have been reduced in the offending
pictures and slight modifications may have been introduced,
or the clothes and colours may have been different, but
there can be no doubt whatsoever that the main figures have
an identical pose. These are not, in my opinion,
coincidences due to the pictures being produced to
represent common stock ideas.“
Judgment
 Having considered two works involved in this case not

hypercritically and with meticulous scrutiny but by the
observations and impressions of the average viewer, we find that
striking similarities in two works cannot in the light of the material
placed on record be said to constitute mere chance. We feel that the
only inference that can be drawn from the material available on
record is unlawful copying of the plaintiffs' original work.
 The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted and not without
sufficient force that if the concept of Lord Krishna in child form is
removed from the serial of the defendants, their programmes would
become meaningless. In order to find out similarity in the two
concepts, what is to be seen is the substance, the foundation, the
kernel and the test as to whether the reproduction is substantial is
to see if the rest can stand without it. If
Judgment
 In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no

hesitation in holding that the plaintiffs have established
that there has been infringement of their copyright.
 The Appeal Court, following the earlier decisions came
to the conclusion that this was the case of reverse
passing off. We find some substance in the submission
of the learned counsel that the action of the defendants
may also amount to an act of reverse passing off.
However, having held in favour of the plaintiffs on the
issues of confidentiality and copyright, it is not
necessary to express any opinion on this aspect and the
issue of reverse passing off is expressly kept open.
Eastern Book Company and Others vs. D.B. Modak, - B.N.
AGRAWAL & P.P. NAOLEKAR (2008) 1 SCC 1 at p. 131.
 Prior to this case the Indian courts, implicitly, followed

the English approach to originality. In this case
appellants were involved in the printing and publishing
of various books relating to the field of law. One of the
well-known publications was the law report “Supreme
Court Cases.”
 The original Judgments were copy-edited by a team of
assistant staff of the Appellant and various inputs were
put in the judgments and orders to make them user
friendly by making an addition of cross-references,
standardization or formatting of the text, paragraph
numbering, verification and by putting other inputs.
As per the Appellants contentions:
 The Appellants also prepared the head notes comprising of two
portions, the short note consisting of catch/lead words written
in bold; and the long note, which is comprised of a brief
discussion of the facts and the relevant extracts from the
judgments and orders of the Court.
 , SCC is a law report which carries case reports comprising of
the appellants’ version or presentation of those judgments and
orders of’ the Supreme Court after putting various inputs in the
raw text and it constitutes an ‘original literary work’ of the
appellants in which copyright subsists under Section 13 of the
Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and
thus the appellants alone have the exclusive right to make
printed as well as electronic copies of the same under Section
14 of the Act.
Infringement of Copyright
Any scanning or copying or reproduction
done of or from the reports or pages or
paragraphs or portions of any volume of
SCC by any other person, is an
infringement of the copyright in SCC
within the meaning of Section 51 of the
Act.
Facts
 Respondent No. 1 had launched software called “Grand Jurix”
published on CD-ROMs and the Respondent No. 2 had brought
out a software package called “The Laws” published on CD-
ROMS.
 As per the Appellants, all the modules in the Respondents’
software packages have been lifted verbatim from the
Appellants’ work; the Respondents have copied the Appellants’
sequencing, selection and arrangement of the cases coupled
with the entire text of copy-edited judgments as published in
the Appellants’ law report SCC, along with and including the
style and formatting, the copy-editing paragraph numbers,
footnote numbers, cross-references, etc.; and such acts of the
Respondents constitute infringement of the Appellants’
exclusive right to the same.
Single Judge – High Court of Delhi
No stay was given to the Appellants.

However, before the Single Judge, the
Respondents conceded that the Appellants
have copyright in the head notes and as
such they undertook not to copy these
head notes in their CD-ROMs.
Division Bench – High Court of Delhi
 The Division Bench modified the judgment of the Single

