IPR UNIT-1 PYQ

What constitutes infringement of a copyright? What are the remedies available for such
infringement?

Infringement of copyright occurs when someone violates the exclusive rights granted to the
copyright holder under the Copyright Act, 1957, without their authorization. Copyright
infringement encompasses various acts, including reproduction, distribution, public performance,
adaptation, and communication to the public, among others, without the consent of the copyright
owner. To understand copyright infringement and the remedies available, it is essential to delve
into the provisions of the Copyright Act, relevant case laws, and judicial interpretations.

Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, provides a comprehensive definition of copyright

infringement. It states that copyright is infringed when any person without the authorization of
the copyright owner does or causes any of the exclusive rights in the copyright to be done. These
exclusive rights include the right to reproduce the work, issue copies of the work to the public,
perform the work in public, communicate the work to the public, and make adaptations or
translations of the work, among others.

One of the primary acts of copyright infringement is the unauthorized reproduction of

copyrighted works. This can include making copies of literary, artistic, musical, or
cinematographic works without the permission of the copyright owner. In the case of R.G.
Anand v. M/s. Delux Films & Ors., the Supreme Court of India held that even the reproduction
of substantial parts of a copyrighted work constitutes infringement if it is done without
authorization.

Distribution of copyrighted works without the consent of the copyright owner also constitutes
infringement under the Copyright Act. This includes selling, renting, or otherwise making
available copies of copyrighted works to the public without authorization. In Super Cassettes
Industries Ltd. v. Hamar TV Ltd., the Delhi High Court ruled that unauthorized distribution of
copyrighted sound recordings through online platforms constitutes infringement.
Public performance of copyrighted works without authorization is another form of infringement
under the Copyright Act. This includes playing music, screening films, or staging plays in public
without obtaining the necessary licenses from the copyright owners. In Indian Performing Right
Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association & Ors., the Calcutta High Court held
that organizing public performances of copyrighted musical works without the permission of the
copyright owners amounts to infringement.

Communication to the public of copyrighted works without authorization is also prohibited under
the Copyright Act. This includes broadcasting, transmitting, or making available copyrighted
works to the public through electronic means without the consent of the copyright owner. In Star
India Pvt. Ltd. v. Leo Burnett (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the Bombay High Court held that
unauthorized communication to the public of copyrighted television programs through digital
platforms constitutes infringement.

Adaptation or translation of copyrighted works without authorization is another form of

infringement under the Copyright Act. This includes making derivative works based on existing
copyrighted works, such as adaptations, translations, or modifications, without the permission of
the copyright owner. In M/s. Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. M/s. Birendra & Ors., the Calcutta
High Court held that making unauthorized translations of copyrighted literary works constitutes
infringement.

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 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, is 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, and 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, 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 are assessed to the value of the article.

Criminal remedies

Section 63 of the Copyright Act provides for criminal remedies if there is any copyright
infringement. According to Section 63 of the Act, anyone found guilty of willfully violating or
aiding in the violation of a work’s copyright will be sentenced to at least six months in prison and
a fine of at least 50,000 rupees. A person who is found guilty under Section 63A a second time
faces an additional sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than one year and a fine that
cannot be less than one lakh rupees due to the widespread copyright infringement. According to
Section 63B, a person who intentionally uses an illegal copy of computer software on a computer
faces a minimum seven-day sentence in jail and a fine of at least 50,000 rupees.

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.

The advancement of digital technology has brought with it the biggest threat to copyright.
Discuss this statement in relation to issues related to Digital Copyright.

The rapid advancement of digital technology has revolutionized how we create, share, and
consume content, but it has also introduced significant challenges to the traditional framework of
copyright law. Digital copyright issues have become a central concern in the modern digital
landscape, affecting creators, consumers, and policymakers. This essay will explore the biggest
threats to copyright brought about by digital technology, addressing key issues such as digital
piracy, the impact of new distribution models, challenges in enforcement, and the evolving
nature of content creation and consumption.

Digital Piracy

Digital piracy remains one of the most significant threats to copyright in the digital age. The ease
with which digital content can be copied and distributed has made it challenging to control
unauthorized dissemination. Piracy affects various industries, including music, film, software,
and publishing.

1. Ease of Access and Distribution: The internet provides a global platform where pirated content
can be shared easily and anonymously. Peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, torrent sites, and
cyberlockers facilitate the rapid distribution of copyrighted materials without proper
authorization. For instance, platforms like The Pirate Bay have long been notorious for offering
vast libraries of pirated content.

2. Economic Impact: Digital piracy significantly impacts the revenue of content creators and
industries. For example, the music industry has seen substantial financial losses due to
unauthorized downloads and streams. This loss of revenue can stifle creativity and reduce the
incentive for artists to produce new work.

3. Technological Countermeasures: While digital rights management (DRM) systems are

employed to protect digital content, they are often circumvented by skilled hackers. DRM
technologies, such as encryption and access controls, can deter casual piracy but are not
foolproof against determined pirates.

New Distribution Models

The rise of digital technology has also led to new distribution models that challenge traditional
copyright frameworks. These models include streaming services, digital downloads, and online
marketplaces.

1. Streaming Services: Platforms like Spotify, Netflix, and Amazon Prime have transformed how
we consume media. While they offer legal avenues for accessing content, they also complicate
copyright enforcement. Licensing agreements between content owners and streaming services
must be meticulously negotiated, and the global nature of these platforms means that content is
often subject to varying copyright laws across different jurisdictions.

2. User-Generated Content (UGC): Websites like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram enable users
to create and share their own content, often incorporating copyrighted material. This has led to
widespread issues of infringement, where users unknowingly or deliberately use protected
content without proper authorization. The challenge here lies in balancing the rights of original
creators with the freedom of expression enjoyed by UGC creators.

3. Digital Marketplaces: Online marketplaces like Amazon and eBay facilitate the sale of digital
goods, including e-books, software, and media. These platforms must navigate the complexities
of ensuring that the products they sell are legitimate and not pirated versions, which can be
difficult given the volume of transactions and the ease of digital reproduction.

Enforcement Challenges

Enforcing copyright in the digital age is fraught with difficulties, partly due to the global and
decentralized nature of the internet.

1. Jurisdictional Issues: The internet transcends national borders, making it challenging to

enforce copyright laws across different countries. What is considered a violation in one country
might be legal in another, creating a patchwork of legal standards that are difficult to navigate.
International treaties, like the Berne Convention and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA), attempt to harmonize these laws, but disparities still exist.
2. Anonymity and Pseudonymity: The ability to remain anonymous or use pseudonyms online
complicates the identification and prosecution of infringers. While ISPs can sometimes be
compelled to reveal the identities of users, this process is often slow and fraught with legal
hurdles.

3. Automated Systems and False Positives: Platforms like YouTube use automated content
identification systems to detect and remove infringing material. However, these systems are not
perfect and can result in false positives, where legitimate content is mistakenly flagged and
removed. This can frustrate content creators who find their work wrongly targeted, while
sophisticated infringers may still find ways to evade detection.

Evolving Nature of Content Creation and Consumption

Digital technology has fundamentally altered how content is created and consumed, further
complicating copyright issues.

1. Remix Culture: The digital age has given rise to a remix culture, where users blend existing
works to create something new. This practice raises complex questions about what constitutes
fair use and how to balance the rights of original creators with those of new creators. For
instance, sampling in music or using clips from films in mashup videos challenges traditional
notions of authorship and originality.

2. Proliferation of Content: The sheer volume of content produced and shared daily makes
monitoring and enforcement a herculean task. Social media platforms, blogs, and websites
generate vast amounts of new content, much of which can incorporate copyrighted materials,
intentionally or unintentionally.

