12-17 copyright Flashcards
(32 cards)
s
Sec 14, 15, 17
🔹 Section 14 – Meaning of Copyright
Section 14 defines what rights are granted under copyright for different types of works.
📘 For Literary, Dramatic, Musical, Artistic works:
- Right to reproduce the work.
- Issue copies to the public.
- Perform or communicate the work to the public.
- Make adaptations or translations.
📽️ For Cinematograph Films:
- Right to make copies (includes stills).
- Sell or rent copies.
- Communicate the film to the public.
🎧 For Sound Recordings:
- Make other sound recordings using the original.
- Sell, rent, or communicate to the public.
> 📌 Note: Rights differ slightly depending on the category of the work.
🔹 Section 15 – Special Provisions for Designs
This section deals with the overlap between copyright and industrial design protection.
Key Points:
- If a design is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000, and:
- It is registered, copyright ceases as soon as it is registered.
- If not registered, copyright subsists only until it is reproduced more than 50 times by industrial process.
> 📌 Purpose: To prevent dual protection under both copyright and design laws for mass-produced articles.
🔹 Section 17 – First Owner of Copyright
This section specifies who owns the copyright in different situations.
General Rule:
- Author is the first owner of the copyright.
Exceptions (ownership belongs to another):
1. Employer in case of works created during the course of employment (e.g., newspapers, magazines).
2. Government – if work is made under government direction.
3. Public undertakings – when work is done under contract for them.
4. Commissioned works like portraits, photographs, or cinematograph films – the person who commissions may own it, subject to agreement.
> 📌 Bottom line: While the author is usually the owner, contracts and certain situations (like employment or commissioned works) can change that.
What is originality in works and doctrine of sweat of brow
for work to be original its important that it should not have been copied from another work The word “original” doesnt mean that the work itself should be containing novel information but rather it should have originality in the method of expression of thought Copyright Acts are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but with the epression of thought.
Macmillan v. Cooper,”that it was the product of the labour, skill and of one man which must not be appropriated by another, not the elements, the materials, upon which the labour and skil and capital of the first had been expended and been expended sufficiently to impart to the product some quality or character which the raw material itself did not posses.
Regarding derivative work, the standard of creativity required to qualify as work was higher than standard for primary works
The Doctrine of Sweat of the Brow is a principle in copyright law that grants protection to a work based on the skill, effort, labor, or industry put into creating it, rather than on creativity or originality.
📌 Key Idea:
Under this doctrine, a work (like a compilation or a database) can be protected by copyright simply because significant effort or “sweat” went into its creation, even if there’s little or no creativity.
🏛️ Origin:
- Historically followed in UK copyright law (pre-Human Rights Act era).
- Upheld in older Indian judgments that followed British jurisprudence.
- Rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., (1991), which held that originality, not effort, is the core of copyright protection.
📚 Does it Apply in India?
✅ Partially, but with limitations.
India formerly leaned towards the sweat of brow doctrine, especially in cases like:
🔹 Key Indian Case:
- Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008, SC)
- The Supreme Court rejected pure “sweat of brow” and adopted a middle path.
- Held that some amount of creativity or judgment is necessary.
- Applied a “modicum of creativity” standard – similar to Feist but not identical.
🧠 Current Indian Position:
- Pure mechanical labor is not enough.
- Some creativity + skill + judgment is required for copyright protection.
- India does not follow the “sweat of the brow” doctrine in its pure form anymore.
What are some statutory limitation of copyright act
- copyright protection is limited to life of author+ 60 years post death. after that it falls into public domain
- doctrine of fair use
such as private study, research, criticism etc - non voluntary license - statutory license and compulsory license
WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), 1996
🔹 Objective:
To address copyright issues in the digital environment.
🔹 Scope:
Builds on Berne Convention protections.
Specifically includes computer programs and databases.
Addresses internet and digital distribution of works.
🔹 Key Points:
Legal protection against circumvention of digital rights management (DRM) tools.
Authors have rights of distribution, rental, and public communication, including making available online.
Prohibits unauthorized removal or alteration of electronic rights management information.
Summary of the Berne Convention
Automatic Protection: No need for formal registration; protection is automatic upon creation.
National Treatment: Authors enjoy the same rights in other member countries as those countries give to their own nationals.
three basic principles are the following:
(a) Works originating in one of the Contracting States (that is, works the author of which is a national of such a State or works first published in such a State) must be given the same protection in each of the other Contracting States as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals (principle of “national treatment”) [1].
