INTRODUCTION

Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights given by the law to the creators of

original works. It is a form of intellectual property protection granted by law. The

rights provided under Copyright law include the rights of reproduction of the

work, communication of the work to the public, adaptation of the work and

translation of the work.

Copyright laws serve to create property rights for certain kinds of intellectual

property, generally called works of authorship. Copyright laws protect the legal

rights of the creator of an ‘original work’ by preventing others from reproducing

the work in any other way.

The main goals of copyright are: -

• To encourage the development of culture, science and innovation

• To provide a financial benefit to copyright holders for their works

• To facilitate access to knowledge and entertainment for the public.

Copyright provides a framework for relationships between the different players

in the content industries, as well as for relationships between rights holders and

the consumers of content. Copyright is a form of Intellectual Property, along with

trademarks and patents in all countries, and other creations (such as trade secrets,

database rights, rights of publicity and the like) that may vary from country to

country.
BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO RELATED INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

AND CONVENTIONS

Indian copyright law is at parity with the international standards as contained in

TRIPS. The (Indian) Copyright Act, 1957, pursuant to the amendments in 1999,

2002 and 2012, fully reflects the Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and

Artistic Works, 1886 and the Universal Copyrights Convention, to which India is

a party. India is also a party to the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Rights

of Producers of Phonograms and is an active member of the World Intellectual

Property Organization (WIPO) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

International copyright treaties

Several international treaties encourage reasonably coherent protection of

copyright from country to country. They set minimum standards of protection

which each signatory country then implements within the bounds of its own

copyright law.

1. Berne Convention, 1886

Berne convention was the first and oldest multilateral convention on copyright

that was for the protection of literary and artistic work which was adopted in

1886.
Initially 10 nations were part of this convention and today 152 nations out of 190

are part of it. This convention made a union for the protection of rights of the

authors in their literary and artistic work.

The Berne Convention provides that, at a minimum, copyright protection in all

signatory countries should extend to “literary and artistic works”, including

“every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be

the mode or form of its expression.”

The Berne Convention contributed some major concerns to the copyright laws: -

1. The work originating in one signatory nation of Berne Convention to be

protected in the same manner in other nations too.

2. The automatic protection was granted to the author’s work and was not

subjected to any registration deposition fees or any formal notice in

connection with the publication. This means that the copyright exists as

soon as the work is “FIXED” i.e. recorded in any form.

3. If any dispute arises in the nation of origin, then the dispute can be filed in

either of both nations.

4. It described types of works protected, duration of protection, scope of

exceptions and Limitations of copyright.

5. Principles such as “national treatment” (works originating in one

signatory country are given the same protection in the other signatory

countries as each grants to works of its own nationals)

 6. Principles such as “automatic protection” (copyright inheres

automatically in a qualifying work upon its fixation in a tangible medium

and without any required prior formality).

2. WIPO Copyright Treaty

The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) is a special agreement under the Berne

Convention which deals with the protection of works and the rights of their

authors in the digital environment. In addition to the rights recognized by the

Berne Convention, they are granted certain economic rights. The Treaty also

deals with two subject matters to be protected by copyright:

i.Computer programs, whatever the mode or form of their expression; and

ii.Compilations of data or other material ("databases").

The treaty was signed in 1996 and also recognizes that the transmission of works

over the Internet and similar networks is an exclusive right within the scope of

copyright, originally held by the creator.

It categorizes as copyright infringements both: -

• The circumvention of technological protection measures attached to works

• The removal from a work of embedded rights management information.

3. The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property

Rights (TRIPS)
The Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) is

comprehensive in giving cover to all areas of technology, property, patents,

trademarks, copyrights and so on.

The TRIPs encourages upon the member country’s sovereign right to frame its

own legislation on intellectual property matters. This clause has been included on

account of persistent demand from the developed and industrialized countries.

The TRIPs Agreement covers seven categories of intellectual property rights:

• Copyright

• Trademarks

• Geographical Indications

• Industrial Designs

• Patents

• Integrated Circuits

• Trade Secrets

It was signed in 1996 and administered by the world trade organization. This

agreement includes a number of provisions related to the enforcement of

Intellectual Property rights. It says that national laws have to make the effective

enforcement of Intellectual Property rights possible, and describes in detail

how enforcement should be addressed.

INDIAN COPYRIGHTS ACT, 1957

Copyright law protects expressions of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. It

protects original works of ownership. It gives an exclusive right to do or authorize

others to do certain acts in relation to literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic

works, cinematography and sound recordings. Computer programmes are also

included in literary works. Authors of Computer programmes, broadcasting

organizations are to be given the right to authorize or prohibit the commercial

rental of their works to the public. These similar exclusive rights also apply to the

films.

The Copyright Act, 1957, along with the Copyright Rules, 1958, is the governing

law for copyright protection in India. After independence, the Indian Copyright

Act was the first law which was enacted from the provisions of Berne Convention.

Objectives:

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 is enacted with the following two main

objectives:

1. Encouragement to the Original Work:

The main objective of the Copyright Act is to encourage authors, composers,

artists, and designers to create original works by rewarding them with the

exclusive right for a limited period (usually for the life of the originator plus 50

years) to exploit the work for monetary gain.

The economic exploitation is done by licensing such exclusive rights to the

entrepreneurs like publishers, film producers and record manufacturers for

monetary consideration. In reality, people who economically exploit the

copyright are the greater beneficiaries of the copyright law than the creators of

works of copyright. The publishers and authors of books are such examples.

2. Protection to the Originator:

The objective of copyright law is also, in essence, to protect the author or the

creator of the original work from the unauthorized reproduction or exploitation

of his/her materials. The right also extends to prevent others from exercising

without authority any other form of right attached to copyright, for example, in

case of literary work, the right of translation, adaptation or abridgement.

In recent times, with the rapid advance of technology, copyright infringement in

the form of ‘piracy’ has become a serious problem of international character. This

is because the technological progress has made reproduction of copyright

material easy and cheap.

Accordingly, the Indian copyright owners can protect their copyright in almost

any country in the world. The appropriate actions taken under the Copyright Act

1957 can stop infringement of copyright. Infringement of copyright is also an

offence punishable with imprisonment and fine.