3. Changing Consumer Expectations: Consumers today expect instant access to a wide array of
content, often for free or at low cost. This expectation can drive the demand for pirated content
when legal options are perceived as too expensive or unavailable. Content providers must adapt
to these expectations by offering affordable, convenient, and legal alternatives to piracy.
Legal and Policy Responses

To address these challenges, several legal and policy responses have been proposed and
implemented, though none are without controversy or limitations.

1. Stronger Legislation: Governments have enacted laws aimed at strengthening copyright

protection in the digital age. For instance, the DMCA in the United States provides mechanisms
for copyright holders to request the removal of infringing content online. However, such laws
must balance the interests of copyright holders with those of users and intermediaries.

2. International Cooperation: Greater international cooperation is essential for effective copyright

enforcement. Treaties like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright
Treaty seek to harmonize copyright laws across countries, but enforcement remains uneven.

3. Educational Campaigns: Educating the public about the importance of copyright and the
consequences of piracy can help reduce infringement. Awareness campaigns targeting young
people, who are often the most prolific consumers of digital content, can be particularly
effective.

4. Technological Solutions: Continued investment in advanced DRM technologies and content

identification systems can help protect digital content. Innovations in blockchain technology also
offer potential solutions for tracking and managing digital rights more effectively.

Conclusion

The advancement of digital technology has undeniably posed significant threats to copyright,
fundamentally challenging traditional concepts of ownership and control over creative works.
Issues such as digital piracy, new distribution models, enforcement challenges, and the evolving
nature of content creation and consumption all highlight the complexities of protecting copyright
in the digital age.
Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach that includes stronger legislation,
international cooperation, public education, and technological innovation. While there is no
single solution to the problem, a combination of these strategies can help mitigate the threats to
copyright and ensure that creators are fairly compensated for their work in the digital era.
Balancing the rights of creators with the needs and behaviors of modern consumers remains a
delicate task, one that will continue to evolve alongside technological advancements.

X started a law journal, by selecting the important judgments of the High Courts and the
Supreme Court and reproducing them with the head notes in the journal. Y, too, came up
with the same judgments in his journal along with the head notes copied from Xs' journal.
X Filed a suit for infringement of copyright against Y. The contention of Y was that there is
no copyright in judgments as they do not fall within the ambit of original literary work and
are in public domain. On the other hand, claimed copyright in the head notes and edited
the judgments. Decide. Substantiate your reasoning with relevant provisions of the
Copyright Act, 1957 and the relevant case laws.

The case at hand revolves around the issue of copyright infringement concerning judgments of
the High Courts and the Supreme Court, as well as the headnotes created by X. To resolve this,
we need to delve into the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, and pertinent case laws.

Copyright Act, 1957

The Copyright Act, 1957, primarily protects "original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic
works" (Section 13). For a work to be protected under copyright, it must be original and involve
some degree of creativity. The term "original" implies that the work must not be copied from
another source and must involve the author's skill, judgment, and labor.

Judgments and Copyright

Judgments delivered by courts are generally considered to be in the public domain. This means
that they can be freely used and reproduced by anyone. The rationale is that judicial decisions are
public records and are meant to be accessible to the public for the purposes of transparency and
the administration of justice.

The Indian Copyright Act does not specifically address whether judgments can be copyrighted.
However, it is widely accepted, both in Indian and international jurisprudence, that judgments do
not qualify as original literary works because they are the output of judicial processes and serve a
public function.

Headnotes and Copyright

Headnotes, on the other hand, are summaries or brief statements that highlight the key points of a
judicial decision. They are typically prepared by legal professionals or editors and require a
significant amount of skill, judgment, and labor to create. This makes headnotes original literary
works eligible for copyright protection.

Relevant Case Laws

1. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008):

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of copyright in the
context of judgments and headnotes. The Court held that while the actual text of the judgments is
in the public domain, the headnotes and other editorial content prepared by the plaintiff (Eastern
Book Company) involved sufficient skill, labor, and judgment to qualify as original literary work
protected by copyright.

2. S. D. Usha v. M/S Pure Drinks Ltd. (1987):

This case reaffirmed that while the actual judgments themselves do not attract copyright, any
editorial work that adds value and involves creativity, such as headnotes, summaries, or
annotations, can be protected under copyright law.
Applying the Law to the Present Case

In the present scenario:

- X’s Claim: X is claiming copyright infringement for the headnotes and the edited judgments
published in his journal. According to X, the headnotes involve his skill, judgment, and labor,
making them original literary works protected under the Copyright Act, 1957.

- Y’s Defense: Y contends that the judgments themselves are in the public domain and thus
cannot be copyrighted. By extension, Y claims that using the same judgments and headnotes
should not constitute infringement.

Analysis

1. Judgments:

Based on the principles established in the **Eastern Book Company** case, the judgments of
the High Courts and the Supreme Court are in the public domain. Therefore, Y's reproduction of
these judgments does not constitute copyright infringement as they do not fall within the ambit
of original literary work.

2. Headnotes:

The headnotes prepared by X, however, are a different matter. Given that headnotes require the
exercise of skill, judgment, and labor, they qualify as original literary works. This was explicitly
recognized in the **Eastern Book Company** case, where the Court held that headnotes,
editorial notes, and case summaries prepared by the plaintiff were protected by copyright.

3. Infringement by Y:
 If Y copied the headnotes verbatim from X's journal, this would constitute copyright
infringement. The headnotes are considered original literary works, and unauthorized
reproduction or copying of these headnotes infringes upon X's copyright.

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis, the judgments themselves are not subject to copyright as they are
public domain materials. However, X’s headnotes are protected by copyright due to the
originality involved in their creation. Y’s verbatim copying of these headnotes without
permission from X constitutes copyright infringement.

Legal Decision

The suit for copyright infringement filed by X against Y is therefore justified regarding the
headnotes. Y's defense that there is no copyright in judgments is correct only concerning the
judgments themselves, not the headnotes.

Relief

The court should grant X the appropriate relief for the infringement of his copyrighted
headnotes. This may include:

- An injunction preventing Y from further copying and distributing X’s headnotes.

- Damages for the infringement already committed.

- Costs of the suit.

This decision aligns with the principles laid down in the Eastern Book Company case and
ensures that while judicial transparency is maintained by keeping judgments in the public
domain, the intellectual labor involved in creating headnotes is duly protected under copyright
law.

Comment on the exception ot copyright infringement. Explain fair dealing' with relevant
statutory provisions.

Exceptions to Copyright Infringement: Understanding 'Fair Dealing'

Copyright law aims to protect the rights of creators by granting them exclusive rights to their
original works. However, these rights are not absolute, and the law provides for several
exceptions where the use of copyrighted material without permission does not constitute
infringement. One of the most significant exceptions is 'fair dealing,' which allows for the use of
copyrighted works in certain circumstances without seeking permission from the copyright
owner. This essay will explore the concept of fair dealing as stipulated in the Indian Copyright
Act, 1957, and its interpretation through relevant case laws.

Fair Dealing under the Copyright Act, 1957

Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, outlines specific acts that do not constitute infringement
of copyright. These acts are categorized under the doctrine of 'fair dealing' and cover various
purposes such as private use, criticism, review, and reporting.

Section 52(1)(a) and (b)

According to Section 52(1)(a) and (b) of the Copyright Act, the fair dealing of any work
(excluding computer programs) for the purposes of:

1. Private or personal use, including research.

2. Criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work.

3. Reporting current events and current affairs, including the reporting of a lecture delivered in
public.

These provisions ensure that certain uses of copyrighted materials are permissible without the
need for authorization, recognizing that such uses serve the broader public interest.

