that contains for protins Therefore there minimum

genetic codes is no
sequences
.

creativity
. Since there is no independent creation no minimum
creativity,
not
doe It is observation C compilation of
originality exist. a romeirable that the

the the which is the natural receive

consequence of process process can an

extremely wide protection

as a
lituary work. The sequence is embodied in the

DNA discovered in native not

original expressions of
"
ideas but mere

reproduction of something found in nature .

COPYRIGHT ANALYSIS

① What do we
protect ?
ideas are crable but expressions are .

Expressions are Crable subject matter There

.
are

exceptions -@ Fair ③ Now

some Use
voluntary
S .
52

① do
protect it ? Because it is
original
Why we

③ How do we protect it ?
-Ithyr study how to determine it ?

Independent-creation

INDEPENDENT CREATION

Appn of own creative

genious
to
something already existing but the end result

be
should different
.

US-Baker Seldon Labour put the Sweat

v -
- labour theory . CR
gr
.

of the brow

This
changed subsequently
.
Sweat of
Boloughgiles case - the brow doctrine dow
away with

Kural Telephone
First v .

Directly - Modicum
of creativity was introduced

Eve whether the stamp of the

indicating his/ her personality
person there ?

Person Intellectual
Creation. Personality theory
.

India
e Mix
of modium of creativity a personality theory Sweat of the . brow - very les
threshold
modium
of creativity - too
high ; Personality theory s too
high
 What do Canadian
we
follow ? approach as estel in the case
of CCH Canadian

Id v . Low Society of Upper Canada

What is IC ?
① work must have originated from - Causation to must be trad
.
you you
② You must not have copied it
from .
elsewhere

Sheldon Goldwin Pictures Corporation (S1 and

v .
Metro F 2D .

49 Court
of Appeale for
circuit)
te or no applicability in current era due to
digital .
access

T Learned Hands By this John Keytes Ode on a

magic if a men conjures love
-

Gravian then such person should get Cr If person has no knowledge of it I

-

to the work
come
by himself then Crable
.

is about
CR
creating yourself Unlike patent it don't have requirement .

of new/novel
- However it should not be copied
.

Case + EBC v . DB Modak (v imp car]

- 1200s 1 SCC 1]

& See 52(9) enerupts judgments from being copyrighted-fair we exemption ?

E- EBL numbers
paragraphs cross-referencing etc Head notes are made
. -
,

identification of keywords , creating summaries of judgments EBC is the . CR

.
holder Defendant said this is not (Rable as the content available in public & EBC
merely polishing SC decides to apply the CCH case test The Crable work should be
.

-
.
a

manifestation of skill labour E Judgment ,

.

writing of cases & analysis requires skill

. -

Numbering para-phrasing ,
not
adding anything Crable
I

found sweat
of brow-very ; modium
low threshold
of creativity-too high threshold .
Here , CCH

& Scholars of Oxford Narendra Publishing House I

The Chancellor masters
of the Uni v .

Ors

2008) Del HC

read
yourself

[Aug 7-14- Sir going to Kolkata , Online Class will be conducted

 .
class
31
7-24 -
Wednesday no
-

1 8
24
. .

②
things are
required LR
for to subirt-uust not be copied-created
independently
. Never knew
of the work I doesn't have accostoit I
very difficult to

prove no access due to

digital access

③ Whether whatever has been created is

original - It has to be an expression
not a
publicly available Frida
Threshold
of creativity varies
from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction -

We
follow skill , labour and judgment .

What is skill
? know-how, practiced an art

As defined by Canadian SC in CCH- "by skill we

refer to the use
of one's knowledge developed ,

aptitude or
practised ability in
producing the work. This exercise
of skill & judgment will

The
necessarily involve intellectual effort .
exercise
of skill a judgment required to

work must not be trival it

produce the so that could be characterised as

mechanical exercise To work to be it must be somewhet diff in charcuter

a
purely . a creative
,

& involve some intellectual effort -

While
extraoblinary creaturity is not required there

must be
4/
atleast some creativity & some intellectual effort
for a work to be

original

& Scholars of Oxford Narendra Publishing House I Ors

The Chancellor masters
of the Uni v .