(b) Protection must not be conditional upon compliance with any formality (principle of “automatic” protection) [2].
(c) Protection is independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work (principle of “independence” of protection). If, however, a Contracting State provides for a longer term of protection than the minimum prescribed by the Convention and the work ceases to be protected in the country of origin, protection may be denied once protection in the country of origin ceases [3].
rights that must be recognized as exclusive rights of authorization:
-The right to translate, make adaptations
-the right to perform in public dramatic, dramatico-musical and musical works,
-the right to recite literary works in public,
-the right to communicate to the public the performance of such works,
- the right to broadcast (with the possibility that a Contracting State may provide for a mere right to equitable remuneration instead of a right of authorization),
- the right to make reproductions in any manner or form (with the possibility that a Contracting State may permit, in certain special cases, reproduction without authorization, provided that the reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author; and the possibility that a Contracting State may provide, in the case of sound recordings of musical works, for a right to equitable remuneration),
- the right to use the work as a basis for an audiovisual work
The Convention also provides for “moral rights”, that is, the right to claim authorship of the work and the right to object to any mutilation, deformation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the work that would be prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation.
Duration 50 years after authors death, in applied arts or photographic work- minimum 25 years protection from CREATION of work
Idea/expression Dichotomy
Copyright in Concept Notes
📌 Idea/Expression Dichotomy – What is it?
The idea/expression dichotomy is a core principle in copyright law.
It means:
> 📢 “Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.”
🔍 In Simple Terms:
- Ideas, facts, concepts, themes: ❌ Not protected by copyright
- How you express them – through writing, drawing, music, etc.: ✅ Protected
This distinction ensures freedom of thought and creativity while protecting original work.
⚖️ Legal Backing:
- Found in Section 13 and Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
📝 Copyright in Concept Notes
Concept Notes are brief written outlines of a proposed project, idea, film, book, etc.
✅ What is Protected?
- The actual text of the concept note (wording, structure, format).
- Any original creative elements like character sketches, dialogues, setting, etc.
❌ What is Not Protected?
- The idea or theme of the project (e.g., a story about a girl who becomes a spy).
- General plot structure without unique detailing.
R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films (1978) – The Supreme Court held that while themes or ideas may be common, the unique expression of those ideas is protected. copyright protects the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author.
Example:
If two people write a concept note about “a dystopian future where AI controls society”:
- The general idea = not protected.
- But their individual expression of that idea (tone, characters, dialogue snippets, etc.) = protected.
Anil Dasgupta v. Kunal Dasgupta
📚 1. Anil Dasgupta v. Kunal Dasgupta
Citation: AIR 2002 Delhi 379
Court: Delhi High Court
🔍 Facts:
- The plaintiff, Anil Dasgupta, claimed that the defendant’s television serial copied the concept and format of his original script. The Plaintiff spoke to Defendant No. 1 and gave a 1-page concept note of ‘Swayamvar’ to the Defendant, who gave an enthusiastic response to the idea. Defendant No. 1 further asked the Plaintiff to give a detailed presentation. Further, the Plaintiff contended that the concept note given by the Plaintiff to the Defendant at said meeting was a disclosure in utmost confidence which is the usual practice in the industry.
- He alleged infringement of copyright in the concept note he had previously shared.
⚖️ Held:
the Court held that when a concept note as well as presentations were admitted to have been received by the Defendants, it cannot be said that they were under no obligation to maintain confidence. As a matter of fact, when a concept is registered, the same is protected from the public domain. Therefore, the Defendants could not be permitted to launch its TV programme if the same was based on the concept of Swayamvar, conceived by the Plaintiff.
- The Court held that ideas or concepts alone are not protected, only their expression is but since expression was executed exactly per concept note= infringment
- Since the concept note and the meetings between defendant and plaintiff included full fledged details of the reality tv show, there was infringement of the idea. if perhaps the defendant had made a tv plot for a series instead of reality show then the expression would have been different. but here the idea and expression was exactly as mentioned in the concept note. so there was a case of infringement.
🧠 Principle:
> Reinforces the Idea/Expression Dichotomy — copyright protects expression, not mere ideas or themes.
📚 2. **Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co
📚 2. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Citation: 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
🔍 Facts:
- Feist copied information from Rural’s white pages directory (names, addresses, etc.).