Key Elements of Fair Dealing

1. Private or Personal Use: This includes using copyrighted material for individual purposes,
such as personal study or research. This does not extend to commercial exploitation or
widespread dissemination.

2. Criticism and Review: This permits the use of copyrighted works to critically analyze or
review the material. This is crucial for the freedom of expression, allowing for public discussion
and critique of works without the threat of copyright infringement.

3. Reporting Current Events: Journalists and news outlets can use copyrighted material when
reporting on current events. This is essential for maintaining an informed public and supporting
the free flow of information.

Judicial Interpretation of Fair Dealing

The courts have played a pivotal role in interpreting the scope and application of fair dealing
under Indian law. Several landmark cases have clarified what constitutes fair dealing and the
boundaries within which it operates.

1. R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978)

In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the reproduction of a copyrighted work is not
permissible if it results in an unfair competition with the original work. The court emphasized
that minor similarities do not constitute infringement, provided that the overall impression of the
work is distinct.

2. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008)

This case primarily dealt with the copyrightability of headnotes in law reports, but it also touched
upon fair dealing. The Supreme Court emphasized that fair dealing must involve a genuine
purpose such as research or criticism, and should not extend to uses that substitute for the
original work in a commercial context.

3. Academy of General Education, Manipal v. B. Malini Mallya (2009)

The court in this case held that reproduction for educational purposes can fall under fair dealing,
provided it is done in good faith and for non-commercial purposes. This case reinforced the
notion that fair dealing is context-specific and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Fair Dealing in Education and Research

The application of fair dealing in education and research is particularly significant. Educational
institutions and researchers often rely on copyrighted materials to advance knowledge and foster
learning. Under Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, the reproduction of a work by a teacher or
a pupil in the course of instruction is permissible. Additionally, making copies of a work for use
in examinations or for instructional purposes within educational institutions also falls under fair
dealing.

Fair Dealing vs. Fair Use

It is important to distinguish between the concept of fair dealing in Indian copyright law and fair
use in jurisdictions like the United States. While both doctrines serve similar purposes, they are
not identical. Fair use, as codified in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, is broader and
includes four factors to determine whether a use is fair:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for
nonprofit educational purposes.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a
whole.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Indian courts have, at times, drawn on the principles of fair use to inform their interpretation of
fair dealing, but the specific statutory framework remains distinct.

Challenges and Controversies

Despite the clear statutory provisions, the application of fair dealing often involves nuanced
judgments and can be contentious. Determining what constitutes fair dealing involves
considering the purpose, nature, and extent of the use, as well as its impact on the market for the
original work. This often leads to litigation, with courts balancing the rights of copyright holders
against the public interest.

Technological Impact

The digital age has further complicated the application of fair dealing. The ease with which
digital content can be reproduced and distributed raises new questions about what constitutes fair
dealing. Issues such as digital copying, sharing on social media, and the use of copyrighted
material in online education require ongoing legal and judicial attention to ensure that the
doctrine of fair dealing evolves in line with technological advancements.

Conclusion
Fair dealing is a crucial exception to copyright infringement that balances the rights of creators
with the public interest in accessing and using copyrighted works for specific purposes. Under
the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, fair dealing covers private use, criticism, review, and reporting,
among other purposes. Judicial interpretations have further clarified its application, emphasizing
that fair dealing must be genuine and not serve as a substitute for the original work.

As technology continues to evolve, the boundaries and applications of fair dealing will
undoubtedly face new challenges. However, its fundamental role in promoting the free flow of
information and supporting educational, critical, and informative uses of copyrighted material
remains vital. By carefully navigating these exceptions, the law seeks to foster creativity and
innovation while ensuring that the rights of creators are respected and upheld.

Establish that the concepts of 'authorship and ownership' are different in copyright law

The concepts of 'authorship' and 'ownership' in copyright law, while closely related, are distinct
in several important ways. Understanding the difference between these two concepts is crucial
for interpreting the rights and responsibilities associated with copyrighted works. This essay will
elucidate the differences between authorship and ownership within the framework of copyright
law, highlighting their respective roles, rights, and implications.

Authorship in Copyright Law

Authorship pertains to the individual or entity that creates the original work. Under the
Copyright Act, 1957, an 'author' is defined as the person who creates the work, be it a literary,
dramatic, musical, or artistic piece. The term encompasses a variety of creators, including
writers, composers, artists, and filmmakers.

Key Aspects of Authorship

1. Creation of the Work: Authorship is intrinsically linked to the act of creation. The author is the
person who originates the content through their skill, labor, and intellect. For instance, in the case
of a novel, the author is the writer who pens the story.

2. Moral Right: Authors are granted moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
These rights include the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion,
mutilation, or modification that would harm their honor or reputation. Moral rights are distinct
from economic rights and remain with the author even after the transfer of copyright ownership.

3. Initial Ownership: In general, the author is the initial owner of the copyright in their work.
This principle is fundamental to copyright law, ensuring that the creator initially holds the
exclusive rights to use, reproduce, and distribute their creation.

Ownership in Copyright Law

Ownership refers to the legal right to control and exploit the copyrighted work. While authorship
is about creation, ownership is about the possession and use of the rights granted by copyright.
The owner of a copyrighted work may or may not be the author, as these rights can be transferred
or assigned.

Key Aspects of Ownership

1. Transfer and Assignment: Copyright ownership can be transferred from the author to another
party. This transfer can occur through various means such as sale, licensing, or inheritance. For
example, an author might sell the rights to their book to a publishing company, making the
publisher the owner of the copyright.

2. Economic Rights: The owner of the copyright holds the economic rights to the work, which
include the rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display the work publicly, as well as to
create derivative works. These rights can be exploited for financial gain.
3. Work for Hire: In cases of 'works for hire,' the employer or commissioning party is considered
the owner of the copyright, even though they may not be the actual creator. Section 17 of the
Copyright Act, 1957, addresses such situations, specifying that if a work is created by an
employee within the scope of their employment, the employer is deemed the owner of the
copyright.

Differences Between Authorship and Ownership

The distinction between authorship and ownership is significant for several reasons:

1. Legal Recognition and Rights: While authorship grants moral rights that are personal to the
creator, ownership bestows economic rights that can be transferred and exploited. An author may
retain moral rights even after transferring ownership.

2. Transferability: Authorship is inherently tied to the creator and cannot be transferred.

Ownership, however, is a transferable right and can change hands through contracts, sales, or
inheritance.

3. Control and Exploitation: The owner of the copyright has the control over how the work is
used and can exploit the work commercially. The author, on the other hand, retains the right to
claim authorship and protect the integrity of the work through moral rights.

Relevant Case Laws

1. Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005):

This case dealt with the moral rights of an author. Amarnath Sehgal, a renowned sculptor, sued
the Indian government for the wrongful destruction of his mural. The Delhi High Court upheld
his moral rights, emphasizing that authorship includes the right to preserve the integrity of the
work.
2. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008):

This case highlighted the difference between authorship and ownership in the context of
headnotes and judicial summaries. While the original judgments are public domain materials, the
headnotes and summaries created by Eastern Book Company were recognized as works of
authorship with copyright protection.

3. R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978):

The Supreme Court distinguished between the original literary work of the author and the
subsequent use by others. This case reinforced that authorship pertains to the creation of the
original work, while ownership can involve subsequent rights holders.

Implications of the Distinction

1. Contractual Agreements: Understanding the distinction is crucial for drafting and interpreting
contracts involving copyrighted works. Agreements often need to specify whether they pertain to
the transfer of ownership rights or merely the licensing of those rights.

2. Disputes and Litigation: In legal disputes, the differentiation helps in determining who holds
the economic rights to exploit the work and who retains the moral rights. This can affect the
outcome of infringement cases and claims for damages.