S (2008 38 PTC 355 Del]

Facts
-
TEK
- state board
of school education-they are desirous
of publishing some
.
books Plaintiff is the publisher .

Board gives book with .

questions No .
answers

Plaintiff enter into an

agreement-whatever books published in
pursuance of the
agreement-the CR will be
plaintif
with Plaintiff provided answers to the ques
.

& the books are

published .

Defendent also publishes books based curriculum on

the
of TEK state boar but
gives on input-steps to arrive at the soln are

provided
. Plaintif sees for infringement
Sissues - Crability of the plaintiff's work ⑥ infringement .

Is paintiff's work original to command CR ?

enough
Is
defendant's work having (Rability on its own ?
 Theme, E schematic by Board Plaintiff added to it & said it is
content -
provided . answers

The what value

CR .

plaintiff these are TB

they have to
get CR ; didn'tfell
they added .
T.

has to to how there

Ravindar Bhatt said the plaintiff provide evidence as was value addr to

book. This have been crable but feels & Since

the
wight they lost case on evidence -

Crabe-issue dent
not
of infringement .
arise

② options plaintiff has show evidence that there has been value addr
satifying
-

satifying Kureshold of Indian stels

⑤ show the board her Cr its books which

assigned to the
paintiff
got was

have
infringement
.

most
imp provisions of (Ract

See is
of Cr act- classes
of Crable work .

Says originality is
required
.

See 14a
n "
-giving its
See 51 , 52
Is
,
.
remedies

Care -
Jyaint Aggarwala (A No -2532/2008
Mattel v . (ielfc)
Facts Mattel
+
foy manufacturer Defendant made game-Scrabbulous" Mattel has .
.

."
game "Scrabble Word forming
game
Mattle
Claiming (Rom this as artic .

Def used red pink dark blue light blue tiles & star pattern
, , ,

rules , the colon, the star artistic work-and have Crable

matthe
says the -

literary aspect
.

Is it (Rable ? the
literary aspect the rules o the
design-artistic work.

Doctrine have to be or Ite then the

of merger-the feuts expressed in one
way
expression will be treated as
.
idea

scope of creativity is not much. By S

.
Ravinde Bhatt

Atari North American Philps-"CR protection would not extend to as

games
v -

such because the

of the games find expression in
idea behind the rules

extremely few forms leading to the appe of the doctrine of merger Relying .

on this decision J Bhatt concluded that CR protection claim on Scrabble could

.

not sured because

of inseparability of idea from the
expression
.
 Julia Class-
> 12 to 12 : 50 +
3/8
② ⑥ originality
independently
.8
2 .

24 things of 1e created -
Expression-ideal

Cast >
- Fr -

Reckweg &C v .
Mr . SM Sharma (2006 32 PTC 455 Dell

Puts-Plaintiff is the licence to

manufacturer & exporter of homeopathic medicine Co-Rekwedge
s -
homeopathic co-market medicines as R , to R15 Catering to diff Symptoms E diseases
Product medicines a benefits of each medicine
catalogues of were creater
of the were

described
. When to use them ,
benefits of Using them

Defendant -
to
manufactured same medicine -

Defendant labelled them as L , to 275

-

①
CR substantially
infringement--L , to 175 Similar to R, to R75
② Whatever is relevant literature explaining chemical
formula/composition
have
and benefits is literary work I infringement .

Ques - Does R, &175 satify the originality ? Can CR be

gu
to
plintiff ?

labou
Yes
ill-se
Ej
R , ER2-wo creativity
PL-so Skill &
merely pointing out in no
judgment .
-
purely mechanical exercise

doctrine
of merger
.

exists freely in
4
idea
I Homeopathy - developed
Noted
by Samuel Hanheman
public. Its an
Body of knowledge
in his book Materia Medica

[ Harmonied
check System of >
-
⑧
Ingredients >
- Nomenclature

↓ knowledge Poteny
⑧ Is alpha-numeric the format Product
description-they are
ful aspects.
in
used
denoting every
homeopathic medicine in
industry ?
No .

