Copyright

1. COPYRIGHT
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

2. AGENDA
COPYRIGHT
2
INTRODUCTION
CHARACTERISTICS
SECTION 13
SECTION 14
CASE LAW

3. INTRODUCTION
PRESENTATION
TITLE
3
• Copyright is a unique kind of intellectual
property.
• Right which a person acquires in a work,
which is the result of his intellectual
labour, is called copyright.
• Primary function of a copyright law is to
protect the fruits of a man’s work, labour,
skill or test from being taken away by
other people.
• Copyright is defined as an exclusive right
given by law for a certain term of years to
an author, composer, etc, to print, publish
and sell copies of his original work.

4. COPYRIGHT
1.CREATION OF STATUES
2.SOME FORM OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
3.MONOPOLY RIGHT
4.NEGATIVE RIGHT
5.MULTIPLE RIGHT
6.COPYRIGHT ONLY IN FORM
NOT IN IDEA
7.NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS
COPYRIGHT
4

5. • Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is the most requisite
Section as it deals with the subject matter of copyright
protection. According to Section 13(1), all of India is under
the purview of the Copyright, and the following classifications
of works are protected by the Copyright:
1.Original artistic, musical, dramatic, and literary works
2.Sound recording
3.Cinematograph films
• Literary works, theatrical works, musical works, creative
works, cinematographic films, and sound recordings all have
copyright protection under Section 13 of the Copyright Act of
1957. For instance, the Act protects literary works such as
books and computer programs.
5
COPYRIGHT

6. ALL SUBJECT MATTERS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
ARE CALLED ‘WORKS’. THUS ACCORDING
TO SECTION 13 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT 1957, IT
MAY BE SUBJECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING WORK:
6
COPYRIGHT
ORIGINAL
LITERARY
WORK
ORIGINAL
DRAMATIC
WORK
ORIGINAL
MUSICAL
WORK
ORIGINAL
ARTISTIC
WORK
CINEMATOGRAPHY
FILMS

7. THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF
COPYRIGHT MEANS THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO DO OR
AUTHORIZE OTHERS TO DO
CERTAIN ACTS IN RELATION TO
–
1.LITERARY, DRAMATIC OR
MUSICAL WORKS;
2.ARTISTIC WORK;
3.CINEMATOGRAPH FILM; AND
4.SOUND RECORDING.
SECTION 14 OF THE
COPYRIGHT ACT,1957 DEFINES

8. CASE LAW
COPYRIGHT
8
R.G. Anand v. M/S. Delux Films
and Others
(1978)

9. FACTS
The respondent is a film production firm, while the appellant is
a playwright and an architect by profession. In the year 1953,
the appellant wrote a play titled “Hum Hindustani,” which was
performed in New Delhi the following year, in the year 1954.
The play was so popular that it was presented again in Calcutta
in the years 1954, 1955, and 1956. Due to the play’s
popularity, the appellant sought to have it made into a movie.
The appellant’s purpose was made known to the respondent,
and the two met in New Delhi to talk about the possibility of
hearing it. The respondent was given a detailed explanation of
the entire play by the appellant, but no promise to film it was
made by the respondent.
9
COPYRIGHT

10. In 1956, the respondent produced a film titled “New
Delhi,” which was thereafter released. After watching
the film, the appellant claimed that the respondents
had plagiarised his play and used it as the basis for a
movie without his consent. The appellant then
presented a case to the Delhi District Judge. The
appellants argued in court that the play and movie
share striking parallels and are both founded on the
same concept, namely “Provincialism.” The District
Judge, however, disagreed with the appellant’s
assertion following the arguments.
1 0
COPYRIGHT

11. ISSUES
Whether the plaintiff’s copyright in the play
“Hum Hindustani” was violated by the
defendants’ distribution, production, and
screening of the movie “New Delhi”?
1 1
COPYRIGHT

12. JUDGEMENT
The Court’s judgment was given by Justice Fazal Ali. The Court
determined that even if both the play and the movie may have
been inspired by the concept of “Provincialism,” they are very
different from one another. The movie also depicts other
aspects of “Provincialism,” such as “Provincialism” in the
leasing of outhouses, which are not depicted in the play when
it comes to marriage. The play doesn’t illustrate the evils of
dowry, but the movie does. Because the concept in both the
play and the movie is identical, the court struck down the
appellants’ claim because it is well-established law that a
concept cannot be protected by copyright.
1 2
COPYRIGHT

13. The Court cited N.T. Raghunathan and Anr. v. All India
Reporter Ltd., Bombay (1957), and held that there may be
some similarities. According to the Court, a regular person
would not consider the play and the movie to be a duplicate of
the play if they were to view both. The claim made by the
appellants that their copyright has been violated cannot stand
due to the significant disparities between the play and the
movie. The Delhi High Court’s decision has been maintained
court. As a result, the Court ruled in favour of the respondents
on both matters, and thus there was no violation.
1 3
COPYRIGHT

14. THANK YOU
NETAL AGRAWAL
ROLL NO. 33003