Judge by directing the Respondents that they shall be
entitled to sell their CD-ROMs with the text of the
judgments of the Supreme Court along with their own head
notes, editorial notes, if any, which should not in any way
be copy of the head notes of the Appellants. The
Respondents were directed not to copy the footnotes and
editorial notes appearing in the journal of the Appellants.
 The Court did not accept the case of the Appellants that
they have a copyright in the copy-edited judgments of the
Supreme Court. Aggrieved by the decision of the Division
Bench of Delhi High Court, the Appellants filed the present
appeals by special leave before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court
 Appellants’ Contentions:
 The Appellants do not claim a monopoly in
publishing judgments of the Supreme Court as they
are being published by other publishers also without
copying from each other publication. The Appellants
claim that their copyright is in the copy-edited
version of the text of judgments as published in SCC
which is a creation of the Appellants’ skill, labour
and capital and there are contributions/inputs/
additions of the Appellants in creating their version
of the text of judgments as published in SCC.
Supreme Court
Respondents’ Contentions:
Judgments published in the Supreme Court Cases is nothing
but merely a derivative work based upon the judgments’ of
the court, which lacks originality as it does not depict
independent creation even a modicum of creativity. The
inputs put by the Appellants are nothing but expressing an
idea which can be expressed in a limited way and as such
there cannot be a copyright.
For claiming protection of copyright in a derivative work,
originality is a pre-condition and originality means only that
the work was independently created by the author as
opposed to copied from other works, and that it possesses at
least some minimal degree of creativity.
Issues:
 (1) What shall be the standard of originality in the copy-edited

judgments of the Supreme Court which is a derivative work and
what would be required in a derivative work to treat it the original
work of an author and thereby giving a protected right under the
Copyright Act, 1957 to the author of the derivative work ? and
 (2) Whether the entire version of the copy-edited text of the
judgments published’ in the Appellants’ law report SCC would be
entitled for a copyright as an original literary work, the copy-edited
judgments having been claimed as a result of inextricable and
inseparable admixture of the copy-editing inputs and the raw text,
taken together, as a result of insertion of all SCC copy-editing
inputs into the raw text, or whether the Appellants would be
entitled to the copyright in some of the inputs which have been put
in the raw text ?
 Judgments delivered by the Supreme Court would be a government work

and in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the government shall
be the first owner of the copyright in the judgments of the Supreme
Court.
 Section 52(1) expressly provides that certain acts enumerated therein
shall not constitute an infringement of copyright and Sub-clause (iv) of
Clause (q) excludes the reproduction or publication of any judgment or
order of a Court, Tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the
reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by
the Court, the Tribunal or other judicial authority from copyright. The
judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court would be in the public
domain and its reproduction or publication would not infringe the
copyright. The reproduction or publication of the judgments delivered by
the Supreme Court by any number of persons would not be infringement
of a copyright of the first owner thereof, namely, the Government, unless
it is prohibited.
 The question, therefore, is whether by introducing certain

inputs in a judgment delivered by a court it becomes
“original copy-edited judgment” and the person or authority
or company who did so could claim to have embodied the
originality in the said judgment and the judgment takes the
colour of original judgment having a copyright therein of its
publisher.
 In many cases, a work is derived from an existing work.
Whether in such a derivative work, a new copyright work is
created, will depend on various factors. The required
exercise of independent skill, labour and capital in its
creation by the author would qualify him for the copyright
protection in the derivative work.
 Copyright subsists in the copy-edited version of the text of