So ,
R -25 enjoying CR had Need
.
,

Own Alpha numeric

system developed .

③ Can such
alpha-numeric Structure enjoy (R on its own
?
No -

just numbering
E Sequency is not an intellectual
effort ; no creative element
Court its R,
says on own
-Ras doesn't Satify CR but R , -R75 where read with product
description it CK.

Criticism -
ingredients-indicate ful asput-patent might have been
go
But
giving CR to ful element/utility is a
huge blender
.
"
.
product description
Comb of 2 mon-crable aspects cannot be go CR-

Observations - "If there is a cold

by word analysis or a senlive
by sentence analysis of
Cred
the work & the
infringing material , there are bound to be some differences
,

but that does not mean that the Cred work has not
infringed Obviously
been .
the

plaintiff cannot have Cr on the numerals or the

alphabets individually or
collectively but when the
Alpha-numeric combn is used
for a medicine which cures an

ailment is
a similar Alpha-numeric combn used fol another medicine which

also cures a
substantially similar ailment & if the alpha-numeric combra the

in the ailment
substantial similarity persist for medicine after medicine and for
ailment
after ailment in the lawe Seques then this cannot be ,
coincidence a

Had there been a harmonized system of classification then the defendants might ,

have oble
been to make outon arguable point ,
but that is not the case

set
up by the
defendants "
.

merged originality & infringement when both

of them are separate

X
END Of MODULE I
X
 AUTHORSHIP

look at Berne .
Convention

creation don't There is creator-In it is the "author "

exist in vaccum
. a
copyright .

Can there be a Cr without author ? Al issue-no

author-procedural aspect
.

It
Berne Conv doesn't define "author " .

might be because each

jurisdiction might have

their own
def
Authorship might fall within the exercise of identifying originality.
Authorship can be broadly divided into 2 stages -
conception -

Conceiving in mind
.

↓ t

someone who creates

"Execution
Authora
- ---

=
Creation

re unsupervised learning
Al-ML-converted to deep learning-input giving random responses

push for machine to think like human

beings learning by itself

See deemed
I
&(d) ru authore-related
neighbouring its
-

"here they their input

adding
.
bit
are a
of
Eg-producers , performerset actual authors - thos who create their own work.

⑥ deemed author can also be someone causes the .

creation

See 17-1 rule - rule is author is owner

few exceptions
Ownership is bundle
of Its
a

et I duty bearing entity is owner

FABUS US UKESA Stave

eg provided analysed
- .

Reed
pogment
-
employer employee relationship
- contract exists s
employer gets CR.

demed authorship & ownership is w .

LR-hire doctrine .
India also
recognises it.

② iswer + Al owner didn't create work-not author

.

how has the Al owner derive Al

such at from ?
No contrat blo Al .
owner
 If you are non-author
applicant-the person
should show how they got the rt

Issue is stemming from "luk

of personhood" of AI
.

personhood leads to-need for its & feeling of

being obligated to others.

At don't have
any
such
feelings .
Can it enjoy moral ets ? There is no humanner

in Al
.