DEVELOPMENT OF COPYRIGHT LAWS IN INDIA

The Indian Copyright law was developed in 3 phases:

1. Early Phase: - In 1911, the earliest statutory law on copyright was made

under the administration of British rule. The provisions of the Berne

convention were followed. During that phase, the term of copyright was

for the lifetime of the author plus 7 years after his death and the government

could grant compulsory license to publish a book. The registration was also

made necessary in 1914.

2. Modern Phase: - Copyright Act of 1911 was again amended in 1914 and it

was also called modern copyright legislation. For the very first time

criminal sanction was introduced in act for infringement of copyright. The

term of the copyright was fixed for 10 years from the date of its first

publication. This act remained applicable until replaced by Copyright Act,

1957.

3. 1957 Phase: - The Act was enacted after the independence of the nation

from British rule. It was the first enactment of intellectual property laws. It

came into force on 21st January 1958. Major provisions of act were adopted

by the Berne convention of protection of literary and artistic work, 1886.

This act is amended 6 times till now to align with rapid changes in society

and provisions of international treaties i.e. Berne Convention, UCC, TRIPs

Agreement.
SUBJECT MATTER OF COPYRIGHT, ECONOMICS AND MORAL

RIGHTS

Modern copyright laws serve to protect a variety of intellectual property ranging

from songs and jingles to computer software and proprietary databases. All

subject matters protected by copyright are called ‘works’. Thus according

to Section 13 of The Copyright Act 1957, it may be subjected for the following

works:

Clause (a) of this Section 13 provides the definition of original work whereas

clause (b) and (c) provides secondary works.

1. Primary Works

1. Original Literary Work,

2. Original Dramatic work,

3. Original Musical work,

4. Original Artistic Work,

2. Secondary Works

1. Cinematography films, and

2. Sound recordings.

• Original Literary Works:

Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides an inclusive definition of word

literary works according to which the literary work includes computer

programming, tablets, and compilations including computer database. These

cover published works including books, articles, journals, and periodicals, as well

as manuscripts. Even adaptations, translations, and abridgements are taken as

original works and are protected under copyright law. Section 13(a) classify

literary works in the primary work.

Case: Zee Telefilms v. Sundial Communications

Facts: A had prepared concept notes for the purpose of television film which

consist of characters, plots, notes and sketches etc.

Issues: Whether A is entitled to copyright of those concept notes?

Held: Yes, since A invests labour and skill in preparing the concept paper. Such

person is entitled for copyright.

Case: Macmillan & Co. v. K.J Cooper

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

Alexander the great, joined together by few words to give a different appearance.

The book also contained an introduction and notes useful for education. A similar

book was published by defendants with notes. The original work contained

40,000 words while the defendants had copied 20,000 words and 7000 words in

notes.

Issue: Whether the defendants work infringed the copyright in the plaintiff’s

works?

Held: Defendants work infringed the copyright

 • Original Dramatic Works:

According to section 2(h) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the dramatic work includes

any piece for recitation, choreographic work or entertainment in dumb shows, the

scenic arrangement or acting form which is fixed in writing or otherwise but does

not include a cinematographic film. Since the definition is an inclusive one, the

other things fall within the general meaning of dramatic work, and may also be

covered by the definition.

Case: Academy of General Education Manipal v. Malini Mallya

Court shows clear difference between literary and dramatic work. The difference

between the two rests on the fact that literary work allows itself to be read while

a dramatic work “forms the text upon which the performance of the plays rests.”

A dance performance will not be covered under copyright work but under

dramatic work.

Case: Creation Records v. New Group Newspaper

Held: It was held that a photograph which involves no movement or action cannot

be treated as dramatic work. Copyright of Dramatic work can in form of:

Adaption of Dramatic work:- Adaptation work means modification of that work

in some other form.

• Original Musical Works:

According to section 2(p) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the musical work means

any work consisting of music and includes any graphical notion of such work, but
does not include any words or any action intended to be sung, spoken or

performed with the music. The words in a song and the music have separate rights

and the rights cannot be merged. In order to qualify for copyright protection, a

musical work must be original.

Example:- Famous song “Yaaram” which is written by Gulzar and composed by

Vishal Bharadwaj. The copyright of the lyrics will belong to Gulzar and musical

composition will be of the composer Vishal Bharadwaj.

• Original Artistic Works:

According to the section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the artistic work

includes any painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving photograph of any work

possessing artistic qualities. However, it also includes the architecture and artistic

craftsmanship of such works.

Case: Associated publishers vs Bashyam

Facts: A portrait of Mahatma Gandhi was made based on two photographs.

Held: A portrait based on photographs will be entitled to copyright if it produced

a result from the photograph and the portrait itself is original.

Example: A photographer took a photograph of a painting of MF Hussain, then

paints the same himself and sells such copies painted by him.

Held: A copyright in a painting is infringed when a person copies from the

original painting or a picture of painting.

• Cinematographic Films
Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines cinematographic films which

includes any work of visual recording and a sound recording accompanying such

visual recording and the expression cinematograph shall be construed as

including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematographic

including video films. It is classified into secondary works as suggested in clause

(b) of section 13 of the act.

Case: R.G. Anand vs Delux Films

Facts: Plaintiff was a producer and play writer of play ‘Hum Hindustani’. The

plaintiff tried to consider the possibility of filming and narrated the play to

defendant. The defendant, without informing the plaintiff, made the picture ‘New

Delhi’ which was alleged to be based on the said play.

Issue: Whether the film ‘New Delhi’ was an infringement of the plaintiff’s

copyright in play ‘Hum Hindustani’?

Held: No, because the stories were different, only the theme “love story” was

same.

Case: Balwinder Singh vs Delhi Administration

Held: The concept of cinematograph is not only limited to movies being played

in theater it also covers videos and television, they both fall under the preview of

cinematograph film.

Level of Originality:
A television report or documentary may be based upon a live incident or a

newspaper report, thus the act does not prescribe any specified level of originality

in the cinematographic film.

• Sound Recordings:

According to section 2(xx) of The Copyright Act, 1957, sound recording

suggests that a recording of sounds from which that sound may be produced

regardless of the medium on which such recording is made or the method by

which the sounds are produced. Clause (c) of section 13 of the act state sound

recordings as a by-product works.

