CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

IN THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT

Civil Suit No: xyz/1234

In the matter of

Pradyumna Sahani Petitioners

Versus

Ratan Lal Sahni Memorial and ANR. Respondents

4th CLASS MOOT COURT, 8041, LLB-III, DIV A, 2020-2021

Page | 1
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION.............................................................................................4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………………………….3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................... ...................6
ISSUES RAISED...........................................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................................9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...........................................................................................11
PRAYER....................................................................................................................16

Page | 2
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Sr. No Case Citation/hyperlink
1 Per Peterson J. in (1916) 2 Ch. 601at 608
University of London Press , (1923) 40 T.L.R. 186
Ltd. v . University Tutorial
Press Ltd . cited with
approval in: Macmillan &
Co. Ltd. v . Cooper K & J
Ladbroke Football Ltd. V
William Hill (Football) Ltd.
(1964) I.W.L. R. 273at 277
2 Football Ltd. v . William (1964) I.W.L. R. 273at
Hill (Football) Ltd. 277
3 The Chancellor, Masters 2011 (45) PTC 70 (Del.)
and Scholars of the
University of Oxford v
Rameshwari Photocopy
Services
4 V. Ramaiah v. K. (1989) PTC 137
Lakshmaiah
5 Supreme Court in Eastern (2001) PTC 57 (Del) 94,
Book Company V. D. B. 95
Modak
6 Periyar Self Respect V. 2009 (41) PTC 448
Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam (Mad).
7 Civic Chandran vs Ammini 16 PTC 329 (Kerala)
Amma
8 Copy Rights Act 1957 Section 2, 52

Page | 3
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

SCC Supreme Court Cases

AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Ors. Others
Supreme Court Supreme Court Of India
V Versus

Page | 4
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Page | 5
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Aryaprastha is a democratic country where Hindus are in Majority. It was ruled
by Portuguese for more than 150 years. It got independence in 1973 and its
written Constitution came into force in 1975. Mr. Ratan Lal Sahni was the
President of the Constituent Assembly which framed the Aryaprastha’s
Constitution. He was staunch follower of ‘the theory of Karma’ and strongly
believed in ‘Shrimad Bhagvad Gita’. He carved some Shlokas of Gita with his
signature on his writing desk. After his death in 1999, his followers established
the Ratan Lal Sahni’s Memorial (Sahni Memorial) where articles belonging to
Mr. Sahni were displayed in one large room. His writing desk was also on
display. Visitors paid fees of Rs 25 for entry into the memorial.
Sanskriti Trust (hereafter ‘Sanskriti’), a registered society, runs various schools
in Aryaprashtha, and publishes textbooks for its students. It approached Sahni
Memorial and asked for some writings of Mr. Sahni to be published on cover
page of its textbooks. Representatives of the Representatives of the Sahni
Memorial took a photograph of Mr. Sahni’s writing desk with the Shlokas and
the signature, and gave it to Sanskriti. Subsequently Sanskriti published the
photograph on cover pages of its text books. Sanskriti earned around Rs. 25
lakhs of revenue from sale of books in a year.
Sahni Memorial took a photograph of Mr. Sahni’s writing desk with the Shlokas
and the signature, and gave it to Sanskriti. Subsequently Sanskriti published
the photograph on cover pages of its text books. Sanskriti earned around Rs.
25 lakhs of revenue from sale of books in a year. Mr. Pradhumn Sahni, son of
Mr. Ratan Lal Sahni who owns copyright in Mr. Sahni’s works after death of his
father, sent a notice to Sanskriti and Sahni Memorial asserting copyright over
the carving / engraving on the writing desk, and alleging its infringement by
taking its photograph and its publication on the text books without his
permission. He asked Sanskriti to pay royalty to him for already published
books and stop further publication. He also asked Sahni Memorial to pay him
damages for infringement of his copyright.
Sanskriti and Sahni Memorial replied to this notice that the photograph and
signature did not enjoy copyright, and their publication did not amount to
infringement. They also claimed other defences under Section 52 of the
Copyright Act.

Page | 6
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

ISSUES RAISED

1) Whether the carving on writing desk deemed as ‘artistic work’ under

section 2 of the Copy Rights Act 1957?
2) If yes, Whether the copy right protection to the said work can be
exempted under section 52
3) Whether the printing of photograph on desk amounts to Fair Use,
Incidental Use and Non Commercial Use.