- Rural claimed copyright infringement over the directory.
- here, feist blatantly copied the info in the rural white pages.
⚖️ Held:
- The Supreme Court held that facts themselves are not copyrightable.
- A mere collection of facts lacking creativity (e.g., alphabetically arranged names) does not meet the originality threshold.
🧠 Principle:
> Introduced the “modicum of creativity” standard for originality.
> Rejected the “sweat of brow” doctrine (mere effort ≠ originality).
Baker v. Selden
📚 3. Baker v. Selden
Citation: 101 U.S. 99 (1879)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
🔍 Facts:
- Baker copied accounting style of ledgers from a book written by Selden, who had developed a new bookkeeping method.
- Selden claimed copyright over the method.
⚖️ Held:
- The Court ruled that copyright protects only the book’s expression, not the underlying accounting method.
- If protection is needed for the method, the author should seek a patent, not copyright.
🧠 Principle:
> Distinguishes between expression (protected) and functional ideas or methods (not protected).
> Laid the foundation for idea/expression dichotomy.
Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak
📚 4. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak
Citation: (2008) 1 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
🔍 Facts:
- EBC published SCC (Supreme Court Cases), involving judgments with added editorial inputs (headnotes, formatting, paragraphing, etc.).
- Modak copied these versions and published them, leading to a dispute.
⚖️ Held:
- The raw judgments (public domain) are not copyrightable.
- However, editorial inputs (like headnotes, selection, summarization) involve skill and judgment and can be protected.
- Yet, the Court required a minimal degree of creativity — applying a middle ground between “sweat of brow” and “modicum of creativity.”
🧠 Principle:
> Established the Indian standard of originality — a balance of skill, judgment, and minimal creativity.
> Overruled pure “sweat of brow” approach.
Sholay Media and entertainment v Parag Sanghvi
- the court explained the underlying work in the film Sholay
1. the script and screenplay - literary work
2. sound recording and background score
3. underlying musical works - 14(e)
4. the artistic workds such as set, costumes, artworks protected under 14(a)
5. dialogues - dramatic works 14 (a)
and now per the 2012 amendment- the works of the authors of original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works that are incorporated into the cinematograph film shall not be affected.
Francis Day & hunter v Bron
principles laid down to determine wether an act constitutes as reproduction of plaintiffs work:
- there must be a sufficient degree of objective similarity between the two works and there should be some casual connection between plaintiffs and defendants work
- it is irrelevant wether the defendant was or was not consiously aware of such casual connection
- when there is a substantial degree of objective similarity, this itself will afford prima facie evidence to show there is a casual connection - at least, it is a circumstance from which the inference may be drawn
- the defendant denying that he consiously copied affords some evidence to rebut the inference of casual connection but is not conclusive
essentials of copyright
- be original
- an expression
- and must be fixed in a tangible medium
section 13 of copyright
what is protected under copyright:
1. original literary
2. dramatic work
3. musical workj
4. artisitic work
5. cinematography films
6. sound recordings
what are moral rights available to authors
- Author’s special rights.— 1
[(1) Independently of the author’s copyright and even after the
assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right—
(a) to claim authorship of the work; and
(b) to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in
relation to the said work
[] if such distortion, mutilation, modification or other act would be
prejudicial to his honour or reputation:
Provided that the author shall not have any right to restrain or claim damages in respect of any
adaptation of a computer programme to which clause (aa) of sub-section (1) of section 52 applies.
Explanation.— Failure to display a work or to display it to the satisfaction of the author shall not be deemed to be an infringement of the rights conferred by this section.]
(2) The right conferred upon an author of a work by sub-section (1), 3[], may be exercised by the
legal representatives of the author.
📚 Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd.
Facts:
- Mannu Bhandari, a well-known Hindi author, had written a novel titled “Aapka Bunty”.
- She entered into an agreement with Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd. to make a film based on her novel.
- However, the final script of the film deviated significantly from the plot, characters, and treatment of the novel.
- Bhandari objected, saying the deviations distorted the essence of her work and harmed her literary reputation.
⚖️ Issues:
1. Whether an author retains moral rights over their work after licensing it for adaptation.
2. Whether the substantial deviation from the original novel amounts to copyright infringement or moral rights violation.
🧠 Held:
- The Court held that even after assignment, the author retains moral rights (now codified under Section 57 of the Copyright Act).