Case: Gramophone Co. India v. Super Cassette Industries

Facts: ‘G.co’, Plaintiff, produced audio records titled ‘Hum Aapke Hain Kaun’

by Rajashree production ltd, who were the owners of cinematographic work.

They had already sold 55 lakhs audio cassettes and 40,000 compact discs titled

‘Hum Aapke Hain Kaun’. The defendants too launched an audio cassette by

adopting the same title with its design, color scheme, get up and layout

deceptively similar. Permanent Injunction was sought.

Held: Injunction varied by stipulating not to use the same title, design colour

scheme etc with bold letters the record is version of different artists.

RIGHTS OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

In the Copyright Act, 1957, the owner possesses the rights which are to prevent

others from using his works in certain ways and to claim compensation for the
usurpation of that right. In this Act, there are two types of rights given to the

owner:

• Economical rights;

• Moral rights.

Economic rights

This right is also known as the Exclusive Rights of the copyright holder provided

under Section 14 of the Act. In this Act different types of work come with

different types of rights. Such as:

1. In the case of original literary, musical, and dramatic work:

• Right to reproduce;

• Right to issue copies;

• Right to perform at public;

• Right to make cinematography and sound recording;

• Right to make any translation;

• Right to adaptation; and

• Right to do any other activities related to the translation or adaptation.

2. In the case, of computer program work:

• Right to do any act aforesaid mentioned; and

• Right to sell, rent, offer for sale of the copyrighted work.

3. In the case of artistic work:

 • Right to reproduce;

• Right to communicate;

• Right to issue copies;

• Right to make any cinematography and sound recording;

• Right to make an adaptation; and

• Right to do any other activities related to the translation or adaptation.

4. In case of a cinematograph film work:

• Right to sell, rent, offer for sale of the copyrighted work; and

• Right to communicate.

5. In the case of a sound recording work:

• Right to communicate;

• Right to issue copies; and

• Right to sell, rent, offer for sale of the copyrighted work.

Moral rights

In addition to the protection of economic rights, the Copyright Act, 1957

conjointly protects the ethical rights, that is due to the actual fact that a literary or

inventive work reflects the temperament of the creator, just as much as the

economic rights reflects the author’s need to keep the body and the soul of his

work out from commercial exploitation and infringement. These rights are

supported by Article 6 of the Berne Convention of 1886, formally referred to as

a world convention for the protection of literary and inventive works, whose core
provision relies on the principle of national treatment, i.e. treats the opposite good

as one’s own.

Section 57 of The Copyright Act, 1957 recognize two types of moral rights which

are:

• Right to paternity– which incorporates the right to assert the authorship

of the work, and right to forestall others from claiming authorship of his

work; and

• Right to integrity- which incorporates right to restrain, or claim of

damages in respect of any distortion, modification, mutilation, or any

other act relates to the said work if such distortion, multiplication or

alternative act would be prejudiced to claimant honor or name.

AUTHORSHIP AND OWNERSHIP IN COPYRIGHT

Section 17 of this Act recognizes the author as the first owner, which states that

subject to the provision of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner

of the copyright therein:

• In the case of literary or dramatic composition, the author,

• In the case of musical work, the musician,

• In the case of creative work apart from photography, the artist,

• In the case of photographic work, the artist,

• In the case of cinematographic or recording work, the producer,

 • In case of any work generated by any computer virus, the one who

created.

However, this provision provided to bound exception:

• In case of creation is made by the author underemployment of the

proprietor of any newspaper, magazine or any periodic, the said

proprietor,

• In the case where a photograph is taken, painting or portrait is drawn,

cinematograph is made for the valuable consideration of any person,

such person,

• In case of a work done in the course of the author’s employment under

the contract of service, such employer,

• In case of address or speech delivered on behalf of another person in

public, such person,

• In the case of government works, the government,

• In the case of work done under direction and control of public

undertaking such public undertaking, and

• In the case of work done in which provision of Section 41 apply,

concerned international organizations.

ASSIGNMENT OF COPYRIGHT
The owner of the copyright can generate wealth not only by exploiting it but also

by sharing it with others for mutual benefit. This can be done by the way of

assignment and licensing of copyright.

Only the owner of the copyright has the right to assign his existing or future

copyrighted work either wholly or partly and as a result of such assignment the

assignee becomes entitled to all the rights related to copyright to the assigned

work, and he shall be treated as the owner of the copyright in respect of those

rights.

Mode of the assignment agreement

As per Section 19, these conditions are necessary for a valid assignment:

• It should be in writing and signed;

• It should specify the kinds of rights assigned and the duration or

territorial extent; and

• It should specify the amount of royalty payable if required in any case.

It is also provided that, if the period is not mentioned in the agreement it will be

considered as five years and if the territorial extent is not stipulated in the

agreement, it will be considered as applicable to the whole of India.

Disputes related to the assignment of copyright

According to the Copyright Act, 1957, the appellant board where the receipt of

the complaint by the assignor and after holding necessary inquiry finds that the

assignee has failed to make the exercise of the rights assigned to him, and such
failure is attributed to any act or omission of the assignor, may by suitable order,

revoke such assignment. However, if the dispute arises with respect to the

assignment of any copyright then that appellate board may also order the recovery

of any royalty payable.

Operation of law in assignment

According to The Copyright Act, 1957, where under a bequest a person is entitled

to the manuscript of any literary, dramatic or any other kind of work and such

work has not been published before the death of the testator, unless the contrary

is proved such person shall be treated as the owner for such work.

INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES

Where a person intentionally or unintentionally infringes the rights of the

copyright holder, the holder may be subject to the following remedies available

under this Act.

Civil remedies

These remedies are given under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 which are:

Interlocutory injunction

This is the most important remedy against the copyright infringement, it means a

judicial process by which one who is threatening to invade or has invaded the

legal or equitable rights of another is restrained from commencing or continuing

such act, or is commanded to restore matters to the position in which they stood

previous to the relation. Thus for granting the interlocutory injunction, the

following three factors are considered as necessary:

 • Prima facie case, an assumption of the court that the plaintiff can

succeed in the case and become eligible for relief.

• Balance of convenience, in it the court will determine which parties

suffer the greater harm, this determination can vary with the facts of

each case.

• Irreparable injury, it is difficult to decide and determine on a case by

case basis. Some examples of it include- loss of goodwill or irrevocable

damages to reputation, loss of market share.