3. Creativity and Commerce: The separation of authorship and ownership allows for a balance
between encouraging creative endeavors and enabling commercial exploitation. Authors can
focus on creating original works, while owners can manage the distribution and monetization.

Conclusion

The concepts of authorship and ownership in copyright law, though interconnected, serve distinct
roles. Authorship is about the creation of the work and confers moral rights that protect the
personal connection between the author and their creation. Ownership, on the other hand, relates
to the control and commercial exploitation of the copyright and can be transferred independently
of the author. Recognizing the differences between these concepts is fundamental for the
effective application of copyright law, ensuring that both the creative and economic aspects of
works are appropriately protected and managed.

Discuss what constitutes infringement of copyright? What are the remedies and defenses
for the same? Use laws wherever needed.

Infringement of Copyright: Elements, Remedies, and Defenses

Infringement of copyright occurs when a copyrighted work is used, reproduced, distributed, or

otherwise exploited without the permission of the copyright holder, in ways that violate their
exclusive rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. This essay will discuss what constitutes
copyright infringement, the available remedies for such infringement, and the possible defenses
against claims of infringement.

What Constitutes Infringement of Copyright?

Copyright infringement involves unauthorized use of a copyrighted work in a manner that

violates one or more of the exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder. These rights include
the rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, and create derivative works based on the
original work. The Copyright Act, 1957, provides a comprehensive framework for understanding
these rights and their violations.

Elements of Copyright Infringement

1. Substantial Copying: For infringement to occur, there must be substantial copying of the
copyrighted work. This does not necessarily mean that the entire work has been copied; even
partial copying can constitute infringement if the portion copied is significant enough to be
recognizable.
2. Access and Similarity: Typically, to prove infringement, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the
infringer had access to the copyrighted work and that there is substantial similarity between the
original work and the allegedly infringing work.

3. Unauthorized Use: The use of the copyrighted material must be unauthorized. If the use falls
within the scope of an existing license or agreement, it may not constitute infringement.

Remedies for Copyright Infringement

When copyright infringement is established, the copyright holder is entitled to several remedies.
The Copyright Act, 1957, provides both civil and criminal remedies for infringement.

Civil Remedies

1. Injunctions: An injunction is a court order that restrains the infringer from continuing the
infringing activity. It is one of the most common remedies sought in copyright infringement
cases. An interim or permanent injunction can be issued depending on the circumstances of the
case.

2. Damages: The copyright holder can seek monetary compensation for the losses suffered due to
the infringement. This can include actual damages and profits made by the infringer attributable
to the infringement.

3. Account of Profits: The court may order the infringer to account for the profits made through
the infringing activity. This remedy aims to strip the infringer of the financial gains obtained
through unauthorized use.

4. Delivery Up: The court may order the infringer to deliver up all infringing copies of the work
and any materials used for producing them, which are then typically destroyed or otherwise
disposed of.
Criminal Remedies

The Copyright Act also prescribes criminal penalties for willful copyright infringement, which
include:

1. Imprisonment and Fines: Willful infringement, especially when done for commercial
advantage or private financial gain, can attract imprisonment ranging from six months to three
years and fines ranging from fifty thousand to two lakh rupees.

2. Seizure of Infringing Copies: Law enforcement agencies can seize infringing copies and any
materials used in the production of such copies.

Defenses to Copyright Infringement

Defendants in copyright infringement cases can invoke several defenses to counter the claims.
These defenses aim to justify the use of the copyrighted material under certain circumstances.

Fair Dealing

As discussed in the previous essay, 'fair dealing' is a significant defense under Section 52 of the
Copyright Act, 1957. It permits the use of copyrighted material for specific purposes such as
private use, criticism, review, reporting of current events, and research. For example, a journalist
may use excerpts from a book for a book review without infringing copyright.

De Minimis

The de minimis defense argues that the copying was so minimal that it does not constitute
actionable infringement. This defense applies when the amount of copied material is
insignificant and does not impact the original work's market value or creative expression.

Public Domain
Works that have entered the public domain are no longer protected by copyright, and their use
does not constitute infringement. This can occur when the copyright term has expired or the
work was never eligible for copyright protection.

Lack of Originality

For a work to be protected by copyright, it must be original. A defendant may argue that the
plaintiff's work lacks the requisite originality, and therefore, there is no valid copyright to
infringe upon.

Independent Creation

If the defendant can prove that their work was independently created without copying from the
plaintiff's work, it constitutes a strong defense against infringement. This involves showing that
the work was developed without any access to the plaintiff's copyrighted material.

Relevant Case Laws

1. R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978): This case established that for copyright infringement,
there must be a substantial similarity between the original and the allegedly infringing work. The
Supreme Court held that ideas themselves are not protected by copyright, but their expression is.

2. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008): This case clarified that for infringement, the
copied portion must involve a substantial part of the copyrighted work, reflecting the author’s
original creativity and labor.

3. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc. (2011): This case dealt with online
copyright infringement and the liability of internet service providers. It highlighted the need for
platforms to take down infringing content upon receiving notice to avoid liability.

Conclusion
Infringement of copyright involves unauthorized use of a copyrighted work in violation of the
exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder. The Copyright Act, 1957, provides various civil
and criminal remedies to address such infringements, including injunctions, damages, and
criminal penalties. Defendants can counter infringement claims using defenses such as fair
dealing, de minimis use, public domain status, lack of originality, and independent creation. The
judicial interpretation of these principles through various case laws provides a nuanced
understanding of copyright infringement, balancing the rights of creators with the public interest
in accessing and using creative works.

"Copyright is a bundle of rights." What are the economic and moral rights associated with
Copyright?

Copyright, often described as a "bundle of rights," encompasses various privileges granted to the
creator of an original work. These rights can be broadly categorized into economic rights and
moral rights. Understanding both sets of rights is crucial for appreciating the full scope of
protections and entitlements that copyright law provides to authors and creators. This essay will
explore the economic and moral rights associated with copyright, emphasizing their significance
and application under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Economic Rights

Economic rights allow the copyright holder to control the use of their work and to receive
financial compensation from it. These rights are primarily concerned with the commercial
exploitation of the work and include the following:

1. Right of Reproduction: This right enables the copyright owner to make copies of their work. It
covers various forms of copying, such as photocopying, digital reproduction, and recording.
Unauthorized reproduction constitutes copyright infringement.
2. Right of Distribution: The copyright holder has the exclusive right to distribute copies of the
work to the public, whether by sale, rental, lease, or lending. This right ensures that the author
controls the initial distribution and can profit from it.

3. Right to Perform the Work Publicly: Authors of dramatic, musical, and literary works have the
exclusive right to perform their work in public. This includes live performances, such as plays
and concerts, as well as broadcasts and other public presentations.

4. Right to Communicate the Work to the Public: This encompasses the right to transmit the
work via wire or wireless means, making it accessible to the public. This right is crucial in the
digital age, covering internet transmissions, radio, and television broadcasts.

5. Right to Make Derivative Works: The copyright holder can create adaptations or
transformations of the original work. This includes translations, dramatizations, and the creation
of sequels or spin-offs.

6. Right of Public Display: This right allows the copyright owner to control the public display of
their work. It is particularly relevant for visual arts, such as paintings, sculptures, and
photographs.

7. Right to Rent Copies: In the case of computer programs, sound recordings, and
cinematographic works, the copyright holder has the right to authorize or prohibit the rental of
copies to the public.

Moral Rights

Moral rights, on the other hand, are concerned with the personal and reputational relationship
between the author and their work. These rights are designed to protect the personal integrity and
honor of the creator. Moral rights include:
1. Right of Attribution (Paternity Right): This right allows authors to claim authorship of their
work and to be recognized as the creator. It also includes the right to prevent others from falsely
attributing authorship to someone else. This ensures that the author's name is correctly associated
with their work.