- It recognized the author’s right to claim authorship and object to distortion or mutilation of their work.
- The deviations were substantial and altered the message and tone of the original, damaging her reputation.
- The producer was restrained from releasing the film in its distorted form.
–
Although the Court concluded that certain scenes in the film must be changed before the screening to maintain the original plot of the novel, the parties arrived at a settlement before the pronouncement of the judgement. The filmmakers agreed to delete the names of the author and her novel from the film credits, while Mannu Bhandari agreed to not claim any rights or interest in the film
🏛 Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India
Citation: 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts:
- Amar Nath Sehgal, a renowned sculptor, created a bronze mural for the walls of Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi, commissioned by the Government of India.
- The mural was installed and displayed for decades, becoming a part of India’s modern art heritage.
- In the 1970s, the mural was arbitrarily removed and dumped in storage, resulting in damage to the artwork.
- Sehgal filed a case claiming violation of his moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Issues:
1. Whether the destruction or damage of an artwork constitutes a violation of the author’s moral rights.
2. Whether an author can claim rights over a work that has been physically handed over or purchased by another party.
Held:
- The Court recognized and upheld moral rights as integral to an artist’s identity.
- Even though the government owned the physical sculpture, Sehgal retained moral rights over it as the creator.
- The arbitrary removal and improper storage amounted to mutilation and destruction, thereby infringing Section 57.
- The Court ordered the government to return the mural and pay damages, marking one of the strongest judicial affirmations of moral rights in India.
🧭 Principle:
> Under Section 57, an artist’s moral rights include the right to preserve the integrity of their work, and to object to any distortion, mutilation or destruction that harms their honor or reputation, even if the physical ownership has transferred.
This case set a landmark precedent for protecting moral rights of creators in India, emphasizing the respect and dignity due to artistic expression.
R.G. Anand v. M/s Deluxe Films & Ors.
🔍 Background & Facts:
- R.G. Anand, a playwright, wrote and staged a play titled “Hum Hindustani” in 1953.
- The play was about communal harmony, focusing on two families (Hindu and Muslim) trying to live together peacefully post-Partition.
- A few years later, Deluxe Films released a movie titled “New Delhi”, which had a similar theme — a North Indian boy and South Indian girl trying to marry, against the backdrop of regional and communal biases.
- Anand filed a suit alleging copyright infringement, claiming that the film was a colorable imitation of his play and infringed his copyright in the dramatic work.
⚖️ Issues Before the Court:
- Whether the film “New Delhi” copied the plot, theme, and expression of the play “Hum Hindustani”.
- To what extent ideas and themes are protected under copyright law.
- What tests should be applied to determine infringement.
🧠 Judgment & Legal Principles:
The Supreme Court dismissed the claim of copyright infringement and laid down key principles that are foundational in Indian copyright law:
🧾 Key Legal Principles & Tests:
-
Idea-Expression Dichotomy
- Copyright does not protect ideas, themes, plots, or subjects.
- It only protects the original expression of those ideas.
- The case implicitly applied the doctrine of merger, stating that when an idea can be expressed in only limited ways, its expression is not copyrightable.
> ❝ “Where the same idea is developed in a different manner, there is no infringement.” ❞
-
Test of Substantial Similarity
- The substance, structure, and expression must be substantially or materially similar to constitute infringement.
- Mere common themes or plots do not amount to copying.
> ✅ If the expression is different, even with similar themes, no infringement occurs.
-
Test of Colorable Imitation
- If the new work is so similar in expression that an ordinary viewer may get an unmistakable impression that one is a copy of the other, then it amounts to infringement.
> ❝ “The test is of the impression left on the mind of the average viewer.” ❞
-
Assessment Must Be Holistic
- The Court emphasized a broad and holistic approach — not line-by-line comparison.
- Overall look and feel, and substance, not just superficial elements, are evaluated.
📌 Held:
- The Court found no substantial similarity between the two works.
- Although both had similar themes (communal/regional prejudice), their treatment, setting, characters, and expression were markedly different.
- Hence, no copyright infringement was established.
📚 Significance:
- This is a leading case on copyright infringement in India.