judgments of the courts as published in law reports, which have
been created by the application of skill, labour and capital which
is not trivial or negligible. The inputs put in the copy-edited
judgments in SCC, is a derivative literary work created from
pre-existing material of the judgments of the court which is in
public domain. The exercise of independent skill, labour and
capital in its creation by the author of such work, and the
derivative literary work created by the expenditure of the
independent skill, labour and capital of the Appellants gives
them copyright in such creations. It is not necessary that work
created should have a literary merit. The courts can only
evaluate whether the skill, labour and capital actually employed,
required in creating the work, is not trivial or negligible.
 The word ‘original’ does not mean that the Work must be the
expression of original or inventive thought. Copyright Acts are not
concerned with the originality of ideas, 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 relates
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. In deciding, therefore,
whether a work in the nature of a compilation is original, it is wrong
to consider individual parts of it apart from the whole. For many
compilations have nothing original in their parts, yet the sum total of
the compilation may be original. In such cases the courts have
looked to see whether the compilation of the unoriginal material
called for work or skill or expense. If it did, it is entitled to be
considered original.
However, the inputs put in the original
text by the Appellants in :
 (i) segregating the existing paragraphs in the original
text by breaking them into separate paragraphs; (ii)
adding internal paragraph numbering within a judgment
after providing uniform paragraph numbering to the
multiple judgments; and (iii) indicating in the judgment
the Judges who have dissented or concurred by
introducing the phrases like ‘concurring’, ‘partly
concurring’, ‘partly dissenting’, ‘dissenting’,
‘supplementing’, ‘majority expressing no opinion’, etc.,
have to be viewed in a different light. The task of
paragraph numbering and internal referencing requires
skill and judgment in great measure.
Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the
appellants to buttress his submissions,:
 Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. Willim Hill (Football) Ltd., [1964] 1
WLR 273 (HL), is a case where the concept of originality was
considered on the basis of skill, judgment and/or labour in the
context of compilation. Since 1951 the respondents, who were
well- known bookmakers, had sent their customers each week
fixed odds football betting coupons arranged in a certain general
form.
 In 1959 the appellants, who were also bookmakers, started
sending out coupons closely resembling the respondents
couponsIt was submitted by the appellants that the derivative
work of the respondents not being original, no copyright can be
claimed and the inputs put, if considered separately, are of
insignificant value and thus the respondents could not claim
copyright
Appellants Submissions
 In the case of Walter and Another v. Lane, [1900] AC 539 (HL), the Earl
of Rosebery on five occasions in 1896 and 1898 delivered to the public
audience speeches on subjects of public interest. The Reporter of `The
Times took down the speeches in shorthand, wrote out their notes,
corrected, revised and punctuated them and the reports were published in
`The Times, the speeches being given verbatim as delivered by Lord
Rosebery. The reporters were employed under the terms that the copyright
in all reports and articles composed by `The Time magazine should belong
to the proprietors. In the year 1899, the respondent published a book
called Appreciations and Addresses: Lord Rosebery, which contained the
reports of the above speeches of Lord Rosebery and it was admitted that
these reports were taken from the reports in `The Times. Lord Rosebery
made no claim. If a person chooses to compose and write a volume devoid
of the faintest spark of literary or any other merit, there is no legal reason
why he should not, if he desires, become the first publisher of it and
register his copyright, worthless and insignificant as it would be.
 In the case of Designers Guild Ltd. v. Russell Williams (Textiles)
Ltd., [2000] 1 WLR 2416 (HL), the plaintiff brought proceedings
claiming that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s copyright by
copying one of its fabric designs, i.e. for the fabric design Ixia. The
infringement of which the plaintiff complained was that for the
purpose of creating its own design Marguerite by the defendant. The
defendant had copied a substantial part of Ixia. There were mainly
two main issues at the trial. First, what, if anything had the designer
of Marguerite copied from Ixia. Secondly, did what had been copied
amount to the whole or a substantial partof Ixia? It was said by the
House of Lords that the law of copyright rests on a very clear
principle that anyone who by his or her own skill and labour creates
an original work of whatever character shall enjoy an exclusive right
to copy that work. No one else may for a season reap what the
copyright owner had sown.
 University of London Press Limited v. University Tutorial Press Limited,
[1916] 2 Ch 601, is perhaps the most cited judgment regarding originality.
Originality was held to be not required to be noval form but the work
should not be copied from other work, that is, it should be original. The
judgment was based on the following facts: Certain persons were
appointed as examiners for matriculation examination of the University of
London on a condition that any copyright in the examination papers
should belong to the University. The University assigned the copyright to
the plaintiff company. After the examination, the defendant company
brought out a publication containing a number of the examination papers,
including three which had been set by two examiners appointed by the
University. The plaintiff company brought a case of copyright
infringement against the defendant companyWith respect to the originality
issue, the Court held that the term ‘original’ under the Act does not imply
original or novel form of ideas or inventive thought, but the work must not
be copied from another work - that it should originate from the author
 In Kelly v. Morris, (1866) LR 1 Eq. 697, School of thought propounded
is that, at least in respect of compilations, only time and expenses are
necessary which is industrious collection. The plaintiff was the owner and
publisher of the first directory. The defendant came out with another
directory. The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant to
restrain the publication of the defendant’s directory on the allegations that
the defendant was guilty of appropriating the information contained in
the plaintiff’s directory and obtained the benefit of many years of
incessant labour and expense. The compiler of a directory or guidebook,
containing information derived from sources common to all, which must
of necessity be identical in all cases if correctly given, is not entitled to
spare himself the labour and expense of original inquiry by adopting and
re-publishing the information contained in previous works on the same
subject.

