INTRODUCTION TO

COPYRIGHT
Arya Anil
Faculty
Ramaiah college of Law
• Property designates those things that are commonly recognized as being
the possessions of an individual or a group. A right of ownership is
associated with property that establishes the good as being "one's own
thing" in relation to other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the
right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she deems fit,
whether to use or not use, exclude others from using, or to transfer
ownership.
• Properties are of two types one is tangible property and the other is
intangible property i.e. one that is physically present and the other which
is not in any physical form. On the other hand there is a kind of valuable
property that cannot be felt physically as it does not have a physical form.
• The WTO Agreement, inter alia, contains an Agreement on Trade Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which prescribes the minimum standards
to be adopted within stipulated time frame by the member countries in respect
of the following seven areas of intellectual property:
• Copyright and related rights;
• Trademarks;
• Geographical indications:
• Industrial designs;
• Patents;
• Layout-designs (Topographies) of integrated circuits;
• Protection of undisclosed information
WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
• Copyright is a right given by the law to creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic
works and producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings.
• The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 protects their owners' copyright and related rights.
• Indian Copyright Act affords separate and exclusive copyright protection to the following 7
clauses of work:
1. Original Literary Work
2. Original Dramatic Work
3. Original Musical Work
4. Original Artistic Work
5. Cinematographs Films
6. Sound recording
7. Computer Programme
Examples of copyrighted works

1.Literary works – Books, novels, stories, computer

program codes etc.
2.Musical works – Music, choruses etc.
3.Artistic works – Paintings, photographs,cartoons (Mickey
Mouse, Tom and Jerry), drawings etc.
4.Dramatic works – Dance steps, screenplays, operas etc.
5.Cinematograph films – Movies, video films etc.
6.Sound recordings – Any recording of sounds, recording
of songs by sound recorders etc.
WHAT ARE RELATED RIGHTS?
• Copyright has some closely related rights that confer similar principles
of protection.
• These are called “related rights” or “neighbouring rights”.
• These rights protect persons other than the creators who are involved
in the dissemination of copyrighted work.
• These rights are confined to three specific categories of persons:
performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting
organizations.
Copyright protection is available if the following two conditions are
fulfilled:
• Originality, meaning that the work owes its origin to the author.
Originality is different from novelty. An author of the work need not
be the first to articulate the ideas or create the work.
• Reduction into tangible form. For a work to be protected, it must be
written down, drawn, painted or taped. Mere oral expression of idea
will not qualify for copyright protection.
Copyright and originality

• A person can enjoy the benefits of the Copyright Act, 1957

only if the work is original. Originality is a basic feature of
copyright.
• One of the earliest rulings is the case of
University of London Press, Limited vs. University Tutorial Pr
ess Limited
(1916). The Court held that ‘original’ does not mean that
the work must be inventive or a thought over which no one
has expressed anything. It is not concerned with the idea
but the way the idea is expressed. It does not require that
the idea is novel, but the work must not be a copy of
another work. The expression of work should originate from
the author.
• In Veerabhadra Rao v. B.N.Sarma (1960) the issue was
originality in the context of translation. The case
involved a Telugu rendering translation of the English
book ‘Indian Police Action against Hyderabad’. The
author had drawn some materials from the English work
and added many things from history and other sources.
The book was more informative and lucid. The Court
held that it was an original composition of Mr. Sarma,
though he had gathered materials from the appellant’s
book and historical facts.
• In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008), the
Supreme Court held that the Copyright Act has nothing
to do with original ideas and rather with the expression
of thought. To claim copyright, the author must produce
the work with skill and judgment which may not be
creative in the sense that it is novel or non-obvious, but
not the product of merely labour and capital.
IDEA- EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY
• R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978)
Indian law on copyright does not specifically mention the
idea-expression dichotomy. But the rule got properly
established in the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment
of R.G. Anand v. M/S Deluxe Films & Ors (1978).
However, this is the only Supreme Court case on this
matter of idea-expression dichotomy.
Facts of the case
• The appellant-plaintiff in this case, R.G. Anand was an Indian playwright
who had written and produced the play ‘Hum Hindustani’ in the span of
the years 1953-1954.
• The play had become extremely popular and subsequently, he was
contacted by a person called Mr. Mohan Sehgal (second defendant in
this case).
• Mr. Sehgal requested the appellant to send a copy of the play to him
because he wanted to contemplate whether it was adequate material to
base a movie on.
• The appellant complied.
• In 1956 a motion picture called ‘New Delhi’ was released which the
appellant found to be completely based on his play.
• But the appellant had not been accorded with any credit in the movie.
• Accordingly, he filed a suit for damages in the Trial Court of
Delhi.
• The trial court considered numerous concerns and concluded
that the appellant was the owner of the copyright in ‘Hum
Hindustani’.
• However, there was no infringement of the appellant’s
copyright.
• The appellant consequently appealed to the Delhi High Court
who upheld the decree of the Trial Court.
• By a special leave petition, the case finally reached the
Supreme Court of India.
Decision of the court
• The play’s major topic was ‘provincialism’ and the narrative concerned
people from different provinces (Punjab and Tamil Nadu).
• The film kept the same idea, merely switching the gender of the main
character from the play.
• The Court first contrasted the play with the film in general terms,
concluding that the film’s topic was larger in scope, encompassing both
‘provincialism’ and ‘dowry’.
• In determining that infringement was not proved, the Court concluded
that copyright cannot be obtained over a concept (‘provincialism’ in this
case) and that the differences between the two works were significant
enough to find that there was no copying of his play’s script.
• Moreover, a seven-point test for distinguishing an idea from the
expression has emerged from this case.
• There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter,
themes, narratives, or historical or legendary facts.
• Where the same concept is developed differently, it is
obvious that because the source is shared, parallels are
sure to appear. In such a situation, the courts must
decide whether the similarities are on basic or
significant parts of the style of expression used in the
copyrighted work.
• One of the surest and safest tests to determine whether
or not there has been a copyright violation is to see if
the reader, spectator, or viewer is clearly of the opinion
and gets an unmistakable impression that the
subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original
after having read or seen both works.
• There is no concern of copyright violation if the concept is
the same but is presented and treated differently such that
the succeeding work becomes an entirely new work.
• Where, however, apart from the similarities appearing in the
two works, there are also significant and wide dissimilarities
that negate the intention to duplicate the original and the
coincidences appearing in the two works are manifestly
accidental, no copyright infringement occurs.
• As a breach of copyright constitutes an act of piracy, it must
be proven by clear and convincing evidence after applying
the relevant case law criteria.
• When the issue is an infringement of a stage play’s
copyright by a film producer or director, the plaintiff’s
task becomes more difficult to show piracy. It is obvious
that, unlike a stage play, a film has a much broader
perspective, a wider field, and a larger background in
which the defendants might add colour and complexion
distinct from the method in which the original work has
represented the concept by introducing a variety of
situations.
Lay observer’s test