- Established foundational principles of:
- Idea-expression dichotomy
- Substantial similarity test
- Colorable imitation standard
-
Right of Paternity and Right of Integrity, which are key components of Moral Rights in copyright law — particularly under Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act,
Certainly! Here’s a clear and concise explanation of the Right of Paternity and Right of Integrity, which are key components of Moral Rights in copyright law — particularly under Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957:
🎭 Moral Rights in Copyright Law (Section 57)
Moral rights are personal rights of the author or creator, independent of economic rights (like the right to reproduce or sell the work). They aim to protect the author’s personality and reputation embedded in their work.
Two core moral rights are:
- 🖋️ Right of Paternity
Definition:
The right of the author to claim authorship of the work and to be credited as its creator.
✅ Includes:
- Right to be acknowledged as the author when the work is used or published.
- Right to prevent others from falsely claiming authorship.
📌 Example:
If a painter’s artwork is displayed without their name or someone else is credited as the artist, the original creator can claim infringement of their right of paternity.
- 🛡️ Right of Integrity
Definition:
The right to protect the work from distortion, mutilation, modification, or any act prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation.
✅ Includes:
- Preventing any unauthorized alterations that affect the dignity or character of the work.
- Even if the copyright is sold or assigned, this right remains with the author.
📌 Example:
If a filmmaker’s movie is edited or cut in a way that distorts the message or embarrasses the author, they can invoke the right of integrity.
⚖️ Under Indian Law (Section 57):
- These rights exist even after the copyright has been assigned or transferred.
- They are enforceable during the author’s lifetime and, in some cases, even posthumously through heirs.
🔍 Case Reference:
Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005)
A landmark case where the court upheld moral rights — the government removed and dumped a mural by Sehgal, and the court recognized this as a violation of his right of integrity.
Section 37
📺 Section 37: Broadcast Reproduction Right
(1) Special Right for Broadcasters:
- Every broadcasting organisation has a “broadcast reproduction right” over its broadcasts.
(2) Term of Right:
- This right subsists for 25 years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year of the broadcast.
(3) Infringement of Right:
During the subsistence of this right, any of the following acts without a licence from the right-holder constitutes infringement:
- (a) Re-broadcasting the broadcast.
- (b) Causing the broadcast to be seen/heard by the public for a fee.
- (c) Making a sound/visual recording of the broadcast.
-
(d) Reproducing such recordings if:
- Made without licence, or
- Used beyond what the licence allows.
- (e) Selling, renting, or offering to sell/rent the above recordings for commercial purposes.
> ⚠️ Subject to the exceptions provided under Section 39.
Section 38,38 A, 38 B
🎤 Section 38: Performer’s Right
(1) Performer’s Right Defined:
- A performer (like an actor, musician, etc.) has a special right called the “performer’s right” over their live or recorded performance.
(2) Term of Right:
- Substituted term: This right lasts for 50 years from the beginning of the calendar year following the performance.
🎙️ Section 38A: Exclusive Rights of Performers
(1) Performer’s Exclusive Economic Rights:
- Performers have the exclusive right to do or authorize acts involving their performance, including:
📀 Recording Rights:
- (a) Making sound/visual recordings, and:
- (i) Reproducing it in any form or storing it digitally.
- (ii) Issuing copies to the public (if not already in circulation).
- (iii) Communicating it to the public.
- (iv) Selling, renting, or offering for sale/rental such recordings.
📡 Broadcasting Rights:
- (b) Broadcasting/communicating the performance (unless it has already been broadcast).
(2) Cinematograph Consent Clause:
- If a performer consents in writing to include their performance in a cinematograph film, they cannot object to the producer using it:
- Unless otherwise agreed by contract.
- They still retain the right to royalty if their performance is used for commercial purposes.
🛡️ Section 38B: Moral Rights of Performers
Performers enjoy moral rights independent of any assignment:
(a) Right of Attribution:
- Right to be identified as the performer, unless omission is technically necessary.
(b) Right of Integrity:
- Right to prevent distortion/mutilation
/modification of their performance if it harms their reputation.
📝 Explanation:
- Technical edits (e.g., trimming, time-fitting) are not considered prejudicial.
-
39, 39 A
–
🛑 Section 39: Exceptions to Infringement
The following do not constitute infringement of broadcast or performer’s rights:
(a) Private Use or Research:
- Making sound/visual recordings for private use or bona fide teaching/research.
(b) Fair Dealing:
- Using excerpts fairly for current events, reviews, teaching, or research.
(c) Acts Not Infringing Copyright (Sec 52):
- Other acts permissible under Section 52, with required adaptations.
