The Copyright Act of 1957

Section 14

 For the purposes of this Act, “copyright” means the exclusive right subject to the provisions
of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or
any substantial part thereof, namely:— (a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work,
not being a computer programme,—
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by
electronic means; (ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in
circulation;……………………………… (e) in the case of a sound recording,— (i) to make any
other sound recording embodying it 1 [including storing of it in any medium by electronic or
other means]; 2 [(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for such rental, any
copy of the sound recording;] (iii) to communicate the sound recording to the public.
 Eastern Book Company V. D. B Modak
Facts
 The appellants - EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Deals in publishing and printing various books
in law as well as reportable and non-reportable judgments of the Courts.
 After retrieving original judgments they edit the copies, number the paragraphs, make one-
lines, headnotes and footnotes for the same.
 The Respondents had allegedly copied the whole module from SCC to the CD ROM and
all modules in the software packages had been similar to the Appellants’ work and way of
publishing the legal reports by using the same arrangements, sequencing, and selection of
cases.
 EBC moved to the Delhi High Court claiming for an interim injunction which the single,
as well as the division judge bench, rejected.
 Issues

 What shall be the originality in a derivative work to get copyright protection, and what
requirement needs to be there for its fulfilment?

 Whether only the particular inputs made in the Judgements, passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court, will be entitled to copyright protection, or will the whole copy-edited version of the
Judgement be allowed for copyright?
ARGUMENTS
BY THE PETITIONER-
  Copyright subsists in the law report ‘Supreme Court Cases’, the SCC,
as a whole.
 Work takes substantial labor, skill, capital, and infrastructure.
 Work done by the author is neither of trivial nature nor negligible
irrespective of the amount of creativity put in by the author
BY THE RESPONDANT

 The reproduction of the cases of the supreme court does not lead to
copyright infringement under Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act.
 Extensions did lack even minimal level of creativity or application of
intellectual labor which is required to get copyright as per Copyright Act
1957.
 Pointed out the difference between law report and law journal.
 Appellant’s work was claimed to be Law Journal and not Law Report
Judgment

 The Court held that every author should show that the particular derivative work should be
more than just a mere copy of the original work.
 It should have independent labour, skill, and capital of the author for getting copyright
protection of such derivative work under the Copyright Act, 1957.
 The Apex Court also directed that even for internal references, the respondents were not
allowed to use the paragraphs made by the Appellants in their copy-edited version.
 The Court further referred to the principle of a minimal degree of creativity.
 The Apex Court gave the decision in favour of Appellants.
Conclusion

 The jurisdiction of Copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957, finds itself in fair
play.
 This Act puts a check on the exploitation of the original owner against the use of his work
without his consent.
 The case set a new standard for the concept of originality by making a balanced decision
between the concept of ‘sweat of the brow’ and the level of creativity required to make
your work subsist for copyright.
 The crux being for an author to apply for copyright for his work must be an ‘exercise of
skill and judgment’ and not creativity, more than just an application of labour and capital.