Mareva injunction

This is a particular form of the interlocutory injunction which restrains the

defendant from disposing of assets that may be required to satisfy the plaintiff’s

claim or for removing them from the jurisdiction of the Court.

Anton Piller order

This order is passed to take into possession the infringed documents, copies and

other relevant material of the defendant, by the solicitor of the plaintiff. This order

is named after the famous case of Anton Piller KG v/s Manufacturing Process

Ltd, 1976. In this case, the plaintiff Antone Piller, the German manufacturer is

successful in passing ex-parte awards of restraining the use of his copyrighted

products against the defendant.

John Deo’s order

In this order, the Court has the power to injunct rather than those impeded in the

suit, who may be found violating the rights in the field of copyright. Thus this

order is issued against the unknown person, who has allegedly committed some

wrong, but whose identities cannot entertain the plaintiff.

Pecuniary remedies

There are three types of pecuniary remedies provided:

1. An account of profit, which lets the owner seek the sum of money made,

equal to the profit made through unlawful conduct.

2. Compensatory damages, which let the copyright owner seek the

damages he suffered.

3. Conversational damages, which are assessed to the value of the article.

Criminal remedies

For infringement of copyright, the criminal remedies provided under Section 63:

• Imprisonment, not less than 6 months which may extend up to 3 years;

• Fine may not be less than 50,000 which may extend up to 2,00,000;

• Search and seizure of copyrighted goods; and

• Delivery of copyrighted goods to the copyrighted owner.

In the case of repeat offenders, minimum punishment terms of 1 year and fine of

1 lakh however, the highest punishment will be the same as the first time offender.

EXCEPTIONS
This act shall not constitute copyright infringement in cases of:

Fair Dealing

Fair dealing is the statutory limitation on the exclusive right of the copyright

owner which permits reproduction or use of copyrighted work in a manner that

otherwise would have constituted infringement. This law is given under Section

52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 according to which the free uses can be made for

any work except computer program for the purposes:

• For private and personal use including research,

• For criticism and review,

• For reporting of current events or issues including lectures in public,

• For broadcasting in cinematographic films or by posting photographs,

• For reproduction and reporting of any judicial proceeding,

• For reproduction, or publication of any kind of work prepared by the

secretariat of a legislature,

• For reproduction of any kind of work in a certified copy made or

supplied accordance with any law,

• For reading and recitation of any literary or dramatic work in the public

domain,

• For publication of any non-copyright matter bona fide intended for the

use of educational institutes, and

• For recording any sound by the owner of the right in the work.
INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT ORDERS

Chapter IX of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 describe the provisions of

international copyright. Section 40 states the powers to extend copyright to

foreign works and section 42 govern the provisions as to works of certain

international organizations.

Power to extend copyright to foreign works are as follows -

The Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, direct

that all or any provisions of this Act, shall apply.

(a) To published work first within the territory of India and then outside

(b) To unpublished works, the authors whereof were at the time of the making of

the work, subjects or citizens of a foreign country to which the order relates, in

like manner as if the authors were citizens of India.

(c) In respect of domicile in any territory outside India to which the order relates

in like manner as if such domicile were in India

(d) To any work of which the author was at the date of the first publication

thereof, or, in case where the author was dead at the date, was at the time of his

death, a subject or citizens of foreign country to which the order relates in like

manner as if the author was a citizen of India at that date or time.

According to section 42 of the act, it provides power to restrict rights in works of

foreign authors first published in India – If it appears to the Central Government

that a foreign country does not give or has not undertaken to give adequate

protection to the works of Indian authors, the Central Government may, by order
published in the Official Gazette, direct that such of the provisions of this Act as

confer copyright on works first published after the date specified in the order, the

authors whereof are subjects or citizens of such foreign country and are not

domiciled in India, and thereupon those provisions shall not apply to such works.

ISSUES IN DIGITAL COPYRIGHTS

Digital Right Management includes techniques which have been developed to

control duplication, modification and distribution of original works. The authors

or the creators of the original works contend that DRM techniques are necessary

in order to protect their interest by preventing free and unauthorized copying and

distribution of their work.

However there are few who support the view that DRM techniques pose

unnecessary hurdles for the public and impede the way of innovation and

creativity by not letting others from being motivated by the original work of

others.

PROVISIONS UNDER INDIAN COPYRIGHT LAW

Many techniques have been developed to protect the original work like digital

watermarking, access and copy controls etc. However, despite the fact that these

techniques have been incorporated in the legislations, regulation and protection

of original works in the digital environment remains a goal that is yet to be

achieved. It is very important that ideas should be available to the general public

so that the flow of creativity must not be blocked. However creators and authors
must always be incentivized for their efforts. Hence the interest of both must be

kept in mind while enacting and implementing DRM techniques.

Strengthening of Border Measures

Section 53, dealing with importation of infringing copies, has been substituted

with a new section providing detailed border measures to strengthen enforcement

of rights by making provision to control import of infringing copies by the

Customs Department, disposal of infringing copies and presumption of

authorship under civil remedies.

Protection of Technological Measures

The new section 65A, introduced for protection of technological protection

measures (TPM) used by a copyright owner to protect his rights on the work,

makes circumvention of it a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment.

As a result, any person who circumvents an effective technological measure

applied for the protection of any of the rights, with the intention of infringing such

rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to two years

and shall also be liable to fine. The rationale is to prevent the possibility of high

rate infringement (digital piracy) in the digital media.

This amendment also clarifies the problem of circumvention impacting the public

interest on access to work facilitated by the copyright laws. Sub-section (2)

permits circumvention for specified uses.

Digital Rights Management Information

Section 65B has been introduced to provide protection of rights management

information, which has been defined under clause (xa) of section 2.

This amendment is intended to prevent the removal of the rights management

information without authority and distributing any work, fixed performance or

phonogram, after removal of rights management information. As a result, any

unauthorized and intentional removal or alteration of any rights management

information is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment, which may

extend to two years and fine. The rationale of the protection emanates from the

practice in the digital world of managing the rights through online contracts

governing the terms and conditions of use.

The protection of technological measures and rights management information

were introduced in WCT and WPPT as effective measures to prevent

infringement of copyright in digital environments. The introduction of Sections

65A and 65B is expected to help the film, music and publishing industry in

fighting piracy.