Page | 7
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMNETS.
Issue – I
Whether the carving on writing desk deemed as ‘artistic work’ under
section 2 of the Copy Rights Act 1957?
The carvings are not ‘artistic work’ under section 2 of the Act. Copyright
protection is given to original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and
not to ideas and, therefore, it is original skill or labour in execution of the work,
and not originality of thought, which is required
Issue – II
Whether the copy right protection to the said work can be exempted
under section 52.
Reporting on the life of constitution maker is reporting of current events,
because the policies government adopts always has connection with the ideas
giving by constitution makers and the ideas which influenced them. The
purpose was to propagate the idea of karma which the author was influenced
by.
Section 52 (1)(t) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or
photograph of sculpture, or other artistic work falling under sub-clause (iii) of
clause (c) of section 2, if such work is permanently situate in a public place or
any premises to which the public has access
Issue – III
Whether the printing of photograph on desk amounts to Fair Use,
Incidental Use and Non Commercial Use.
Interpretation of certain existing rules in order to provide adequate solutions to
the questions raised by new economic, social, cultural and technological
developments; to introduce new norms in order to develop and maintain the
protection of the rights of the authors in their literary and artistic works in a
manner as effective and uniform as possible and further to maintain a balance
between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly
education, research and access to information as reflected in the Berne
Convention

Page | 8
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

The principle of freedom of expression will protect both information and ideas.
Freedom of expression includes the right to publish and receive information.
Public interest may in certain circumstances be so overwhelming that courts
would not refrain from injuncting use of even "leaked information" or even the
right to use the "very words" in which the aggrieved person has copyright, as at
times, public interest may demand the use of the "very words" to convey the
message to public at large. While the courts may desist from granting
injunction based on the principle of freedom of expression, this would,
however, not necessarily protect the infringer in an action instituted on behalf
of the person in whom the copyright vests for damages and claim for an
account of profits;

Page | 9
CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

Page | 10
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Issue-I
Whether the carving on writing desk deemed as ‘artistic work’ under
section 2 of the Copy Rights Act 1957?
Copyright protection is given to original literary, dramatic, musical and
artistic works and not to ideas and, therefore, it is original skill or labour
in execution of the work, and not originality of thought, which is
required. The word "original " does not, in this connection, mean that the
work must be the expression of original or inventive thought; the
originality required relates to the expression of thought1
Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas,
procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.2
The fact that it engraving doesn’t constitute and artistic work is that Mr
Sahini Was not a wood artist but was a socio political philosopher, who
believed in theory of Karma, the carvings thus were expression of his
ideas, and not his artistic work.
In V. Ramaiah v. K. Lakshmaiah3 the respondents wrote a "Guide" in
respect of a textbook in which the appellants had copyright. The court
held that merely the use of language couched in the text book does not
necessarily mean that the respondents pirated the words particularly
when the Guide was written to help the students to understand the
meaning, significance and the answers that have to be written to the
questions. It is an original work. Moreover, the respondents in this case
had acknowledged the authorship of textbook and, therefore, their
conduct did not amount to infringement. Delhi High Court in Eastern
Book Co. v. Navin J. Desai held that head notes of law reports can be
original literary work if they are prepared by the author using his own

1
Per Peterson J. in University of London Press Ltd. V. University Tutorial Press Ltd . (1916) 2 Ch. 601at 608; cited
with approval in: Macmillan & Co. Ltd. v . Cooper K & J (1923) 40 T.L.R. 186; Ladbroke Football Ltd. v . William Hill
(Football) Ltd . (1964) I.W.L. R. 273at 277.
2
WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996, Article 2; and TRIPS, 1994, Article 9 (2). It clarifies the scope of copyright protection.
Such a provision is neither present in the Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic Works nor in
the Copyright Act, 1957 of India. The principle is, however, followed by the judiciary
3
(1989) PTC 137

Page | 11
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

skill, labour and judgment. In case of compilations the courts had

previously held that the labour and skill employed in selecting and
arranging existing subject matter gives rise to an original literary work.
The test was called the "sweat of the brow test". However, the Supreme
Court in Eastern Book Company V. D. B. Modak4 held that to claim
copyright in a compilation, the author must produce the material with
exercise of his skill and judgment which may not be creativity in the
sense that it is novel or non-obvious, but at the same time it is not a
product of merely skill and labour. The work of compilation must have a
flavour of "creativity" to be called original. If a work is created by making
use of works in the public domain then "sweat of the brow" test is
replaced by "minimum of creativity test".