2. Right of Integrity: This right allows authors to object to any derogatory treatment of their
work that could harm their honor or reputation. It includes preventing any distortion, mutilation,
or other modifications that would negatively affect the work's integrity. For instance, an artist can
object to unauthorized alterations of their painting.

Legal Framework under the Copyright Act, 1957

The Copyright Act, 1957, codifies these rights, providing a comprehensive legal framework for
their protection and enforcement.

Economic Rights under the Act

- Section 14 of the Act defines copyright, specifying the exclusive rights granted to the author or
copyright owner. These include the rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, communicate, and
make derivative works.

- Section 51 outlines what constitutes infringement of these rights, emphasizing that any
unauthorized use that violates the copyright holder's exclusive rights is an infringement.

Moral Rights under the Act

- Section 57 specifically addresses the moral rights of authors. It grants authors the right to claim
authorship and to restrain or claim damages for any distortion, mutilation, or other modifications
of their work that would be prejudicial to their honor or reputation.

Significance of Economic and Moral Rights

Economic Rights

Economic rights are vital for the financial exploitation and commercialization of creative works.
They ensure that authors and creators can derive economic benefits from their creations,
providing an incentive for continued creativity and innovation. These rights are transferable,
meaning the copyright holder can license or sell them to others, allowing for broader
dissemination and utilization of the work.

Moral Rights

Moral rights protect the personal and reputational interests of the author. They recognize the
deep connection between creators and their works, ensuring that the integrity of the work is
maintained and that authors receive proper acknowledgment. Unlike economic rights, moral
rights are non-transferable and typically remain with the author even if the economic rights are
assigned to another party.

Case Law Illustrations

Economic Rights

- Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008): This case dealt with the reproduction of
judicial decisions and the copyright protection of headnotes and editorial content. It underscored
the importance of economic rights in protecting commercially valuable compilations and
commentaries.

Moral Rights

- Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005): In this landmark case, the Delhi High Court
upheld the moral rights of the sculptor Amarnath Sehgal, who sued the Indian government for
the unauthorized and improper treatment of his mural. The court recognized his right to preserve
the integrity of his work and his right to attribution.
Challenges and Contemporary Issues

In the digital age, the enforcement of economic and moral rights faces new challenges. The ease
of copying and distributing digital works can lead to widespread infringement, making it difficult
for copyright holders to protect their rights. Additionally, the global nature of the internet
complicates jurisdictional enforcement.

Conclusion

Copyright as a "bundle of rights" encompasses both economic and moral rights, each serving
distinct but complementary purposes. Economic rights allow authors to commercially exploit
their works, providing financial incentives for creativity. Moral rights protect the personal and
reputational interests of the creator, ensuring that their connection to the work is respected and
maintained. Together, these rights form the foundation of copyright law, promoting a balanced
approach that fosters creativity, innovation, and the respect for the personal integrity of authors.
Understanding and respecting these rights is essential for the continued flourishing of artistic and
intellectual endeavors.

Explain the content and scope of i) WIPO Copyright Treaty and üi) Copyright related
provisions in TRIPS Agreement?

The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and Copyright Provisions in the TRIPS Agreement

Intellectual property rights, particularly copyright, are governed by various international treaties
and agreements. Among the most significant are the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the
copyright-related provisions in the TRIPS Agreement. These agreements set international
standards for copyright protection, ensuring that creators and authors are adequately protected
and can benefit from their works across borders. This essay explores the content and scope of the
WCT and the copyright-related provisions in the TRIPS Agreement, highlighting their
significance and impact.
I. WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)

The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) was adopted in 1996 under the auspices of the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It aims to address the challenges posed by digital
technologies and the internet to copyright protection. The WCT complements and updates the
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, providing additional
protections tailored to the digital age.

Content of the WCT

1. Rights Granted to Authors: The WCT grants authors a range of exclusive rights, including:
- Right of Reproduction: Authors have the exclusive right to authorize the direct or indirect
reproduction of their works in any manner or form (Article 6).
- Right of Distribution: Authors have the exclusive right to authorize the making available to
the public of the original and copies of their works through sale or other transfer of ownership
(Article 8).
- Right of Rental: Authors have the exclusive right to authorize the commercial rental of their
works (Article 7). This is particularly relevant for computer programs, cinematographic works,
and works embodied in phonograms.
- Right of Communication to the Public: Authors have the exclusive right to authorize the
communication of their works to the public, including making them available in such a way that
members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by
them (Article 8).

2. Moral Rights: The WCT reinforces the moral rights of authors as outlined in the Berne
Convention. These include the right to claim authorship and to object to any derogatory
treatment of the work that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation (Article 5).

3. Technological Measures and Rights Management Information: The WCT addresses the
protection of technological measures (such as encryption and digital rights management) used by
authors to protect their works. It also protects rights management information, which identifies
the work and its author, ensuring that this information cannot be removed or altered without
permission (Articles 11 and 12).

4. Limitations and Exceptions: The WCT allows for certain limitations and exceptions to the
rights granted, similar to the provisions in the Berne Convention. These are intended to balance
the interests of authors with the public interest in accessing creative works (Article 10).

Scope of the WCT

The WCT applies to all works protected by the Berne Convention and extends to new forms of
exploitation enabled by digital technologies. Its provisions are designed to be flexible, allowing
for adaptation to future technological developments. By addressing the challenges of the digital
age, the WCT aims to ensure that copyright laws remain effective in protecting authors' rights in
an increasingly connected world.

II. TRIPS Agreement

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an

international agreement administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO). It establishes
minimum standards for various forms of intellectual property regulation, including copyright.
The TRIPS Agreement was negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and came into effect in 1995.

Content of the TRIPS Agreement (Copyright Provisions)

1. General Principles: The TRIPS Agreement incorporates and builds upon the principles
established in the Berne Convention, ensuring that member countries provide copyright
protection for literary and artistic works (Article 9).

2. Scope of Copyright: The TRIPS Agreement mandates protection for the following rights:
 - Right of Reproduction: Authors have the exclusive right to authorize the reproduction of their
works in any manner or form (Article 9).
- Right of Communication to the Public: This includes the right to authorize public
performance and broadcasting of their works (Article 11).
- Rental Rights: The TRIPS Agreement grants authors the right to authorize or prohibit the
commercial rental of computer programs and cinematographic works (Article 11).

3. Computer Programs and Databases: The TRIPS Agreement explicitly provides that computer
programs are protected as literary works under the Berne Convention. Additionally, compilations
of data or other material (databases) are protected if they constitute intellectual creations by
reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents (Article 10).

4. Term of Protection: The TRIPS Agreement requires that the term of copyright protection
extends at least to the life of the author plus 50 years, consistent with the Berne Convention
(Article 12).

5. Enforcement Measures: The TRIPS Agreement includes detailed provisions on the

enforcement of intellectual property rights, ensuring that member countries establish effective
procedures and remedies for copyright infringement. These measures include civil and
administrative procedures, provisional measures, and criminal penalties for willful infringement
on a commercial scale (Articles 41-61).

Scope of the TRIPS Agreement

The TRIPS Agreement applies to all WTO member countries, requiring them to implement its
provisions in their national laws. It establishes a baseline level of protection, allowing countries
to provide more extensive protection if they choose. The agreement also includes transitional
arrangements, giving developing countries additional time to comply with its provisions.

Significance and Impact

Both the WCT and the TRIPS Agreement have significantly influenced international copyright
law, shaping the policies and practices of countries around the world.

- Harmonization of Standards: By setting minimum standards for copyright protection, these

agreements promote harmonization, reducing discrepancies between national laws and
facilitating international trade in creative works.