Statutory Provisions

Registration of a Copyright Society

Section 33 of The Copyright Act, 1957 states that,

“No person or association of persons shall, after coming into force of the

Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 commence or, carry on the business of

issuing or granting licenses in respect of any work in which copyright subsists

or in respect of any other rights conferred by this Act except under or in

accordance with the registration granted under sub section (3)”[2]

This means that when any person or corporation gets register itself for a

copyright of the work they are doing from a Copyright Society then, any other

corporation cannot perform that work. Section 33 of the Act also states that

there cannot be more than one copyright society for one type of business. Every

Copyright Society should get register within one year from the date of

commencement of The Copyright (amended) Act, 1994. The Act also says

about the group of people who are interested in granting license as it allows

some group of people who can do this business. The minimum membership

required for registration is seven. The Central Government inquires about a

Copyright Society and satisfies that such Copyright Society is detrimental to the

interests of owner if rights concerned than Central Government cancels the

registration of such society or may pass order of suspending the registration for

tenure of one year and also discharges functions by appointing an administrator.

Regarding Remuneration

Section 34 of the Act says about the administration of right of owner in any

work to issue license by the Copyright Society. Owner has a right to withdraw
without any preconceived opinion to the rights of Copyright Society. Copyright

Society can also enter into foreign society agreements managing rights

corresponding to rights of Copyright Society. Whereas Section 34A says that

the Copyright Society shall frame a scheme for discovering the amount of

remuneration payable to individual copyright owners with regards to number of

copies of work in movement.

Tariff scheme is setting out of the nature and amount of royalty which society

advances to collect in respect of copyright. Distribution scheme says about the

procedure for collection and issuance of fees or royalty mentioned in tariff

scheme. Both should not be behind than three months.

Procedure for collection of fees

Section 35 of the Act says about the owner of rights where every Copyright

Society obtains approval for the procedure of collection and allocation of fees,

utilization of fees collected, providing owner full and detailed information about

the activities.

Controversies related to Copyright Societies

One of the biggest controversies held between IPRS and PPL was about the

legitimacy of both. The Copyright Act was amended in 2012 and Section 3A

was inserted on 21st June, 2012 in Section 33 with a proviso stating “every

copyright society already registered before the coming into force of the
copyright (amendment) Act, 2012 shall get itself registered under this chapter

within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Copyright

(Amendment) Act, 2012”[3]. A month before the expiration of a granted period

IPRS and PPL filed an application for a re- registration that is on 8th may, 2013

and 10th may, 2013 but then, IPRS on 2nd June, 2013 and PPL on 20 may, 2014

withdrawn their application. Thus, due to failure of re- registration both IPRS

and PPL were disqualified from being a Copyright Society as they were not

under the conditions of Section 33 of “The Copyright Act, 1957”.

The main reason for their withdrawal was the amendment of 2012 where

‘owners of the right’ was replaced by ‘authors and other owners of the right’

which means that under section 33(4) and 33(5) government can interfere in the

functioning of the Copyright Society. The amendment also said that the number

of authors and owners of work will be in equal number. Both will have equal

rights and there will not be any discrimination in distribution of royalty.

Presently, IPRS and PPL are not considered as registered copyright society.

Case laws

“Phonographic Performance Ltd. V. Hotel Gold Regency & Ors.” is one of the

important case law as it covers many controversies.

Facts:
In this case the Delhi High Court made decision related to Copyright owners

and Copyright Societies which made their life little difficult as earlier Copyright

Societies as licensee usually files Copyright infringement suits in their names in

the behalf of the actual copyright owners who are the real culprits.

Held:

As per ‘The Copyright Act, 1957’, there is no right to use their name as

infringer’s on any other’s behalf. The reasons given in the judgment are

revolving around Section 33, 34, 54, 55 and 61. The defendant contended about

section 55 that only copyright owner can institute a suit where as section 54

defines that copyright owner can only issue a license not file a suit on his name.

In the current case plaintiff himself said that he was not an exclusive license for

Delhi High Court stated that Copyright Society cannot be a licensee. Therefore,

licensee has a right to file a suit.

“M/S Leopold Cafe & Stores & Anr. VS Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd”

Facts:

This case had one of the biggest controversies about the registration of

Copyright Society where the ambiguity between Section 30 and 33 of the

Copyright Act was resolved. In India it is compulsory for commercial premises

to take license to play music in the premise of the creation. Such licenses are

allotted and issued in the Copyright Society namely, Phonographic Performers

Ltd. (PPL) under Section 30 of Copyright Act. When any owner of any

commercial premise wants to play a song in restaurant, hospital or in any public

place to earn financially then, license is required to the owner.

Held:

Therefore, Court interpreted that Section 30 of the Act talks about the

permission given to the owner of the work or the agent authorized to issue

license whereas, Section 33 talks exclusive right to deal in business of granting

and issuing license.

“Eastern Indian Motion Pictures v. The Indian Performing Right Society”

Facts:

There was a producer of cinematographic film who commissioned a valuable

amount to composer or a lyricist for composing music in his film then, a

producer becomes the first owner of the copyright. So, no copyright persist until

or unless any contract is signed between music composer and film producer in

contrast.

Held: The case was set aside and said under Section 14(1)(c) of the Copyright

Act, film producer has right to do all such things.

Conclusion

Not only in India there are many Copyright Societies in all over the world. Also,

there are various other controversies in copyright societies regarding

registration, licensing, ownership rights, etc. The main aim of the copyright

society is to collect royalties and take various measures against the person who

contravenes according to the various copyright works. This creates many

disputes and puts a negative light on Copyright Societies. Copyright Societies

helps to copyright owners to club with foreign Copyright Societies of various

countries. Thus, Copyright Societies plays a major role in copyright owner’s life

as it helps them in associating in business and in earning lot of money.

Fair use

The Act under Section 52 provides some acts which if done will not become

infringement of copyright. These acts can generally be said to be acts for fair

use or purpose. A list of uses has been provided which if done will not be

infringement of copyright but will be the fair use of the work. Some of those

acts are[9]:-

• A fair dealing with any work, not being a computer programme, for the

purposes of private or personal use, including research; criticism or

review, whether of that work or of any other work; the reporting of

current events and current affairs, including the reporting of

a lecture delivered in public.

