Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights granted to creators of original works to prevent unauthorized copying. While creators in ancient times did not worry about copying, the invention of the printing press led to concerns about unauthorized copying depriving authors of rewards for their work. Later, other categories of works like films and sound recordings were included under copyright. The objectives of copyright law are to encourage creation of new works by rewarding creators with limited exclusive rights, and to prevent unauthorized exploitation of others' works. Copyright automatically exists in original literary, artistic, dramatic or musical works when fixed in a tangible form. Though facts are not copyrightable, compilations of facts can be if there is a minimal level of creativity in the selection or arrangement.

1. Introduction to Copyright
4/8/2024 1

2. Copyright : Meaning
• The word copy has a range of meanings:
transcript, imitation, reproduction of an
original writing or painting etc.
• “COPYRIGHT IS NOT A RIGHT TO COPY”
• It is a bundle of rights given to the creator to
prevent other’s from copying the work of the
creator. So, copyright may end you up in jail.
Some time back the Delhi University Vice
Chancellor was jailed for violation of
copyright.
4/8/2024 2

3. • Creators of literary artistic or musical works in
ancient times did not worry about their work
being copied.
• However, the question of copyright came to the
fore when the printing technology made its
appearance. The first to be affected adversely by
printing were the authors whose books/works
could be copied in large numbers by unauthorised
persons, who would reap the benefits depriving
the authors of just rewards of their intellectual
work.
• Later as technology advanced, several other
categories of originators of intellectual works
were included under copyright: literary, dramatic,
musical, artistic, cinematograph film, sound
recording.
4/8/2024 3

4. The object of copyright law
• To encourage authors, composers, artists and designers
to create original works by rewarding them with an
exclusive right for a limited period. Such exclusive
rights are permitted for literary, dramatic, musical,
artistic, cinematograph film and sound recordings.
Licensing the right to publishers, film producers and
music record manufacturers permits the economic
exploitation.
• The law also aims at preventing anyone from
reproducing or exploiting another person’s work
without authorisation.
4/8/2024 4

5. COPYRIGHT
• Copyright is a form of protection given to the authors
/creators of original work.
• This property can be sold and transferred.
• Copyright law assures ownership, which comes with
several rights, that the author has exclusively. For
example:
 Make copies of the work
 Distribute copies of the work
 Perform the work publically
 Display the work publically
 Make derivative works
4/8/2024 5

6. • Copyright holder may grant the permission or
license anyone else to do these things, without
affecting their ownership of the actual copyright
in their work. For example: An author may permit
a television adaptation of their book to be made
and broadcast.
• Law provides certain ways in which copyright
works may be used without the need to obtain
permission form copyright holder- these include:
• Fair use
• Public Domain
• Library privilege
• Copying for examination and copying for
instruction
4/8/2024 6

7. • Copyright protection is automatic at the
moment work is created and fixed in a
tangible form that it is perceptible.
• Copyrightable work:
Literary work
Dramatic Work
Musical work
Artistic work
• Non-copyrightable work
Facts, ideas, systems etc,
4/8/2024 7

8. • Modern copyright law developed in India
gradually, in what we may identify roughly as
three distinct phases spanning more than 150
years
History of Copyright Law in India
4/8/2024 8

9. Historical Evolution
1847 – Phase I
1914 – Phase II
1957 – Phase III
4/8/2024 9

10. Essentials of Copyright
Copyright is a
creation of
Statute
Copyright is a
Multiple rights
Originality
Copyright exit in
expression of an
idea and not the
idea itself.
4/8/2024 15
Characteristics of Copyright

11. Copyright is a creation of a statute
• It is a creation of a statute.
• No copyright can exist in any work except as provided I
section 16 of the Act.
• No copyright except as provided in this Act.—No person
shall be entitled to copyright or any similar right in any
work, whether published or unpublished, otherwise
than under and in accordance with the provisions of
this Act or of any other for the time being in force, but
nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating
any right or jurisdiction to restrain a breach of trust or
confidence.
4/8/2024 16

12. Multiple Rights
• It’s a bundle of Rights.
• Different kind of a copyright has a different set of
rights which are specified in sec 14.
• For example: A film includes
a written script,
still images,
Music etc.
Each of these works has an author who is the first
owner of the copyright in the work.
4/8/2024 17