- Adaptation to Technological Advances: The WCT addresses the challenges posed by digital
technologies, ensuring that copyright law remains relevant in the digital age. The TRIPS
Agreement also acknowledges the importance of new technologies by explicitly protecting
computer programs and databases.

- Enhanced Enforcement: The detailed enforcement provisions in the TRIPS Agreement help
ensure that copyright holders can effectively protect their rights, reducing piracy and
unauthorized use of creative works.

- Balancing Interests: Both agreements recognize the need to balance the rights of authors with
the public interest. By allowing for certain limitations and exceptions, they ensure that copyright
protection does not unduly restrict access to knowledge and cultural works.

Conclusion

The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the TRIPS Agreement are cornerstone international instruments
that shape the landscape of copyright protection worldwide. The WCT modernizes copyright law
for the digital era, while the TRIPS Agreement sets comprehensive minimum standards and
enforcement mechanisms. Together, they help create a robust and adaptable framework that
protects the rights of authors and creators while fostering the dissemination and enjoyment of
creative works globally.

What is the extent of protection of copyright under the Copyright Law in India? Refer to
the "idea-expression dichotomy" as propounded by the Supreme Court of India.
In India, copyright law provides protection to a wide range of creative works, including literary,
dramatic, musical, and artistic works, as well as cinematographic films and sound recordings.
The Copyright Act, 1957, governs copyright protection in India, and it outlines the scope and
extent of protection afforded to creators of original works. Central to copyright law, including in
India, is the concept of the "idea-expression dichotomy," which refers to the distinction between
ideas and the expression of those ideas in tangible form.

The idea-expression dichotomy is crucial in determining the limits of copyright protection. It

acknowledges that while copyright law protects the original expression of ideas, it does not
protect the underlying ideas themselves. This principle ensures that copyright does not stifle
creativity by granting monopolies over abstract concepts or ideas. Instead, copyright protection is
granted to the specific manner in which ideas are expressed, providing incentives for creators to
produce original works without unduly restricting the free flow of ideas in society.

The Supreme Court of India has played a significant role in shaping the application of the
idea-expression dichotomy within the country's copyright jurisprudence. In numerous cases, the
Court has emphasized the need to differentiate between ideas and expressions, thereby
delineating the boundaries of copyright protection.

One landmark case that exemplifies the application of the idea-expression dichotomy is R.G.
Anand v. M/s. Delux Films (1978). In this case, the Supreme Court held that copyright
protection does not extend to ideas, themes, plots, or historical or legendary facts. Instead,
copyright protects the original expression of these ideas as manifested in the work. The Court
emphasized that while an author's labor, skill, and capital invested in producing a work merit
protection, mere ideas or information do not qualify for copyright protection.

Similarly, in Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr. (2008), the Supreme
Court reiterated the principle that copyright protects the expression of ideas and not the ideas
themselves. The Court emphasized that copyright law aims to encourage the creation of original
works while ensuring that the public domain remains accessible for the dissemination and
development of ideas.

Furthermore, the Indian Copyright Act specifically recognizes the idea-expression dichotomy in
Section 13, which states that copyright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic
works but does not extend to ideas, procedures, methods of operation, or mathematical concepts
as such. This provision reflects the legislative intent to uphold the balance between incentivizing
creativity and fostering a vibrant public domain.

The idea-expression dichotomy serves several important purposes within the framework of
copyright law in India. Firstly, it promotes creativity and innovation by allowing creators to build
upon existing ideas and concepts without fear of infringing copyright. Secondly, it safeguards the
public domain by ensuring that ideas remain freely available for use and further development by
others. Thirdly, it facilitates the flow of information and knowledge, which is essential for the
progress of society and culture.

However, despite the clarity provided by the idea-expression dichotomy, its application in
practice can sometimes pose challenges. Determining the line between an idea and its expression
is not always straightforward, especially in cases involving complex or abstract works. Courts
must carefully analyze the specific facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain whether
copyright infringement has occurred.

In conclusion, copyright law in India offers robust protection to creators of original works while
recognizing the distinction between ideas and their expression. The idea-expression dichotomy,
as propounded by the Supreme Court of India and enshrined in the Copyright Act, serves as a
fundamental principle that guides the interpretation and application of copyright law, striking a
balance between promoting creativity and preserving the public domain.

Discuss the position of performers' rights under the CopyRight Act of 1957 in the light of
case law.
The Copyright Act of 1957 in India addresses the rights of performers, granting them certain
protections for their performances. These rights are essential for safeguarding the interests of
artists, musicians, actors, and other performers in their creative endeavors. Over the years, the
interpretation and application of performers' rights under the Copyright Act have been shaped by
various case laws, providing clarity and guidance on the extent of protection afforded to
performers.

One significant aspect of performers' rights under the Copyright Act is the protection of their
performances from unauthorized recording, reproduction, distribution, or broadcasting. Section
38 of the Act grants performers the exclusive right to reproduce their performances, ensuring that
they have control over the use and exploitation of their creative output. This provision aims to
prevent unauthorized exploitation of performers' works and to provide them with the means to
derive economic benefits from their performances.

In the case of Indian Singers Rights Association & Anr. v. Chapter 25 Bar & Restaurant &
Ors. (2015), the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the importance of performers' rights under the
Copyright Act. The court held that performers have the exclusive right to control the recording
and broadcasting of their performances, and any unauthorized recording or communication to the
public constitutes infringement of their rights. This case underscored the significance of
protecting performers' interests in the digital age, where recordings of live performances can be
easily disseminated through various platforms.

Another crucial aspect of performers' rights is the right to receive royalties for the exploitation of
their performances. Section 38A of the Copyright Act entitles performers to receive equitable
remuneration for the commercial use of their performances, including broadcasting,
communication to the public, and distribution of recordings. This provision aims to ensure that
performers are fairly compensated for the use of their talents and contributions to the
entertainment industry.

In the case of Indian Singers Rights Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2012), the
Bombay High Court addressed the issue of royalty payments to performers under the Copyright
Act. The court held that performers are entitled to receive royalties for the exploitation of their
performances, and collective management organizations (CMOs) such as the Indian Singers
Rights Association (ISRA) play a crucial role in administering and distributing royalties to
performers. This case reaffirmed the importance of protecting performers' economic rights and
ensuring that they receive fair compensation for the use of their works.

Furthermore, performers' rights under the Copyright Act extend to the moral rights of
performers, which include the right to integrity and the right to attribution. Section 38B of the
Act grants performers the right to prevent the distortion, mutilation, or other modification of their
performances that may prejudice their reputation or honor. Additionally, performers have the
right to be identified as the performers of their works and to object to any false attribution of
their performances.

In the case of Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India & Anr. (2005), the Delhi High Court
recognized the moral rights of performers under the Copyright Act. The court held that
performers have the right to integrity, which protects their performances from distortion or
mutilation that may harm their reputation or honor. This case highlighted the importance of
preserving the integrity of performers' works and upholding their moral rights as creators.

In conclusion, performers' rights under the Copyright Act of 1957 in India encompass various
protections aimed at safeguarding their creative contributions and economic interests. Through
case law interpretations, courts have clarified the scope and extent of performers' rights, ensuring
that performers receive adequate protection and remuneration for their performances. These
rights play a crucial role in fostering a vibrant and thriving creative industry while respecting the
contributions and dignity of performers.

"In the age of global information technology when all information is available to
everybody, the problem of protection of information assumes great importance. The source
of all knowledge and information is creativity and unless it is protected it cannot be further
encouraged. Hence, the protection of copyright can never become obsolete in the way of
dissemination of knowledge and information".
Explain in the light of recent development of Copyright law in India.