• the reading or recitation in public of reasonable extracts from a

published literary or dramatic work.

 • the making of not more than three copies of a book (including a

pamphlet, sheet of music, map, chart or plan) by or under the direction of

the person in charge of a 2 [non-commercial public library] for the use of

the library if such book is not available for sale in India.

• the reproduction, for the purpose of research or private study or with a

view to publication, of an unpublished literary, dramatic or musical work

kept in a library, museum or other institution to which the public has

access.

• Thus if anyone does such an act which is provided in the Copyright Act

not to be infringement of the copyright then such act/use will be termed

as fair use which is an exception from the applicability of the laws for

infringement of copyright.

Caselaw

The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of University of Oxford & Ors v.

Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Anr.[10]

In this case, the defendant was involved in selling courses packs to the students

of Delhi University. These materials were extracted from the textbooks of

which the plaintiff was the publisher and had the copyright over it. The teachers

of the institutions also prescribed these packs to the students as a study material.

The plaintiffs- The Oxford University Press, The Cambridge University Press
and the Taylor and Francis Group instituted a suit on the basis of copright

infringement by the defendants. They asked for relief in the form of permanent

injunction so as to restrain the defendant from copying its publications.

The defendant contended that the textbooks are not affordable by the students

for which copying was necessary and it had in no way caused loss in the

original price of the book. They also contended that copying of the books comes

under the exception as provided in the Section 51 (1) (a) and (h) of the

Copyright act 1957.

The interim injunction was granted by the court against the defendant and held

that the defendant had no right to copy the book and provide those course

packs. The University filed an appeal to the division bench which dismissed the

appeal and directed to file application before the single bench.

The Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge (ASEAK) and

Society for Promotion of Equitable Access to Knowledge (SPEAK) came

forward and approached the High Court as a necessary party to the suit. They

contended that the course packs were an effective means to provide the

education to all the students on equal basis.

The Single bench held that there was no infringement of copyright by the

defendant in the copying of the textbooks as such an act was done on the

instruction of the teacher which is an exception as provided under Section 52

(1) (i) of the Act.

Access to education compatible with Copyright Protection

The laws provided for the protection of copyrights in The Copyright Act, 1957

have provided some limitations and exceptions as discussed above. In

those conditions the act will not be termed as infringement of copyright. These

exceptions have provided opportunity to the people who want to get access to

education, get access to the works and publication and also online materials for

the fair purpose as discussed above.

Thus the Act tries to bring balance in the interests of the author and of the

society. These exceptions as provided in the Act bring a balance in the

copyright protection and access to education.

CONCLUSION

Copyright protection and Access to education both are important aspects in a

society. Copyright Protection is for the interest of a particular individual and

access to education is in the interest of the society. To create a balance between

the two is an important role that is to be played by the laws. The Copyright Act

1947 has very carefully enshrined in it certain exceptions to balance the

interests of the individuals with the interests of the society in the intellectual

growth of it. In the Delhi Photocopying case[11] the court had widely interpreted

the term ‘fair use’ as provided in Section 51 of the Copyright Act to meet the

need of the society for intellectual growth. Thus laws and the judiciary play a
vital role in bringing the compatibility between copyright protection and access

to education.

Landmark cases

1. PINE LABS PVT LTD. v. GEMALTO TERMINALS INDIA (P) LTD, &

ORS. 2011(48) PTC248 (Del)

In the absence of the period of assignment or territory of assignment being

specified, the assignment is deemed to be for 5 years and territory is deemed to

be the territory of India as per section 19(5) and 19(6) of Copyright Act. After

the period of 5 years, copyright reverts back to assignor.

2. THE CHANCELLOR, MASTER AND SCHOLARS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD & ORS. v. RAMESHWARI

PHOTOCOPYING SERVICES AND ANR., CS (OS) 2439/2012

The court analyzed the legality of copying extracts from books. Section 52 of

the Indian Copyright Act provides that using/reproducing/distributing parts of a

copyrightable work, without making payments to the copyright holder, can be

permissible. This is the essence of 'fair dealing'. However, the court passed an

interim injunction restraining Rameshwari Photostat and the Delhi University

from reproducing substantial parts of the works of three publishers, Cambridge

University Press, Oxford University Press and Taylor & Francis who launched
the legal suit on the ground that the making of course material by the

photocopying outlet was not covered under the defence of fair dealing for

purposes of private use or research.

3. MIDAS HYGIENE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

VS. SUDHIR BHATIA AND OTHERS (AIR 2004 SC 121), (2004)3SCC90

In cases of infringement of trademark and copyright, the injunction granted

cannot be vacated thereafter only on the ground of delay in bringing action. The

usage of ‘'Magic Laxman Rekha' by the defendant proved that the adoption of

the mark was itself dishonest and grant of injunction becomes necessary.

4. EASTERN BOOK COMPANY AND OTHERS V. D.B. MODAK AND

ANOTHER, AIR 2008 SC 809

Judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court are in the public domain and its

reproduction or publication does not infringe the copyright. Copy-edited

judgments would not satisfy the copyright merely by establishing amount of

skill, labor and capital put in the inputs of the copy-edited judgments and the

original or innovative thoughts for the creativity are completely excluded, thus,

original or innovative thoughts are necessary to establish copyright in the

author’s work; for copyright in the judgments delivered by the court, it is

necessary that the labor, skill and capital invested should be sufficient to

communicate or impart to the copy-edited judgment some quality or character

which the original judgment does not possess and which differentiates the
original judgment from the printed one; Novelty or invention or innovative idea

is not the requirement for protection of copyright but it does require minimal

degree of creativity.

5. RATNA SAGAR (P) LTD. V. TRISEA PUBLICATIONS & ORS., 1996

PTC (16) 597

The case examined the considerations for protection of copy right under Order

39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The earlier publication of

work was required to be protected. The fact of the right of the party to such

work on account of assignment by author was not proved and was not relevant

at this stage. Therefore, the Court restrained the infringement of copy right

under Sections 14 & 19 of the Act.