 Parry v. Moring and Gollancz, Cop Cas (1901-1904) 49, the
plaintiff, after obtaining permission from the representatives of the
owner of certain letters, updated, chronologically arranged and
translated them into modern English for their inclusion in his book.
Later, the defendant published, as one of the series, an edition of
the letters prepared by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, brought
an action against the defendant alleging infringement of his
copyright. The plaintiff maintained his copyright in his version of
the text apart from the copyright in the text. It was held that there is
copyright in the work of editing the text of a non-copyright work.
The editor of a non-copyright work is not entitled to take the text
from the edition of a rival editor and use it as a copy for the
purpose of his own work. Paragraph No.22 of the judgment

 In Gopal Das v. Jagannath Prasad and Another, AIR 1938 All. 266,
the plaintiffs were the printers and publishers of the books. The book
titled ‘Sachitra Bara Kok Shastra’ was printed for the first time in
1928 and had run into four editions since. The defendants printed and
published another book titled ‘Asli Sachitra Kok Shastra’ in 1930.
The plaintiffs case was that the book published by the defendants was
a colorable imitation of their book and an infringement of plaintiffs
copyright. It was held by the Court that the plaintiffs compiled their
book with considerable labour from various sources and digested and
arranged the matter taken by them from other authors. The defendant
instead of taking the pains of searching into all the common sources
and obtaining his subject matter from them, obtained the subject
matter from the plaintiffs book and availed himself of the labour of
the plaintiffs and adopted their arrangement and subject matter and,
thus, such a use of plaintiffs book could not be regarded as legitimate.
 In V. Govindan v. E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone and Another,
AIR 1955 Madras 391, the respondents had published an
English-English Tamil Dictionary in 1932. The appellants
were the publishers of similar Dictionary in 1947. An
action was brought regarding the publication and sale of
the dictionary by the appellants which was alleged to be
constituting an infringement of the respondents copyright.
The lower court went through both the books minutely and
found, page after page, word after word, slavishly copied,
including the errors, and found the sequence, the
meanings, the arrangement and everything else practically
the same, except for some deliberate differences
introduced here and there to cover up the piracy.
The High Court referred to Copinger and James on Law of
Copyright wherein the law has been neatly summarized that:
 In the case of compilations such as dictionaries, gazetteers,