The Protection of Copyright in the Age of Global Information Technology: Recent

Developments in Indian Copyright Law

In an era where information flows seamlessly across digital platforms, the protection of
intellectual property, particularly copyright, has become increasingly vital. The advent of global
information technology has made vast amounts of information readily accessible, but it has also
introduced significant challenges in safeguarding the rights of creators. In this context, the
protection of copyright remains crucial to encourage creativity and innovation. This essay
examines the importance of copyright protection in the digital age, focusing on recent
developments in Indian copyright law.

The Role of Copyright in Encouraging Creativity

Copyright law serves as a fundamental mechanism for protecting the rights of creators over their
intellectual outputs. By granting authors exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, and
display their works, copyright incentivizes the creation of new works. These exclusive rights
ensure that creators can control the use of their works and receive financial compensation, which
in turn fuels further creativity and innovation.

In the digital age, the ease of copying and distributing digital content has amplified the risk of
copyright infringement. Without robust copyright protections, creators might be less inclined to
share their works, knowing that unauthorized copying and distribution could undermine their
ability to earn a livelihood from their creations. Hence, copyright protection is indispensable for
maintaining a healthy ecosystem of creativity and knowledge dissemination.

Challenges in the Digital Age

The digital revolution has posed several challenges to traditional copyright enforcement:
1. Ease of Copying and Distribution: Digital works can be copied and shared effortlessly, often
without the knowledge or consent of the copyright owner. This widespread unauthorized
distribution, or piracy, can significantly impact the revenue of creators and industries reliant on
intellectual property.

2. Global Reach: The internet's global nature complicates jurisdictional enforcement of copyright
laws. Infringing content hosted in one country can be accessed worldwide, making it difficult for
copyright holders to pursue legal action across multiple jurisdictions.

3. New Forms of Exploitation: Digital technologies have introduced new ways of using and
disseminating works, such as streaming, online libraries, and digital downloads. These new
forms of exploitation require updates to traditional copyright laws to ensure comprehensive
protection.

Recent Developments in Indian Copyright Law

India has recognized the need to adapt its copyright laws to address these challenges and to align
with international standards. Significant developments in Indian copyright law in recent years
include the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, and various court rulings that have shaped the
interpretation and enforcement of copyright in the digital age.

The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012

The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, introduced several key changes to the Indian Copyright
Act, 1957, to address the challenges posed by digital technologies and to comply with
international treaties such as the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the TRIPS Agreement. Key
provisions include:

1. Protection of Digital Works: The amendment explicitly brought digital works, including
computer programs, under the ambit of copyright protection. It clarified that digital rights
management (DRM) and technological protection measures (TPMs) used to protect copyrighted
works must not be circumvented without authorization.

2. Rights of Authors and Performers: The amendment strengthened the moral rights of authors
and introduced provisions to ensure fair compensation for performers and authors of literary,
dramatic, musical, and artistic works used in digital formats.

3. Provisions for Persons with Disabilities: The amendment included provisions to facilitate
access to copyrighted works for persons with disabilities, allowing for the creation and
distribution of accessible formats without infringement.

4. Limitation and Exceptions: It broadened the scope of fair dealing provisions to include the use
of copyrighted works for educational purposes, research, and private study, thus balancing the
rights of creators with the public interest in accessing knowledge.

Key Court Rulings

Indian courts have played a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing copyright laws in the digital
context. Some landmark rulings include:

1. Delhi University Photocopy Case (The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University
of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services, 2016): This case dealt with the photocopying of
academic texts for use in university course packs. The Delhi High Court ruled that such
photocopying fell within the ambit of fair dealing for educational purposes, emphasizing the
importance of access to knowledge and education.

2. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc. (2011): This case addressed the liability of
online platforms for hosting infringing content. The court ruled that intermediaries like MySpace
are not liable for copyright infringement if they comply with takedown notices and do not have
actual knowledge of the infringing content, thus highlighting the role of safe harbor provisions in
the digital age.
3. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Although not directly related to copyright, this
landmark Supreme Court decision on the right to privacy has implications for copyright
enforcement, particularly in balancing privacy rights with the need for monitoring and
enforcement of digital content.

The Future of Copyright Protection in India

As digital technologies continue to evolve, so too must copyright laws and enforcement
mechanisms. Future developments in Indian copyright law may focus on:

1. Enhanced Enforcement Mechanisms: Strengthening the capacity of enforcement agencies and

developing more sophisticated tools to detect and combat digital piracy.

2. International Collaboration: Collaborating with other countries to address cross-border

copyright infringement and to harmonize copyright standards and enforcement practices.

3. Public Awareness and Education: Increasing public awareness about copyright laws and the
importance of respecting intellectual property rights to foster a culture of compliance and respect
for creators.

4. Adaptive Legal Frameworks: Continuously updating the legal framework to keep pace with
technological advancements, ensuring that new forms of exploitation and distribution are
adequately covered by copyright protections.

Conclusion

In the age of global information technology, the protection of copyright remains as crucial as
ever. While the digital era has brought unprecedented access to information, it has also
introduced significant challenges in protecting the rights of creators. Recent developments in
Indian copyright law, including the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, and key judicial rulings,
demonstrate a commitment to adapting copyright protections to the digital landscape. By
continuing to evolve and strengthen copyright laws, India can ensure that creativity is
encouraged, and the rights of creators are safeguarded, thus supporting the broader dissemination
of knowledge and information in a fair and balanced manner.

Explain 'Geographical Indication' with the help of examples in Indian context. Also
differentiate between Trademark and Geographical Indication.

Geographical Indication: Understanding the Concept with Indian Examples

A Geographical Indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical
origin and possess qualities, reputation, or characteristics that are inherently linked to that
location. This indication helps consumers identify goods that are authentically produced in a
particular region, thereby preserving the unique cultural heritage and ensuring fair competition
among producers. In India, the concept of GIs is enshrined in the Geographical Indications of
Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which came into effect in 2003.

Examples of Geographical Indications in India

India is home to a plethora of GI-registered products that showcase its rich cultural diversity and
heritage. Here are some notable examples:

1. Darjeeling Tea: Perhaps the most famous GI from India, Darjeeling Tea is known for its
unique flavor and aroma, which are attributed to the specific climatic conditions and traditional
cultivation methods of the Darjeeling region in West Bengal. This tea has been granted GI status
to protect its unique identity from imitation teas that do not originate from this region.

2. Kanchipuram Silk Sarees: Originating from Kanchipuram in Tamil Nadu, these sarees are
renowned for their intricate designs, superior quality silk, and traditional weaving techniques.
The GI status helps protect the authenticity of these sarees, ensuring that only sarees made in
Kanchipuram using traditional methods can be sold under this name.
3. Alphonso Mango: Often referred to as the "king of mangoes," the Alphonso variety is known
for its rich taste, vibrant color, and smooth texture. It is primarily grown in the Ratnagiri,
Sindhudurg, Palghar, Thane, and Raigad districts of Maharashtra. The GI tag helps preserve the
reputation of this mango and prevent misuse of its name by producers of other mango varieties.

4. Pashmina Shawls: These luxurious shawls, made from the fine wool of the Pashmina goat, are
traditionally woven in Kashmir. The GI status ensures that only shawls made in Kashmir using
authentic Pashmina wool and traditional weaving methods can be marketed as Pashmina shawls.

5. Mysore Sandalwood Oil: Produced in Karnataka, Mysore Sandalwood Oil is famous for its
purity and distinct fragrance. The GI status helps protect the unique production methods and the
geographical source of this valuable product.

Differentiating Between Trademark and Geographical Indication

While both trademarks and geographical indications are intellectual property tools used to
distinguish goods in the market, they serve different purposes and are governed by different
principles.