6. NAJMA HEPTULLA V. ORIENT LONGMAN LTD., AIR 1989 Del 63,

The plaintiff was a legal representative of Maulana Azad, who had supplied his

book to Prof. Humanyun Kabir for its narration and translation. The plaintiff

had received 50% royalty for 30 years giving the copyrights to the publisher. In

this case, the court restrained the plaintiff from challenging the validity of the

agreement. The plaintiff was not granted injunction to stop the publisher from

publishing the book even after the said term was over.

7. SUPER CASSETTE INDUSTRIES LTD. v. ENTERTAINMENT

NETWORK INDIA LTD., AIR 2004 Del 326

The Supreme Court held that the Board had the jurisdiction to entertain any

application for grant of compulsory license. The order of the Board should be

set aside and the matter be remitted to the Board again for the consideration of

the matter afresh on merit.

8. HAWKINS COOKER LTD. v. MAGICOOK APPLIANCES, 100 (2002)

DLT 2008

Court ordered for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants,

agents etc. from using a get up of label in relation to pressure cookers which is

deceptively similar to the label of the plaintiff having distinctive features and

registered under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. The defendants

were also restrained from dealing with the cook books of the plaintiff company

and were directed to deliver up to the plaintiff company for destruction all such

pressure cookers and books complained against and all accessories and articles

employed by the defendants in the manufacture of the offending goods which

are in the custody, power, possession and control of the defendants. The

plaintiff company is also entitled to damages arising upon the rendition of

accounts by the defendants.

9. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. V YAHOO INC. & ANR,

CS(OS) 1124/2008

Suit for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of copyright caused by

unlicensed streaming of SCIL's copyright works on Yahoo's portal

video.yahoo.com.

Yahoo had taken refuge under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

saying that they'll remove the infringing material when notified by copyright

owners, which is not applicable in India.

Court passed an order restraining defendants and/or its officers, servants, agents

and representatives are restrained from reproducing, adapting, distributing or

transmitting in any manner on their website, `www.video.yahoo.com’ or

otherwise infringing in any manner, the cinematograph films, sound recordings

and/or the underlying literary or musical works of the plaintiff, in which the

plaintiff claims copyright, without obtaining an appropriate license from the

plaintiff.

10. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. YOUTUBE &

GOOGLE

SCIL claimed that the business model of YouTube allows, encourages and

profits from use of copyrighted work uploaded on the website without obtaining

any license or permission from the rightful copyright owners and without

paying them any royalty. The High Court passed the order against YouTube and

Google restraining them from reproducing, adapting, distributing,

communicating, transmitting, disseminating or displaying on their websites any

audio-visual works which is in the exclusive ownership of SCIL.

11. SAREGAMA INDIA v. BALAJI TELEFILMS LTD., TA No. 52/2012,

Cal HC

Injunction against the defendants from broadcasting or by any other means

showing the cinematograph film titled "Dirty Picture" or at any rate the song

therein "Ooh La La Ooh La La" on the date of the satellite telecast of the film

on the ground that the tune resembles the song "Ui Amma Ui Amma" composed

by Mr. Bappi Lahiri.

Court held that the tune of the allegedly infringing part of the song in the film

"Dirty Picture" is substantially similar to the said part of the old song. However,

the defendants were permitted to make broadcast of the film upon depositing a

sum of Rs. 2 Crores with the Registrar on the ground that there would be

irreparable prejudice to the rights and contentions.

12. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD. v. EASTERN

INDIA MOTION PICTURES ASSOCIATION & ORS., AIR 1977 SC 1443

When cinematograph film producer commissions composer of music or lyricist

for sound track associated with film he becomes first owner of copyright unless

contract to contrary exists - same follows as per Proviso to Section 17 (c) if

composer of music is employed under contract of service or apprenticeship to

compose music - whether producer of cinematograph film can defeat right of

composer of music or lyricist by engaging him - according to Proviso to Section

17 (b) held, appeal liable to be dismissed by virtue of provisions of Section 17

(b) and 17 (c).

13. VODAFONE INDIA LTD v. M/s RK PRODUCTIONS & ORS., CS

208/2012 and CS 294/2012

The Plaintiffs apprehending large-scale piracy of the movie ‘3’ after its release

in theatres over the internet, filed a qua-timet action before the Madras High

Court seeking ex-parte interim injunctions against 15 Internet Service Providers.

The court ordered for prohibition of infringement of copyright through different

mediums such as CDs, DVDs, VCDs, Cable-TV, pen-drives.

14. STAR INDIA (P) LTD. v. PIYUSH AGARWAL & ORS, CS (OS) No.

2722/2012, Del HC

The Delhi High Court held that while the performance and visual/sound

recordings of the said performance are protected by copyright, the facts from

the broadcast were not. After the broadcast of the match, it is impossible for any

party to claim that this information conveyed by the performance is not in the

public domain. Once the "first broadcast" of the performance has been made,

the information that underlies the performance is in the public domain.

Therefore, the 72 hour media right monopoly as agreed upon between the

plaintiff and the BCCI is meaningless since copyright law does not protect

information in the public domain.

15. MATTEL INC. & ORS. V. JAYANT AGARWALLA, IA No. 2352/2008

in CS(O S) 344/2008, Del HC

Plaintiffs (manufacturers of ‘SCRABBLE’) filed for an injunction restraining

the defendants (makers of an online game ‘SCRABULOUS’) from infringing

the copyright of the plaintiffs. Court held that ‘SCRABBLE’ is not entitled for

copyright protection because the required standards of originality were not met,

and applicability of doctrine of merger and Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.

16. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD v. ICC DEVELOPMENT

(INTERNATIONAL) LTD & ANR, FAO (OS) 460/2012, DELHI HC

Whether the use of the footage of cricket matches by NDTV is consistent with

the principles of fair dealing envisaged under Section 39(b) and Section

52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act.

Court: The TV channels would have two options - They can either opt to put on

the air, an advertisement specifically targeted during special programs, and not

to use the footage, or choose to use the footage but not put on the air any

advertisements. The event organizers or the broadcasters were perceived to have

the discretion to give something more to the TV channels in accordance with

the ICC guidelines, but anything restrictive in the guidelines, which distorts the

principle laid down here would not be protected under law. The TV channels

would use the footage strictly in accordance with the said principles or they
would have to purchase the footage legally from ICC or the authorized

broadcaster.