📚 Section 39A: Application of Other Copyright Provisions
(1) Applicability of Key Provisions:
- The following sections apply to broadcast and performer’s rights with adaptations:
- Sections 18, 19, 30, 30A, 33, 33A, 34, 35, 36, 53, 55, 58, 63, 64, 65, 65A, 65B, 66.
🚫 Licensing Restriction:
- If both copyright and performer’s right exist:
- No licence to reproduce a broadcast can be granted without the consent of the copyright owner, the performer, or both.
(2) Independent Existence of Rights:
- Broadcast or performer’s right does not affect the copyright in the underlying work.
Fortune Film International v. Dev Anand (AIR 1979 Bom 17)
Facts:
- Dev Anand, a renowned actor, entered into an agreement dated 1st August 1974 with Fortune Film International to act in the Hindi film Darling Darling, for a fee of ₹7 lakhs.
- The agreement allowed the producers to exhibit the film in certain designated territories upon payment.
- The film was censored on 11 May 1977, and released in Delhi, U.P., and East Punjab (allegedly without Dev Anand’s consent) and in Mysore and C.P.C.I. (with his consent).
- Dev Anand claimed that under Clause 6, he retained the rights to the film in the remaining territories (Bombay, overseas, and unspecified areas) until full payment was made, and sought an injunction against further releases.
Issues:
1. Did the agreement vest copyright in the film or the actor’s performance with Dev Anand?
2. Does a cine artist have copyright over their performance?
Court’s Reasoning:
- The court analyzed various definitions under Section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957:
- Section 2(c) defines artistic work (paintings, drawings, etc.) — does not include an actor’s performance.
- The court clarified that:
- The Copyright Act did not recognize an actor’s performance as a separate copyrightable work in 1977.
- The definition of “dramatic work” excluded films; hence acting within a film wasn’t protected.
- The agreement could not vest copyright in the actor over something not recognized under the Act.
- Section 16 was cited to emphasize that copyright can only exist under the Act’s provisions.
Judgment:
- The court ruled against Dev Anand, stating:
- His performance did not qualify as a work under the Act.
- He had no independent copyright over his acting in the film.
- The injunction by the single judge was revoked, and producers were allowed to exhibit the film in the previously restrained territories.
Principles Laid Down:
- A cine artist’s performance was not protected under copyright law as it then stood.
- Copyright in a cinematographic film resides with the producer, and not with the performing artist.
- A cinematographic film cannot have fragmented ownership of copyright in different components like actor’s performance.
Significance & Subsequent Development:
- This decision highlighted a gap in protection for performers under the 1957 Act.
- The law evolved with the 1994 Amendment, which introduced:
- Section 38 (Performer’s Rights)
- Section 39 (Protection of Performers)
- These now recognize performer’s rights independently, allowing actors to control unauthorized use of their recorded performances.
2. Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Piyush Agarwal, 2014 (58) PTC 169 (Del.)
📝 Facts:
- Star India owned exclusive broadcast rights to cricket matches, including audio commentary and visuals.
- Piyush Agarwal and his company were providing live score updates and commentary via SMS services without authorization.
- Star claimed that their broadcast rights were infringed.
⚖️ Issue:
- Can providing live score updates and commentary through SMS or apps without a license constitute copyright or broadcast right infringement?
👩⚖️ Held:
-The court found the plaintiff’s argument hollow and shallow,as the agreement cannot result in creation of legal right. As the news in public domain is not and cannot ever be monopolized especially because content/information from a copyright work is not the subject matter of copyright as per Sections 13, 14 and 38A and thus no rights can be claimed in the same in view of the reading of the applicable provisions
The court laid that the hiatus of 15 minutes is required with respect to the defendants using the content/ information in the first audio and/or visual broadcast of the plaintiff, except of course with respect to momentary events for which there need not be any time lag.
1. A limited interim injunction restraining the defendants from disseminating contemporaneous match information in the form of ball-by-ball or minute-by-minute score updates/match alerts for a premium, without obtaining a license from the plaintiff.
b. There shall be no restriction upon the defendants to report „noteworthy information‟ or „news‟ from cricket matches (as discussed in paragraph 49), as and when they arise, because „stale news is no news‟.
c. There shall be no requirement for the license if the defendants do it gratuitously or after a time lag of 15 minutes.