Trademark

A trademark is a sign, symbol, word, or phrase that identifies and distinguishes the goods or
services of one enterprise from those of others. It serves as a badge of origin, indicating the
source of the product or service, and helps consumers identify and trust the quality of a product
associated with a specific brand. Key characteristics of trademarks include:

1. Individual Ownership: Trademarks are owned by individual businesses or entities. The owner
of the trademark has the exclusive right to use the mark and can prevent others from using a
similar mark that might cause confusion among consumers.
2. Use Across Regions: Trademarks are not limited to a specific geographical region. A
trademark registered in one country can be used in other countries, subject to local registration
requirements.

3. Brand Identity: Trademarks primarily focus on brand identity and recognition. They protect
the investment a company makes in its brand and marketing.

4. Renewable Protection: Trademarks can be renewed indefinitely as long as they are in use and
the renewal fees are paid. This ensures continuous protection of the brand identity.

Geographical Indication

A geographical indication, on the other hand, is a sign used on products that have a specific
geographical origin and possess qualities, reputation, or characteristics attributable to that
location. Key characteristics of GIs include:

1. Collective Ownership: GIs are collectively owned by the producers of the goods in the
designated geographical area. All producers who adhere to the specified standards and practices
can use the GI.

2. Geographical Link: The essential characteristic of a GI is its link to a specific geographical

region. The qualities, reputation, or characteristics of the product must be attributable to its place
of origin.

3. Cultural and Traditional Importance: GIs often protect products that have cultural, traditional,
or historical significance. They help preserve traditional knowledge and practices associated with
the production of these goods.

4. Non-Renewable Protection: The protection of a GI lasts as long as the characteristics and

reputation of the product are maintained. However, the registration of a GI is not subject to
renewal but can be updated to reflect changes in production methods or geographical boundaries.
Key Differences

1. Purpose: Trademarks protect the brand identity of a single entity, while GIs protect the
collective heritage and reputation of goods produced in a specific geographical area.

2. Ownership: Trademarks are owned by individuals or companies, whereas GIs are collectively
owned by all qualified producers in the designated region.

3. Scope: Trademarks can be used in various regions and industries, but GIs are specific to
certain products and their regions of origin.

4. Duration: Trademarks can be renewed indefinitely, while GIs remain valid as long as the
product maintains its unique qualities and geographical link.

Conclusion

The protection of geographical indications is crucial for preserving the unique cultural and
traditional heritage associated with specific regions. In India, GIs play a significant role in
safeguarding the reputation and quality of diverse products, from agricultural goods like
Darjeeling Tea and Alphonso Mangoes to handicrafts like Kanchipuram Silk Sarees and
Pashmina Shawls. By differentiating between trademarks and GIs, we can appreciate the distinct
roles they play in the realm of intellectual property. Trademarks focus on brand identity and
consumer trust in individual enterprises, while GIs protect the collective reputation and
traditional practices of a region, ensuring that the unique characteristics of these products are
preserved for future generations.

Does copyright vest in the following and if yes, in whom does it vest?
(a) Reporting of the judgements of High Courts and Supreme Courts with head notes in a
Law journal.
(b) Making video film of a live performance of a singer in a concert and giving the same ot
a cinematographer without taking consent from the singer.
Substantiate your answer with relevant provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the case
law.

Copyright Vesting under the Copyright Act, 1957

Copyright law in India is governed by the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides comprehensive
protection to creators of various kinds of works, including literary, musical, dramatic, and artistic
works, as well as cinematographic films and sound recordings. To determine whether copyright
vests in specific scenarios, it's essential to understand the provisions of the Act and relevant case
law. This essay examines two specific scenarios: the reporting of court judgments in a law
journal and the making of a video film of a live performance without the singer's consent.

(a) Reporting of Judgments with Head Notes in a Law Journal

Copyright in Judgments

Under the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 13 specifies that copyright subsists in original literary,
dramatic, musical, and artistic works, as well as cinematographic films and sound recordings.
However, judicial decisions and laws are generally considered public documents. According to
Section 52(1)(q), there is no copyright in "any judgment or order of a court, tribunal, or other
judicial authority."

Case Law: In the case of Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr. (2008), the
Supreme Court of India held that the judgments of courts are in the public domain and not
subject to copyright. However, the court also noted that the creativity involved in preparing
headnotes, summaries, and other editorial material accompanying these judgments can attract
copyright protection.

Copyright in Head Notes and Reporting

Headnotes, summaries, and other editorial materials accompanying the judgments in a law
journal involve intellectual effort, creativity, and skill. As such, these components can be
considered "original literary works" under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The
originality requirement, as interpreted by the courts, mandates that the work must be
independently created and possess a minimal degree of creativity.

Case Law: The Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr.
(2008) held that the compilation of headnotes and other editorial work in law reports are original
literary works and therefore eligible for copyright protection. The court clarified that while the
judgments themselves are in the public domain, the headnotes, summaries, and any additional
commentary or analysis prepared by the editors can be protected by copyright.

Copyright Vesting: The copyright in the headnotes, summaries, and other editorial materials
created in a law journal vests in the authors or editors who prepare these components. If these
works are created in the course of employment, the employer (the publisher of the law journal)
typically owns the copyright, as per Section 17 of the Copyright Act, unless there is an
agreement to the contrary.

(b) Making a Video Film of a Live Performance without Consent

Copyright in Performances

Section 38 of the Copyright Act, 1957 grants performers certain rights, known as "performer's
rights." These rights include the right to make a sound recording or visual recording of the
performance, the right to broadcast the performance, and the right to communicate the
performance to the public. These rights exist irrespective of whether the performance is fixed in
any medium.

Case Law: The case of Neha Bhasin v. Anand Raj Anand & Ors. (2006) in the Delhi High
Court emphasized the performer's rights under Section 38, where the court recognized that
performers have the right to control how their live performances are recorded and communicated
to the public.

Making Video Films without Consent

When a video film of a live performance is made without the consent of the performer, it
constitutes an infringement of the performer's rights. Section 38A, inserted by the Copyright
(Amendment) Act, 2012, further strengthens these rights, giving performers the exclusive right
to make recordings and to authorize others to do so.

Implications for Unauthorized Recording: If a person records a live performance without the
performer's consent and then hands over the recording to a cinematographer, it constitutes an
infringement of the performer's rights. The performer has the right to seek remedies for this
unauthorized use, including injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits, as provided under
Section 55 of the Copyright Act.

Case Law: The importance of obtaining consent from performers before making any recordings
was underscored in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion
Pictures Association (1977), where the Supreme Court recognized the rights of performers and
the necessity of obtaining their consent for the use of their performances.

Copyright in Cinematographic Films

A cinematographic film, as defined under Section 2(f), is the visual recording on any medium
produced through a process from which a moving image may be produced. When a video film is
made of a live performance, it constitutes a cinematographic film. The copyright in a
cinematographic film typically vests in the producer of the film, as per Section 17.

Copyright Vesting: In this scenario, the copyright in the unauthorized video film would
technically vest in the person who made the film (the producer). However, since the recording
was made without the performer's consent, the performer can challenge the validity of this
copyright on the grounds of infringement of their performer's rights.

Conclusion

In summary, copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957, covers various forms of
creative and intellectual efforts. For the reporting of judgments with headnotes in a law journal,
copyright does not extend to the judgments themselves but does protect the original editorial
work such as headnotes and summaries, which vests in the creators or their employers. For the
unauthorized making of a video film of a live performance, the performer's rights are infringed,
and the performer has legal recourse against such actions. The copyright in such a video film,
while technically vesting in the producer, is subject to challenge due to the infringement of the
performer's rights.