13. Originality - Meaning
The word ‘original’
does not mean that
the work must be the
expression of original
and inventive thought.
Originality with respect to
the expression of the
thought does not require
novelty of the expression.
The Act only requires
that the work should
not be copied from
another work.
This means that the work
should originate solely from
the author.
4/8/2024 18

14. ISSUE WITH ORGINALITY
• DERIVATIVE WORKS
For example: Creation of thesis using the references
form the thesis which exist already.
Then the issue arises copyright persists with
whom??
With the author who has created the first thesis
With the author who created the thesis using the
references form the previous thesis
With both the authors
4/8/2024 19

15. In order to decide this issue of derivative works
there are three doctrines:
(a)Sweat of the brow doctrine
(b)Creativity standard Doctrine
(c) Feist Publication Case
4/8/2024 20

16. Sweat of the brow doctrine
• It suggests that labour or industry alone, even in the
absence of a substantial amount of creativity, can be
sufficient to bestow copyright upon the author.
• Traditional approach, It does not consider creativity. It
recognizes the labour put in by the author.
• The Doctrine is providing less protection of the
authorship which already exist and more “ Stopping
the others form misappropriation of labour i.e. If there
is any labour put in any work that labour should be
copyrightable.”
4/8/2024 21

17. Creativity Standard doctrine
• It is opposite of “Sweat of the brow Doctrine”
• It provides that until there is no creativity in
the work, it is not eligible for copyright
protection.
• Author has to do more than just compilation.
4/8/2024 22

18. Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural
Telephone Service Co.
• Facts: Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. (Plaintiff) provides
telephone service to several communities. Due to a state
regulation, it must issue an annual telephone directory, so it
published a directory consisting of white and yellow pages. The
yellow pages have advertisements that generate revenue. Feist
Publications, Inc. (Defendant) is a publishing company whose
directory covers a larger range than a typical directory. Defendant
distributes their telephone books free of charge, and they also
generate revenue through the advertising in the yellow pages.
Plaintiff refused to give a license to Defendant for the phone
numbers in the area, so Defendant used them without Plaintiff’s
consent. Rural sued for copyright infringement.
• Issue. Are the names, addresses, and phone numbers in a
telephone directory able to be copyrighted?
4/8/2024 23

19. • Held: There is no Infringement.
Facts cannot be copyrighted, however compilations
of facts can generally be copyrighted.
To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be
original to the author, which means that the work
was independently created by the author, and it
possesses at least some minimal degree of
creativity. A work may be original even thought it
closely resembles other works so long as the
similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying.
4/8/2024 24
Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural
Telephone Service Co.

20. Position in India regarding originality
R.G Anand V. Delux Films and others 1978
R. G. Anand, an architect by profession and also a playwright, dramatist and
producer of several stage plays, wrote and produced a play called ‘Hum
Hindustani’ in 1953. It ran successfully and was re-staged in 1954, 1955 and in
1956. Aware of the interest of the plaintiff in filming the play in view of its
increasing popularity, the defendant, Mr. Mohan Sehgal, contacted plaintiff.
In January, 1955, plaintiff met the defendant and had detailed discussions
about the play and its plot and the desirability of filming it. However, after
this discussion, the plaintiff received no further communication from the
defendant. In May, 1955, the defendant started to make the film ‘New Delhi’,
which, the plaintiff gathered, was based on his play, “Hum Hindustani’. The
defendant, however, assured him that it was not so. In September, 1956, the
movie was released and after viewing it, the plaintiff filed a suit for
infringement of his copyright in his play ‘Hum Hindustani’.
4/8/2024 25

21. Position in India regarding originality
ISSUE: Whether the production, distribution and
exhibition of the film ‘New Delhi’ made by the
defendants are in infringement of the plaintiff’s
copyright in the play, ‘Hum Hindustani’?
HOLDING: The supreme court held that the
movie although based on the same concept
was not a copy of the play. Therefore there was
no copyright infringement.
4/8/2024 26

22. The Supreme Court issued seven rules to determine if there was
a copyright infringement-
1. There cannot be copyright of any idea, subject matter, plots,
themes or historical or legendary facts and if the violation of
copyright occurred in such cases then it is confined to the
form, manner, arrangement and expression by the author of
copyrighted work.
2. Whether similarities are substantial or fundamental aspects
of mode of expression in the copyrighted work. Copying
should be of substantial and material nature.
3. Test: After having read or seen both the work the viewer get
the impression that subsequent work is copy of original one.
4/8/2024 27