4
2001) PTC 57 (Del) 94, 95

Page | 12
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

Issue – II
Whether the copy right protection to the said work can be exempted
under provisions of section 52 of The Copy Right Act 1957.
The exclusive economic rights are not absolute rather they are limited by the
fair dealing provisions provided under section 52
On December 20, 1996, representatives of approximately 120 countries
participated in a Diplomatic Conference to discuss copyright and neighboring
rights questions. This Diplomatic Conference in 1996 was a result of series of
sessions of a committee of experts on a possible Protocol to the Berne
Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works. The need for such a
Protocol was felt because there were certain questions in respect of which
professional circles had no uniform view and what was of particular concern
was that governments party to the Berne Convention interpreted their
obligations under the Berne Convention differently. The proposed Protocol was
mainly destined to clarify the interpretation of certain existing rules in order to
provide adequate solutions to the questions raised by new economic, social,
cultural and technological developments; to introduce new norms in order to
develop and maintain the protection of the rights of the authors in their literary
and artistic works in a manner as effective and uniform as possible and further
to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public
interest, particularly education, research and access to information as reflected
in the Berne Convention. The Conference at it’s eighth session adopted the
WIPO Copyright Treaty together with the WIPO Performances and Phonograms
Treaty 1996, in order to achieve the above objectives. The WCT came into force
on 6th April 2002 and WPPT on 20th May 2002.5
Section 52 (1) (t) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving
or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work falling under sub-clause
(iii) of clause (c) of section 2, if such work is permanently situate in a public
place or any premises to which the public has access
Section 52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright.— (1) The
following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely,—

5
See R.V. Vaidyanatha Ayyar, Interest or Right? The Process and Politics of a Diplomatic Conference on Copyright,
Journal of World Intellectual Property (1998) p. 3; Jorg Reinbothe, Maria Martin-Part & Silke Von Lewinski, The New
WIPO Treaties : A First Resume, 19 European International Property Report (1997) p. 171

Page | 13
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

4 [(a) a fair dealing with any work, not being a computer programme, for the
purposes of-
(iii) the reporting of current events and current affairs, including the reporting
of a lecture delivered in public.
The Court in the case of Super Cassettes Industries V Hamar Television
Network Pvt. Ltd6 held,” In ascertaining as to what would constitute reportage
of "current events" or would fall within the ambit of "criticism" or "review",
Courts ought to adopt a liberal approach”.
Reporting on the life of constitution maker is reporting of current events,
because the policies government adopts always has connection with the ideas
giving by constitution makers and the ideas which influenced them. The
purpose was to propagate the idea of karma which the author was influenced
by.
Section 52 (I) the reproduction of any work—
(i) by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction; or
(ii) as part of the question to be answered in an examination; or
(iii) in answers to such questions;

Section 52 (m) - the reproduction in a newspaper, magazine or other

periodical of an article on current economic, political, social or religious topics,
unless the author of such article has expressly reserved to himself the right of
such reproduction. (Reading the above types of modes of publications as a
whole, text book also come under the same set of publications, since school
text books are generally combination of all of the above)
Section 52 (1) (t) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or
photograph of sculpture, or other artistic work falling under sub-clause (iii) of
clause (c) of section 2, if such work is permanently situate in a public place or
any premises to which the public has access
Section 52 (1) (u): the inclusion in a cinematograph film of (i) any artistic
work permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public
has access; or (ii) any other artistic work, if such inclusion is only by way of
6
2011 (45) PTC 70 (Del.)

Page | 14
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

background or is otherwise incidental to the principal matters represented in

the film;
Example: A draws and carves out a statue in a garden. While shooting for a
cinema, the producer includes a scene where the cine heroine and hero run
around the statue in a romantic manner. The producer of the film has not
infringed the copyright of either author or any other copyright owner by
showing the statue in his film.
Though the example exclusively talks about the films, and in this case a
photograph is involved, both come under the doctrine of fair use and

Page | 15
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

Issue – III
Whether the printing of photograph on desk amounts to Fair Use,
Incidental Use and Non Commercial Use.
The author is not an isolated nomad but a social being who is a member of the
matrix of society. His creativity contributes to social, economic and political
progress and the cultural wealth of society and the society in turn provides
conditions for him to grow socially, economically and politically. Since he has a
symbiotic relationship with the society, his claims and liberties can be put
under certain restrictions and limitations, keeping in view, the larger interests
of the society. The copyright law recognizes the interests of the author and tries
to balance them with the interests of the public in having access to his work.
The restrictions imposed on the rights of the author include doctrine of fair
dealing, issue of compulsory licenses and protection of economic rights in the
work for a limited duration.
In The Periyar Self Respect V. Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam7, the question
involved was who is the owner of copyright in articles written on current issues
if the author does not reserve the right of reproduction with him? Periyar, the
founder of the Self-Respect Movement in 1926, started a newspaper
"Kudiyarasu”. He published various articles and write ups covering political,
economic and social issues in this newspaper. Periyar died intestate and there
was no material to show that a copyright had been reserved by him as an
author of those articles. The court held that it is no doubt true that the overall
owner of the copyright has a right akin to the right to property, but at the same
time, in a work if made public then it should be made available subject to a
reasonable term. In the present case, it has been made clear that the author of
"Kudiyarasu ", i.e. the late Periyar, was the owner and the articles published in
the newspapers mostly related to the then existent economic, political, social
and religious topics. Therefore, unless the author had expressly reserved his
right of reproduction, no copyright will vest with anyone as reproduction of
such articles cannot constitute an infringement”
ii) Section 52 (1) (i): The reproduction of any work (i) by a teacher or a pupil in
the course of instruction; or Example: A teacher distributes copies of an article
written by B without his permission to students of her class for the purposes of
explaining a topic. The teacher has not infringed the copyright of B. (ii) as part
7
2009 (41) PTC 448 (Mad).