AUTHORSHIP
Procedural law requires you to name the author in the application. Substantive law tells us
who is an author’. Every member state has its own way of defining ‘who is an author’ – diff
member states have diff thresholds for creativity. We can surmise that member states
couldn’t reach a consensus as to who is an author and there is no definition of author
provided under the Berne Convention.
Creation = Conception + Execution
Whatever if fixed in the tangible medium, that is taken as the creation and we try to ascertain
its copyrightability. Law presumes that conception happens in the minds of the author.
Can a machine conceive (& consequently create – because a machine can undisputably
execute)? From machine learning, we have moved to deep learning. AI also has its own
circuitary & latest research is trying to replicate human circuits and cognitive system. Now
with deep learning, outcomes have become more unpredictable (unlike earlier machines
which could only produce fixed, predictable outcomes).
CR Act: 2(d) r/w 17. 2(d) – mostly actual authorship & to some extent deemed authorship.
Deemed authors include producers etc who makes the investment and there is value addition
in terms of creativity to some extent. The other kind of deemed authorship is provided u/s
17.
Sec 17 gives certain rules & exceptions. When you become 1st owner by rule, your role isn’t
restricted to the duties of author but there are certain additional responsibilities vested on
them.
(Dabas case- US – Rayan Calo)
(Read v Community to create - US case)
Hire doctrine: Deemed authorship automatically gets vested with the employer -Sarigama
case 2018 (Kolkata HC).
If you are the non author applicant, you have to show what authorizes you to the deemed
author. But when it comes to AI, such a deemed authorship cannot be established. To prove
CR, you have to show authorial contribution (you cannot show the transfer b/w AI & the
owner). This issue stems from the lack of personhood of the AI. Only with personhood arises
rights and duties. For moral rights, you should have humanness.
 3) Is 418- Sat & Sun
8 24
.

- . ,
5
-

is creation (conception + execution)

Authorship

Exception to authorship is "works for hire" Eg-See 12

of Indian <Rout

Ege article written

by journalist but commissioned by publisher (employer).

Dead Sea Strolls Case - Commun v .

Shew

Facts s Scientists excavate strolles , parchments near dead sea area .

Around 15 , 000 stroll

tents were enervated

I around soo were
legible
Prof Cumran (major leads was responsible for separating there soo strolls from 15k
strotl&
for reconstruction shredded He skills & technical skills
of the writings used his
linguistic
.

to reconstruct- A ther tents were shared to libraries with entire world -

It was
Hunington
library in USA .

They were
merly for record-keeping & for educational purposes later on
I
publishing
Mr Shenz published test "MmT" NMT lines & at end book
. not allowed
a was
of
132 comes
of
. .

Out
of 132 lines lines were from compiled tent/reconstructed of Prof Cumron].
work .

But there was no

permission from Prof - Cuman to do so .

Prof Cumron fles

. suit a

. Theur
of infringement of Cr Mr .
contention was this work
of Prof - Gurran is not

he recombrinted
meeting the test ofauthorship or
merely the
existing text.

Whether authorship exists ?

Gration-IndependentCreation Copyright cannot

exist
should not be copied
on
method
for problem
originality -
satisfies the creaturity threshold
? solving
↓
what is the creative input here ? Intellect ?
Labour, skill 3 judgment ?

Where is the expression ?

Can there be reconstruction be hit
other
ways of ? Will it
by mager doctrine ?

Israel Israel
doesn't have
merger
doctrine but since the
infringement was in US the

courts US Law
applied
Underlying work is idea but the
interpretation of Prof . Curran is expression
. Need
o
expert evidence
.

Israel into
didn't
apply mager doctrine
court . Didn't look
Ruled in
favour of plaintiff .

substantiality of copying-1 lines out soo works out

of
15 ke but this is an issue of
 For authorship
infringement there .
are so
many questions
.

JOINT Authorshi - See 2(2) the out

of
.

Case Najia Hepteller v -

Oriental
Facts - olator Maulana Ahad Writer JA His inputs a interpretations
sought
.
-
.

were there while

finalizing book . Here ,
yes IA there

Requirements of JA + Creative input as an authors an

independent (Rable contribution

should be
after
there that there should be
interdependency manifestation of
their contribution is inseparable
I whole
integrated work I cannot cull out the input of either authors

Frequently cited
um cases for authorship
English Court Cas - Coven v -
Marten & Ons
"The author
Interpretating Ser 9
of The held
LDPA - court a
is
person who

spends skill & effort in creating selecting and gathering corrupts ,

and
offic them

.
on a
tangible medium

European lue
M
- Painer v .
Standard
Verlags
An choices
author must exercise a wide
range of creating constituting an

intellectual expression .
"

US
Car >
- Al Mohammad v - Lee (9th Ciruit Decision 2000]
U

Author the the creative . He is the

is originator of work with control
"

basi
mastermind executing the idea .