grammars, maps, arithmetics, almanacs, encyclopaedias and
guide books, new publications dealing with similar subject-matter
must of necessity resemble existing publications, and the defence
of common source is frequently made where the new publication
is alleged to constitute an infringement of an earlier one.
 The Court held that in law books and in books as mentioned
above there is very little amount of originality but the same is
protected by law and no man is entitled to steal or appropriate for
himself the result of another’s brain, skill or labour even in such
works. The Court further clarified that where there is a common
source, the person relying on it must prove that he actually went
to the common source from where he borrowed, employing his
own skill, labour and brains and that he did not merely copy.
In C. Cunniah & Co. v Balraj & Co.,
AIR 1961 Madras 111
 the appellant firm was carrying on the business in pictures,
picture frames, etc. One Sri T.M. Subramaniam drew a
picture of Lord Balasubramanya and gave it the title of
Mayurapriya and a copyright was assigned to the appellant.
 It came to the knowledge of the appellant firm that the
respondent firm was printing and selling copies of a close
and colourable imitation of the appellants picture under the
style of Bala Murugan.
 The case of the defence was that their picture was an
independent production and that the appellant had not
acquired copyright in the picture and the subject dealt with
in that picture was a common subject, in which no
copyright could be acquired by anyone.
In Agarwala
Publishing House v. Board of High School and Intermediat
e Education and Another
, ,AIR
a writ1967
petitionAll.
was 91
filed by a publisher firm challenging an amendment of the
Regulations of the Board declaring that copyright of the question papers set at all
examinations conducted by the Board shall vest in the Board and forbidding the
publication of such question papers without the Boards permission. The question
involved in the case was whether the question papers are òriginal literary work
and come within the purview of Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was
urged that no copyright can exist in examination papers because they are not
original literary work.
 It was held that the ‘original literary works’ referred to in Section 13 of the
Copyright Act, 1957, are not confined to the works of literature as commonly
understood. It would include all works expressed in writing, whether they have any
literary merits or not.
 This is clear from the definition given in Section 2(o) of the Act which states that
literary work includes tables and compilations.
 The Court further held that the word ‘original’ used in Section 13 does not imply
any originality of ideas but merely means that the work in question should not be
copied from some other work but should originate in the author, being the product
of his labour and skill.
In the case of Gangavishnu Shrikisondas v. Moreshvar
Bapuji Hegishte and Others, ILR 13 Bom 358
, the plaintiff, a book seller, in 1984 brought out a new and annotated edition
of a certain well-known Sanskrit work on religious observances entitled
‘Vrtraj,’ having for that purpose obtained the assistance of the pandits, who re-
cast and re-arranged the work, introduced various passages from other old
Sanskrit books on the same subject and added footnotes. Later on, the
defendant printed and published an edition of the same work, the text of which
is identical with that of the plaintiff’s work, which moreover contained the
same additional pages and the same footnotes, at the same places, with many
slight differences. The foundation of both plaintiff’s and defendant’s books is
an old Sanskrit work on Hindu ceremonial, which could have been published
by anyone. The copyright claimed by the plaintiff was on the additions and
alterations to the original text, which the parties admit to be material and
valuable, and in which the copyright is claimed of its prior publication. The
defendants argued that there was nothing really original in the plaintiff’s book
and, therefore, he was not entitled to copyright in the book. It was held by the
Court that a new arrangement of old matters will give a right to the protection
afforded by the law of copyright.
In Rai Toys Industries and Others v.
Munir Printing Press
 1982 PTC 85, the plaintiff had published a Tambola ticket book
containing 1500 different tickets in 1929. The plaintiffs alleged that
the defendants had brought out another ticket book which the
plaintiffs claimed to have written in 1929 and registered as copyright.
 The ticket book brought out by the defendants was alleged to contain
600 different tickets and the same had been copied identically from
the books of the plaintiff.
 On this basis, a suit for injunction and rendition of account was filed
by the plaintiff. The question before the court was whether the ticket-
books in the form of tables constitute literary work; and whether
copyright has been violated or not?
 It was held by the High Court that preparation of tickets and placing
them in tables required a good deal of skill and labour and would thus
satisfy the test of being original literary work.
In Macmillan and Another v. Suresh Chandra Deb, ILR
17 Cal 952
 the plaintiffs were proprietors of the copyright of a selection of songs and
poems composed by various authors, which was published in 1861.
 In 1889, the defendants published a book containing same selection of
poems and songs as was contained in plaintiffs book, the arrangement,
however, being different.
 The plaintiffs claimed copyright in the selection made by them.
 The defendants, on the other hand, contended that there could be no
copyright in such selection.
 The Court held that in the case of works not original in the proper sense of
the term, but composed of, or compiled or prepared from material which are
open to all, the fact that one man has produced such a work does not take
away from any one else the right to produce another work of the same kind,
and in doing so to use all the materials open to him
 The Court was of the opinion that the selection of poems made by the
plaintiff and embodied in the Golden Treasury was the subject of copyright
and that the defendant’s book had infringed that right.
Mr. P N Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondents' submissions:
 In Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc., 18 USPQ 2d. 1275, Rural
Telephone Service Co. publishes a typical telephone directory consisting of white pages
and yellow pages. The white pages list in alphabetical order the names of rural
subscribers together with their towns and telephone numbers.
 The yellow pages list Rural’s business subscribers alphabetically by category and feature
classified advertisements of various sizes. To obtain white pages listings for its area-wide
directory, Feist Publications Inc. approached different telephone companies operating in
North West Kansas and offered to pay for the right to use their white pages listings.
 Of them, only Rural refused. Unable to license Rural’s white pages listings, Feist used
them without Rural’s consent.
 Rural sued for copyright infringement in the District Court taking the position that Feist,
in compiling its own directory, could not use the information contained in Rural’s white
pages.
 The United States Supreme Court held that the sine qua non of copyright is originality.
To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. Original, as
the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the
author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some
minimal degree of creativity. The requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a
slight amount will suffice.
Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674
(2nd Cir. 1998)
 United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, which directly covers the
reports of the judgments of the courts. The facts involved in the case are
that the West Publishing Co. and West Publishing Corp. (‘West’) obtain
the text of judicial opinions directly from courts It alters these texts into
(i) independently composed features, such as syllabus, headnotes which
summarize the specific points of law recited in each opinion and key
numbers which categorize points of law into different legal topics and
sub-topics and (ii) additions of certain factual information to the text of
the opinions, including parallel or alternative citations to cases, attorney
information, and data on subsequent procedural history. West publishes
the case reports in different series of case reporters collectively known as
‘National Reporter System.’ Two series of case reporters at issue in that
case were the Supreme Court Reporter and the Federal Reporter.
HyperLaw publishes and markets CD-ROMs which are compilations of
the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals that cover
approximately the same ground.
Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Publishing
Co., 158 F.3d 674 (2nd Cir. 1998)
 HyperLaw intends to expand its CD-ROM product taking the material
from the West publications. HyperLaw intervened and sought a
judgment declaring that the individual West case reports that are left
after redaction of the first category of alterations do not contain
copyrightable material. It was held by the Court that for copyright
protection, the material does not require novelty or invention, but
minimal creativity is required. All of West’s alterations to judicial
opinions involve the addition and arrangement of facts, or the
rearrangement of data already included in the opinions, and, therefore,
any creativity in these elements of West’s case reports lies in West’s
selection and arrangement of this information. West’s choices on
selection and arrangement can reasonably be viewed as obvious, typical
and lacking even minimal creativity. Copyright protection is unavailable
for both derivative works and compilations alike unless, when analysed
as a whole, they display sufficient originality so as to amount to an
original work of authorship.
To support a copyright
 there must be at least some substantial variation,
not merely a trivial variation such as might occur
in the translation to a different medium.
 Creativity in selection and arrangement, therefore,
is a function of:
(i) the total number of options available,
(ii) external factors that limit the viability of certain
options and render others non-creative, and
(iii) prior uses that render certain selections
`garden variety.
In the case of Key Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today
Publishing Enterprises, Inc., 945 F.2d.509
 Key Publication published an Annual Classified Business Directory for New York
City’s Chinese-American community. In 1990, Galore Publication published the
Galore Directory, a classified directory for the New York Chinese American
community. Key brought a suit against Galore Directory charging that Galore
Directory infringed Key’s copyright in the 1989-90 Key Directory. The United
States Court of Appeal held that individual components of compilation are
generally within the public domain and thus available for public. There are three
requirements for a compilation to qualify for copyright protection : (1) the
collection and assembly of pre-existing data; (2) selection, coordination or
arrangement of the data; and (3) the resulting work that comes into being is
original, by virtue of the selection, coordination or arrangement of the data
contained in the work. For originality, the work is not required to contain novelty.
 It extended copyright protection in compilation beyond selection and arrangement
- the compiler’s original contribution to the facts themselves drawn on ‘sweat of
the brow’ is a copyright protection to the facts discovered by the compiler.
 The court discarded ‘sweat of the brow’ notion of copyright law.