23. 4. Where theme is similar but being presented differently then,
there cannot be any question of infringement.
5. If there is similarities but also have broad dissimilarities, it
decreases the intention to copy the original work, if similarities
are clearly incidental or coincidently then there can’t be
infringement.
6. If the viewer after the incident got an idea that the film is by
and large a copy of the original play, violation of the copyright
may be said to be proved.
7. Cases where stage play is infringed by a movie director, then
burden of proof will be on the plaintiff.
4/8/2024 28

24. Application of rules on present case
• In the present case, the play and the film revolve around
the same theme of ‘provincialism’ but it is well established
that a mere idea cannot be the subject matter of copyright.
The story of the film portrayed two concerns of
provincialism that it is firstly the function of provincialism
with respect to marriage and secondly in relation to renting
out accommodation. Further, it also dealt with issues such
as evils of a society dominated by caste and the ills of
dowry. The latter two issues have not been dealt in the play
at all. Also, the play was restricted only to one aspect of
provincialism which is regarding the marriage between
people belonging to different states. Thus, in many ways
the story and its depiction is quite different from the one in
the play.
4/8/2024 29

25. • It was not a case of violation of copyright. The
similarities were trivial and not a ‘substantial’ or
‘material’ copy of the original play and the
dissimilarities outweighed the similarities.
• After seeing the play as well as the film no prudent
person would conclude or consider the film to be a
replica of the original play. If the play and the film is
compared closely from scene to scene, circumstance to
circumstance and with regards to climax to anti-climax,
in consistency, management, purport and
representation, the picture is significantly different
from the play.
• Hence the present case fails to fulfil the requirements
of a colourable imitation of the play and cannot
amount to copyright infringement.
4/8/2024 30

26. JABARDASTH’ had performed very well at the box office
commercially because of the benchmark set by the original film
‘BAND BAJA BAARAAT’. Thus, YRF has faced a loss to that extent
earned by the movie ‘JABARDASTH’ while the film is originally
created by YRF and team.
This is classically an example of ‘passing-off’ in the movie
industry.
4/8/2024 31

27. Idea and Expression
• There is no copyright in ideas
• Copyright subsists in original expression of
idea.
• This expression is copyrightable only when it is
expressed in a fixed and material form.
• All works are protected in India as long as
there is original expression of an idea.
4/8/2024 32

28. Idea-expression dichotomy
• fundamental doctrine of copyright law
• According to copyright law only the distinctive
expression of an idea can be copyright
protected, not the idea itself.
• An ‘idea’ essentially means a thought or
mental concept while ‘expression’ is defined
as, the action of making known a thought or
mental concept.
4/8/2024 33

29. Idea-expression dichotomy
R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films
It is the only Supreme Court decision that seems to have given some
credence to idea expression dichotomy. That case dealt with the
alleged infringement of the script of a play, arising from the adaption
of the same into a cinematograph film.
The main theme of the play was provincialism, where the plot involved
persons belonging to different provinces (Punjab and Tamil Nadu). The
film retained the same theme, simply reversing the gender of the
person originating of the above provinces.
The Court first compared the play and the movie from a broad
perspective and opined that the film’s theme was broader in scope,
covering both provincialism and dowry.
4/8/2024 34

30. Idea-expression dichotomy
In concluding that infringement was not
established, the Court held that copyright can
not be acquired over an idea (the idea being
provincialism in this case), and factually held
that the dissimilarities between the two works
was substantial enough for one to conclude that
there was no colorable imitation of his play’s
script. Being a Supreme Court decision, the
principles established in this case form part of
the law of the land and holds good even today.
4/8/2024 35

31. Idea-expression dichotomy
Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University
of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing House and Ors.
The Delhi high court has extensively dealt with the
idea expression dichotomy.
In concluding the act of publishing a guidebook that
included independently solved solutions to the
problems provided in the plaintiff’s textbook was
not an infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright, the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, inter alia, relied on the
idea-expression dichotomy.
4/8/2024 36

32. Idea-expression dichotomy
that mathematical questions are expressions of laws of
nature. Since language is a limited medium, such laws of
nature can be expressed only in a few ways. Hence extension
of copyright protection for questions would deny access to
ideas that they encompass. This would obviate one of the
primary objectives of copyright law i.e promotion of creativity.
4/8/2024 37