SC Observation -
EBLv . DB Modak
M

An author is a
person
who
independently lends an
original expression to
"

an idea .
 JA
-

Case - Greene v . Ablon [ist Cirmit .

2015)

Facts - I doctors-serid
I juviol a decided to white a book on a method

ofmedication developed by
Serior-Junior gives Vignette (small notes wherever

.
possible An issue arose so
co-authorship stopped Serior doctor
purses
.

Junior doe i
independently & reproduces vignette of find .

says this

infringement as copied without consent of fund

,
.

Senior suit a his contribution

files a contention is the out
of of junior
doe is
negligible & major work is
by serio doe .

Sufficiency of contine-quantity ?
Vignette is descriptive the
a sholt note
of larger work.

Do whether the
vignette is Rable ?
The level
major issue to be seen is quality of contribution
I of creaturity .

Not quantitative unless it is de minimis

"Inseparable contributions have little or no
independent meaning standing
-
alone Interdependent contributions on the other hand have some
meaning
standing alone but achieve their because their
primary significance of
combined for be the have intended
effect a work to
joined authors wel

contributions be It
that their
maged into an
integrated
wit. .
is not
the authors contributions be
neusary that quantitatively or
qualitatively equal ,

only that each author's contribution be de minimis

"

more than .

The in
vignette is
of good quality & Crable itself Quantity of contri is not
.

of .
consideration

claus Sir .
leave
615k4 - no .
on

7/8/24 -
Wednesday

88
. .

24 Conline class]
1st
Generation I derivative
based
↓
made on
underlying work.

main
source/underlying work Ege cinematography work of .
novel

sound
recording
Actual A .
I based on
creationship doctrine .
Ast Gen work.

who creates it materialize

? Its
from hers
.

be Person (Ser
subsequent right-holder ?
Who can a who creates -
Actual Author it

airmenta
through for
surewoni
work him
,
C1
↓
death
of holder

contracturet

through contact]
↓
becomes
assigne .
owner

Su 2(d) of CRAa.

- DAgn to
producer

Dumed AES9(d)(v)-DA to
producer for inematography
.

What are the

parts that cove
together to make a
Song Crable ? Lyriest music +
productions
leads to a sound
recording/song - thus making it Crable
.

What is a
producer doing in this
? No creative control but
technical control/input
input
.

sound recording 3
things I sound recording in itself .

underlying works - lyrics

music

Sie 134)( (d)

See 14 -
gives indication as to what constitutes a CR
-
↓
that
works au be done
by yourself) assigne

>
-
reproduction of work

To set
gou work -

communicating to
pustie
primarily ect .
author
belongs to

&certs of producer of sound recoding

(d)
↓
its of producer of inematographer
.

Author the work to

gives producer gives it
who to
public .

Et Javed Akhtar EAR Rahman (composer t Singer) -

producer takes work to public .

Problem -
recording/linematographic
sound work -
their
publication-leads to
lyrics & music

being communicated
.
Producer laims authorship now but it is the work
of the actual

author which is communicated .

corrected from Bhaani Dave

9.
824 collect initial comin from

⑦ to make a round recording Lembodying) I communicate the SR to

public

I I came to the conclusion that producer is also who is the .

author
 purpose-to secure the ets
of the
underlying work author

2012 amendment I

See 19(9)3(10)
↓ Assignment of SR.

assignment
of a
cinematographic film
.

Eg + JA BAR Rahman e
SR-assigned to HMV· Exclusive contract
blo Myricist composer ,

the label owner .

6 no publication took so far
This the 11
assignment will not
affect gen author
proc getting royalty
.

Collect
- notes before note
from A .
Srivasta

"The IC observed
Aditya Pandey (Civil Appeal
in CISS2v 9412-9413 2016) Judgment by
No
of
-
. .