In Macmillan and Company v. K. and J.
Cooper
, action
 1924 wasPrivy
brought byCouncil
McMillan and75
Company to restrain the respondent-
firm who was carrying on the trade and business of publishers of
educational books, from printing, distributing or otherwise disposing of
copies of the book published by the appellants.
 The ground on which the relief was claimed was that the appellants had a
copyright in the book entitled ‘Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, Sir Thomas
North’s Translation and that the respondent published subsequently a book
entitled ‘Plutarch’s Life of Alexander the Great, North’s Translation, as it
had infringed the copyright to which the appellants were entitled in the
earlier compilation. The Court noted the contents of the book of the
appellants as also that of the respondent.
 The originality which is required relates to expression of thought and the
Act does not require that the expression must be in original or novel form.
 The work must not be copied from another work that it should originate
from the author
The Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of CCH
Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 (1)
SCR 339 (Canada)
 has noticed the competing views on the meaning of òriginal’ in
copyright law wherein some courts have held that a work which has
originated from an author and is more than a mere copy of a work, is
sufficient to give copyright. This approach is held to be consistent
with the `sweat of the brow’ or ìndustriousness standard of
originality on the premise that an author deserves to have his or her
efforts in producing a work rewarded.
 Whereas the other courts have held that a work must be creative to
be original and thus protected by the copyright Act, which approach
is consistent with a natural rights theory of property law; however, it
is less absolute in that only those works that are the product of
creativity will be rewarded with copyright protection and it was
suggested in those decisions that the creativity approach to
originality helps ensure that copyright protection is extended to the
expression of ideas as opposed to the underlying ideas or facts.
The Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of CCH Canadian Ltd.
v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 (1) SCR 339 (Canada)
 The appellant, Law Society of Upper Canada, has maintained and