17. ESPN STAR SPORTS v. GLOBAL BROADCAST NEWS LTD &

ORS, 2008(38)PTC477(Del)

Reporting of news is a fundamental right vested in the news channel by way of

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution but, repeated and prolonged telecast by the

News Channels of what was actually broadcast by the broadcaster, especially in

the form of a special programme, may amount to commercial exploitation not

protected by Article 19(1)(a). Defence of fair dealing cannot be relied upon in

case of extended use of footage of telecast beyond an acceptable period.

18. THE CHANCELLOR MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD v. NARENDRA PUBLISHING HOUSE &

ORS, I.A. 9823/2005, 51/2006 and 647/2006 in CS(OS) 1656/2005, Del HC

and SYNDICATE OF THE PRESS OF UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

v. B.D BHANDARI & ORS, RFA (OS) No. 21 of 2009 and FAO (OS) No.

458 of 2008

Law mandates that not every effort or industry, or expending of skill, results in

copyrightable work, but only those which create works that are somewhat

different in character, involve some intellectual effort, and involve a certain

degree of creativity. The doctrine of fair use legitimizes the reproduction of a

copyrightable work provided the purpose served by the subsequent or infringing

work is substantially different from the purpose served by the prior work.

19. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD v. ADITYA

PANDEY & CRI EVENTS, FAO(OS) No.423-424/2011

Permission is required from the owner of the underlying works i.e. the literary

and musical works apart from the copyright owner of the derivative work to

broadcast the said derivative work. Accordingly, radio stations who were

broadcasting/communicating ‘sound recordings’ were required to pay royalty

not only to the owner of the sound recording, but also the owner of the lyrics or

the musical works which had been incorporated into the sound recordings.

20. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD v. MY SPACE INC. & ANR,

2011(48)PTC49(Del)

Injunction was sought for unauthorized display of copyrighted material on

websites by sharing, viewing of music, images, cinematograph works, which

infringes their copyrighted material

The court granted injunction based on the principles for the grant of temporary

injunction as laid down by apex court which provides that the court must test

the case of the parties on threefold tests: (a) Prima Facie Case, (b) Balance of

Convenience (c) Irreparable Damage. Plaintiff was totally dependent upon its

works for the purposes of royalties, reaping fruits of its copyright for further

investments etc.
21. EMERGENT GENETICS INDIA (P) LTD v. SHAILENDRA SHIVAM

& ORS, 2011(47)PTC 494(Del)

In absence of copyright protection, injunction cannot be claimed on ground that

its trade secret, particularly when it had not shown that information

(copyrightability of DNA sequences), which it claims to be exclusive was

capable of protection. If information and techniques were neither unique, nor

novel, but were merely documentation, or compilation of existing material, or

existing techniques, freely available, or widely practised, there was no question

of confidentiality.

22. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA v.

SHAUNAK H SATYA & ORS, (2011)8 SCC781

Instructions and solutions to questions if any given by ICAI to examiners and

moderators were not intellectual property of ICAI. Disclosure of such

information would not harm competitive position of third parties. Therefore,

ICAI was not entitled to claim protection against disclosure under Section 9 of

RTI Act.

23. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. v. MUSIC BROADCAST

(P) LTD, AIR2012SC2144

Section 31 to grant a compulsory licence meant for avoiding the withholding of

the republication or refuses to allow the performance in pubic of some "work"

is, essentially, for the benefit of the public. Copyright Board is authorised by

law, to take steps for the grant of a compulsory licence if satisfied that the

grounds of refusal are not reasonable.

24. MUSIC CHOICE INDIA (P) LTD v. PHONOGRAPHIC

PERFORMANCE LTD, (2010)44 PTC 171 Bom

Grant of relief of compulsory license in respect of works withheld from public

is exclusively vested with the Copyright Board and such a relief cannot be

granted by the Civil Court.

25. PHI LEARNING (P) LTD v. DR. P MEENAKSHI,

2011(47)PTC548(Del)

Suit filed for permanent injunction - Since copyrights in the book including the

right to publish, distribute and sell of the book, had been assigned to Plaintiff

under the agreement, the Defendant had no right to assign these rights to

another person during subsistence of the agreement, provided royalty was paid

in terms of the agreement - Decree for permanent injunction was passed with

cost restraining Defendant from assigning the copyright including the right to

re-print, publish, sell and distribute the book to any person during subsistence of

the agreement.

26. PEPSI CO. INC & ORS v. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA LTD. & ANR,

2003(27)PTC305(Del)
Coca Cola products disparaged Pepsi products namely 'PEPSI COLA' and

substantial portion of commercial of appellant was copied and communicated to

public which amounted to infringement. Court rejected Coca Cola’s contention

that according to Section 14, copying of cinematographic film must be identical

in all respect. Accordingly, respondent was restrained from showing

commercial in present form.

The UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD VS. RAMESHWARI PHOTOCOPY

SERVICES

The infamous DU photocopy case was a landmark copyright violation case in

India. The genesis of this case lies in a prevalent practice in the University of

Delhi, wherein photocopy shops copy reading material from prescribed

textbooks and sell it to students at subsidized rates.

To contest the same, the chancellors, masters, and scholars of the University of

Oxford filed a case against Rameshwari Photocopy Services, alleging them

of copyright infringement under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act.

OUTCOME: The publishers had to withdraw their lawsuits against the

defendants, as it was observed that the shop had a legal license to operate within

the North Campus premises of DU.

LESSON: Having a Reprographic license goes a long way. It saves you money

and gives you the authority to carry on your operations without inviting trouble.
Copyright is not a divine right and it is intended to increase the harvest of

knowledge, not impede it. Photocopying with the objective of spreading

knowledge and fostering education doesn’t constitute copyright infringement.

R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films and others AIR 1978 SC 1613

Ratio Decidendi-

• The Court held that there is no copyright in idea or plot but it is the way,

arrangement or expression of such an idea that can be copyrighted.

• If the source of the works is common, then some similarities are bound to

be there but the Court has to see whether such similarities are substantial

to constitute infringement or not.

• If an ordinary person after seeing the work in question calls it a copy or

replica of the original work then it is infringement.

• The theme can be the same but it has to be represented differently so that

it constitutes new original work.

• If dissimilarities are more than the similarities, it shows the negative

intention to copy.

• If there is clear evidence to show piracy then the violation of copyright

amounts to an act of piracy.