• The lay observer’s test was established in the R.G.

Anand Case (1978) and is generally used by courts to
distinguish between ideas and expression in any given
case. As the name suggests, this test is performed by
making an average layman of reasonable intellect
peruse the contended works of the plaintiffs and
defendants. Their opinion on the similarity or
dissimilarity of the works is then taken into
consideration while deciding a case.
Author and owner under copyright

1.The author is the person who creates the work. The owner may be a different person or
entity. An owner is a person who has bought the rights over the work from the author.
2.The author may be commissioned by the owner for some remuneration. The person
commissioning the work is the owner of the copyright unless there is an agreement to
the contrary. The owner hires the services of the author to create the work. In such a
case the author has a moral right over his work.
3.The author has a right to be identified as to be the author and object in case his work is
mutilated, distorted, or modified without his consent and prohibits the owner of
copyright from doing any act that would be to the detriment of the honour or reputation
of the author.
4.This is known as the moral right as laid down under Section 57 of the Copyright Act,
1957. They are non-transferable. An author can seek damages or restraining orders
even after the author has sold the rights of his work.
• The Court interpreted Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in
the case of Manu Bhandari vs Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd
(1986). Manu Bhandari, a reputed novelist had sold her rights
of a Hindi novel to producers for producing the novel into a
Hindi film. Manu Bhandari objected to the changes made in the
film as they would likely damage the reputation of the author.
The Court held that though the author had sold her rights in the
novel, and considering she had agreed to certain changes in the
novel as is bound to be in its adaptation from novel to film, it is
the duty of the director, to interpret the novel and make it into
a film and to see that the reputation of the author is not
tarnished. The Court directed the release of the film after the
deletion of some scenes from the film.
Term of copyright under the Copyright Act of 1957

• The term of copyright in literary, dramatic, artistic, or

musical work is for a period of the lifetime of the creator
plus a period of sixty years after the death of the creator.
Where there is the presence of multiple authors, the term
60 years is calculated post the death of the last author. The
same has been guaranteed by the Copyright Act, 1957.
• It is necessary to note that for cinematograph films, sound
recordings, photographs, posthumous publications,
anonymous and pseudonymous publications, works of
government and works of international organisations, the
60 years period is calculated from the year of publication
• Further, when it comes to sound recordings, the period
of 60 years is calculated from the end of the year in
which that sound recording is said to have been
published for the first time. When it comes to the rights
of the broadcasters, the validity of the right has been
provided with a period of 25 years from the year of
broadcast, whereas the performer’s rights that have
been our subject matter of discussion previously last for
a period of 50 years from the year in which the
performance was made.