operated the Great Library at Osgoode Hall in Toranto, a reference and
research library. The Great Library provides a request- based photocopy
service for Law Society members, the judiciary and other authorized
researchers. Under the custom photocopy service, legal materials are
reproduced and delivered to the requesters. The Law Society also
maintains self-service photocopiers in the Great Library for use by its
patrons. The respondents, CCH Canadian Ltd., Thomson Canada Ltd. and
Canada Law Book Inc. publish law reports and other legal materials. The
law book publishers commenced copyright infringement action against
the Law Society claiming ownership of copyright in 11 specific works on
the ground that the Law Society had infringed copyright when the Great
Library reproduced a copy of each of the works. The publishers further
sought permanent injunction prohibiting the Law Society from
reproducing these 11 works as well as any other works that they
published.
The Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of CCH
Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 (1)
SCR 339 (Canada)
 The Law Society denied liability and submitted that the
copyright is not infringed when a single copy of a reported
decision, case summary, statute, regulation or a limited
selection of text from a treatise is made by the Great
Library staff or one of its patrons on a self-service
photocopier for the purpose of research. The Court was
called upon to decide the question as to what shall be the
originality in the work of compilation.
 On consideration of various cases, it was held that to be
original under the Copyright Act the work must originate
from an author, not be copied from another work, and
must be the product of an author’s exercise of skill and
judgment.
Thus, the Canadian Supreme Court held:
 A creative standard implies that something must be novel or
non-obvious - concepts more properly associated with
patent law than copyright law. By way of contrast, a
standard requiring the exercise of skill and judgment in the
production of a work avoids these difficulties and provides
a workable and appropriate standard for copyright
protection that is consistent with the policy of the objectives
of the Copyright Act. Thus, the Canadian Supreme Court is
of the view that to claim copyright in a compilation, the
author must produce a material with exercise of his skill
and judgment which may not be creativity in the sense that
it is not novel or non- obvious, but at the same time it is not
the product of merely labour and capital
Held:
 “For the reasons stated in the aforesaid discussion, the appeals are
partly allowed. The High Court has already granted interim relief to the
plaintiff-appellants by directing that though the respondent-defendants
shall be entitled to sell their CD-ROMS with the text of the judgments of
the Supreme Court along with their own head notes, editorial notes, if
any, they should not in any way copy the head notes of the plaintiff-
appellants; and that the defendant-respondents shall also not copy the
footnotes and editorial notes appearing in the journal of the plaintiff-
appellants. It is further directed by us that the defendant-respondents
shall not use the paragraphs made by the appellants in their copy-edited
version for internal references and their editor’s judgment regarding the
opinions expressed by the Judges by using phrases like concurring’,
‘partly dissenting’, etc. on the basis of reported judgments in SCC. The
judgment of the High Court is modified to the extent that in addition to
the interim relief already granted by the High Court, we have granted the
above-mentioned additional relief to the appellants.”

Case-Summary-: Dr.P. Sree Sudha Associate Professor Dsnlu

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

Case-Summary-: Dr.P. Sree Sudha Associate Professor Dsnlu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE-SUMMARY-

Acquaint with the concept of Copyright

 A wide interval might, of course, exist between these two

This is based on the first proviso to

The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to the

 There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical

• The Defendants were the employees of the Plaintiff,

A computer database is a collection of information stored on computer

• Defendants and the Plaintiff stood at par with each

The relationship between the parties was one

• There is no documentation placed by the Defendants on record

 Great importance had to be attached to any breach of

The contention of a database being an original literary work was not

 The plaintiff Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., is one

i) breach of confidentiality by the

 "There is a broad and developing equitable doctrine that he who has

 The learned counsel for the defendants strenuously urged that

 Having considered two works involved in this case not

 In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no

 Prior to this case the Indian courts, implicitly, followed

No stay was given to the Appellants.

 The Division Bench modified the judgment of the Single

 (1) What shall be the standard of originality in the copy-edited

 Judgments delivered by the Supreme Court would be a government work

 The question, therefore, is whether by introducing certain

 Copyright subsists in the copy-edited version of the text of

 In the case of compilations such as dictionaries, gazetteers,

 The appellant, Law Society of Upper Canada, has maintained and

You might also like