Profular Pant-2 judge benet-TPP & T. Ranjan Gogai] that even

though the eto
provided u/S14
other
of the out were
independent of each ,
the
producer of the sound
recoding
would still have the et to communicate his work to the
public Since -
,
S19(10) was

inserted 21 June the

plaint filed trial court , this section
on 2012
after was in the

shall not be applicable to the us

existing farior to this date .

U/S19/10 ,
the assign
in any
of non-film musical effectshallrts
of lyricist
- meut CR work not the

composers to claim an
equal share
of royalties S2(d)(v) coufers authorship of the
.

SR to the ES res to other SRE to

producer
.

provider the
14 (e) make
any communicate

the SR to the
public .
Notwithstanding S13(4) which
preserves the independent CR of
the author of the
underlying wor & S 19(0) . which allows for equal sharing
interpreted to that
of royalties ,
the
provisions cannot be read of mean the rt

to his The IC relied

of a
producer communicate work to the public is lost .

heavily on the 1977 judgment in IPRS v . Eastern Indi Motion Pictures Ar Ons to
hold that once the author of a
lyric of a musical worke
parts with his motion

of cR
his by authorizing film producer to incorporate it
a in
Linematographic
the
film , produces requires the exclusive et of performing the work in
public ,
without

having to serve any further permission of the author of the musical

work/lywic .
"
 [1218 1318 1615]
for
,
motes online
,
count class

20 8 work for hire deemed ownership Who to exploit

24 -
authorship +
gets the
. .
.

work Author but hirer would

? would want to
exploit the work
say that

he has at to exploit he is the deemed author As WH doctrine the

per
as .

hirer gets the ownership a rts

.

101-scope of employment I .
employee
-
2 terms in 17 USC
problematic
they not
do use the world formal/ Salaried
.

Alden accessories said look at the control

.
Not mere relationship but control test .

Later saw having control is contro is not

we
enough ; use
of reg
Then come Easter Seale where it was said atleast principle agent should be there

for work for hire ,

not
as independent contractor . Control test was
disregarded
.
Fumaz v -
Burman Man-5to10
factors was looked at E control list was
again
looked at to determine WFH.
"

CCMB e
case SC said "Who is assigning work & who has control on the work .

Problem Red it brought too contentualization

of CCMBr .
was
,
much
subjectivenes ,

of work. Kind I manner of payments employment benefits ,

etc
.

Ims Such as
v .
Bonales -
court said
weightage has to be assigned to
diff factors .

weightage for insurance benefits ,

tin ,
manner
of payment etc
.

Alden accessories it
wanted to make objective but now it is more complicated
.

From
LR perspective-authorship & ownership-factor of who makes the work &
influence on the work has more importance rather than benefits payments etc ,
.

A magazines
regular practice of commissioning photographs of its own conception
doesnot create
employment relationship with an experienced photographer
an

his own
days? times
who uses works at his own strio
equipment on ,
,

his without
of hoosing photography assistants hied
by the publisher I
 without income tax withheld without
who receives
payment , employer
benefits , for discreet assignments rather them for hourly or
periodic work. The

cut added 3 adde

factors to the one delienate in Ried .
① hired parties

occupation , Glocal custom Eactual

,
control over the details of the work.

32d
a here circuit tree to
clarify the S2
Judgment - said control not
completely
done with , but be looked the
factors
away
can at as one
of .

Exceptions to VARA & see 27 - WFH work then morl to don't

apply .

Why ?
mola its
apply to culuat author but in wfH it is deemed author

22/8124
Copyrt analysis -O Protectable Subject Matter
-
It didoom

Independent- Curation

② Rights- Economic - material

gains from Originality
↓ exploitation
economic
Moral Fixation
Eg-renting , lending etc
.

held
by owner -> author is owner-gen rub

Exception-work for hire

Tramfer of CR- another economic rt .

⑪
assignment licencing
↓
Sa
is
of CR act
di
only owner can ag the work.

in
transferring & interests
asigment general whole bundle ets in total
means of
In CR it can be in whole I partial