Page | 16
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

of the questions to be answered in an examination; or Example : In a question

paper the examiner quotes a few paragraphs from a work and instructs the
students to analyze the work of the author. The examiner has not violated the
copyright of the author. (iii) in answers to such questions; The use of
photograph doesn’t amount to publishing but amounts to reporting since,
receiving information about the Public and Historic personality is Fundamental
Right. The art work was not reproduced but only a photo reproduced.
Absence of Commercial use- people visit the memorial (which is not an
exhibition or museum) to know about a Mr. Sahani’s Life and not to enjoy his
artistic creation. And thus not an artistic work under section 2. The
commercial purpose thus is absent, the see the table along with other personal
belongings of Saini, it gives people new insight about the life of a constitution
maker.
It is a memorial, not museum or exhibition
In United States, the House Report accompanying section 107 of the
United States Code observed: In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a ‘fair use’ the factors to be considered shall include:
(1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for non profit 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; and
(4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

In the case of Civic Chandran vs Ammini Amma8, the Court considered that
a parody did not constitute an infringement of copyright as long as it has not
been misused or misappropriated. In consonance with this case, the Court
established the following three tests which is to be taken into consideration to
determine work to be an infringement of copyright:
1. “the quantum and value of the matter taken in relation to the
comments or criticism; 
2. the purpose for which it is taken; and 

8
16 PTC 329 (Kerala)

Page | 17
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

3. the likelihood of competition between the two works.”

Public Interest
The Court in held, Super Cassettes Industries V Hamar Television
Network Pvt. Ltd9
The principle of freedom of expression will protect both information and
ideas. Freedom of expression includes the right to publish and receive
information. Public interest may in certain circumstances be so
overwhelming that courts would not refrain from injuncting use of even
"leaked information" or even the right to use the "very words" in which
the aggrieved person has copyright, as at times, public interest may
demand the use of the "very words" to convey the message to public at
large. While the courts may desist from granting injunction based on the
principle of freedom of expression, this would, however, not necessarily
protect the infringer in an action instituted on behalf of the person in
whom the copyright vests for damages and claim for an account of
profits;

9
2011 (45) PTC 70 (Del.)

Page | 18
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

In the case of “The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of

Oxford v Rameshwari Photocopy Services10 in this case it was held that
“making course packs for suggested reading for students by photocopying
portions of various prescribed reference books does not violate the copyright of
the publishers.” The facts of the case state that the plaintiffs were Oxford
University Press, Cambridge University Press and its Indian affiliate, Taylor &
Francis and its Indian affiliate. They filed a suit for permanent injunction
restraining Rameshwari Photocopy Services and via Delhi School of Economics,
Delhi University from infringing copyright owned by them in various
publications which have been photocopied and distributed to students in
course packs. The course packs reproduced selected portions of copyright
protected materials ranging between 5% to 33.25% of the original books. The
Delhi School of Economics’ portion never required the entire packs to be
reproduced; only selected portions were contained in the pack. The court
granted protection to the copier.

10 (CS (OS) 2439/2012, I.As. No. 14632/2012)

Page | 19
 CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced,
authorities cited, it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court
1) May be pleased to dismiss the suit and uphold the right of Sanskriti
trust to use the photograph of Saini’s Writing Desk
2) AND/OR Pass any other Order, Direction or Relief that it may deem fit in
the best interests of Justice, Fairness, Equity, and Good Conscience.
For this Act of Kindness, the Petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

Date- 28th May 2021

Place- New Delhi, India

Sd/-

Counsel for Appellant.

VIKRANT RAJE
ROLL No - 8041
KSHNOTRA PATUKALE
Roll No 8042

Page | 20
CLASS MOOT –IV, LLB-III, DIV-A, 8041

Page | 21