‘TABLE OF CONTENT

Contents
1. Star India (P) LTD. v. Piyush Aggarwal and Others, CS (OS) No. 2722/2012, Del HC...1
2. The Chancellor, Masters & ... vs Rameshwari Photocopy Services & ... on 16 September,
2016 - CS(OS) 2439/2012..........................................................................................................4
3. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd vs. Super Cassette Industries Ltd & Ors. AIR
2004 Delhi 326, 112 (2004) DLT 549 S.B. Sinha, Lokeshwar Singh Panta.............................6
4. Google LLC v Oracle America Inc.....................................................................................9
5. Mannu Bhandari vs Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1987 Delhi 13...........................12
6. Indian Performing Right Society v Eastern India Motion (14.03.1977 - SC):
MANU/SC/0220/1977.............................................................................................................14
7. New Delhi Television Ltd v ICC Development (International) Ltd.................................16
8. ESPN Star Sports v. Global Broad Case News Ltd, 2008(38) PTC477 (Del).................17
9. Diljeet Titus, Advocate v Mr. Alfred A. Adebare & Ors - 130 (2006) DLT 330.............18
10. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd - 2 2003 (5) BomCR 404. -
A.P. Shah J...............................................................................................................................20
11. John Wiley and Sons Inc. and Ors. vs. Prabhat Chander Kumar Jain - Manmohan
Singh, J. 2010 (44) PTC 675 (Del)..........................................................................................21
12. [Singham Case]Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors.- I.A. No.
11242/2011 in CS(OS) No. 1724/2011....................................................................................23
13. International News Service v. Associated Press 248 U.S. 215: 39 [Link]. 68 (1918) -
Justice PITNEY........................................................................................................................23
14. NBA vs. Motorola -105 F.3d 841, 843 (2d Cir. 1997) - VAN GRAAFEILAND,
WINTER, and ALTIMARI......................................................................................................24
15. Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v Rajnish Chibber & Anr. 1995 PTC (15) 278. 25
16. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books - 575 F. Supp. 2d 513...........................27
DOCTRINES...........................................................................................................................28
Modicum of Creativity:........................................................................................................28
Doctrine of Merger:..............................................................................................................28
Doctrine of Sweat of the Brow:...........................................................................................28
Hot News Doctrine: It..........................................................................................................29
 IPR Case Laws

1. Star India (P) LTD. v. Piyush Aggarwal and Others, CS (OS) No. 2722/2012, Del
HC
(Hot News Doctrine along with Mobile Rights)

Facts

The plaintiff Star India Pvt. Ltd. (STAR), filed three cases against Piyush Agarwal
(Cricbuzz), Idea Cellular (Idea) and OnMobile Global Ltd. (Onmobile). The Board of Cricket
Control (BCCI) supported the plaintiff, claiming paramount rights over all information
emanating from a cricketing event by virtue of organising and promoting the sport of cricket
in India. The plaintiff has sought an interim injunction against the defendants alleging that the
latter has violated the “mobile rights” and “mobile activation rights”; which was assigned by
BCCI to the plaintiff in bouquet of rights exclusively assigned to STAR. STAR and BCCI
contend that the dissemination by the defendant of match information through live score
cards, match updates and score alerts via SMS and MVAS, constitutes the tort of “unfair
competition”; and “commercial misappropriation/unjust commercial enrichment”. The
plaintiff had spent a sum of Rs. 3581 Crores to successfully bid for the Media Rights
Agreement from BCCI dated 10.08.2012. The plaintiff sought remedy under common law, de
hors the Copyright Act, 1957. Despite, the case is important from the “broadcasting” point of
view.

Issues:

i. Whether BCCI has the right to monetize the information arising from a cricket match
organised by it?
ii. Whether the defendants are free-riding on the efforts of the plaintiff/BCCI?
iii. Whether the score alert/match updates are already in public domain?
iv. Whether the defendants have a freedom under article 19(l)(a) to disseminate
contemporaneous match information?
v. Whether the public interest needs to be kept in mind before considering the rival
claims?

Arguments:

Plaintiff:
Cases Referred

‘INS’ - International News Service v. Associated Press (INS Case)

Two newspaper rival publishers contended over the rights to news which ruled that “who has
fairly paid the price should have the beneficial use of the property”.

Marksman Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharti Tele-Ventures Ltd.

Similar facts, where the SMS technology was used by the defendants to disseminate scores of
the game, to the public, when the plaintiffs had already entered into a contractual agreement
for the exclusive rights of the game updates. The court held that “the right of providing
scores, alerts and updates is the result of expenditure of skill, labour and money of the
organisers and so the same is saleable only by them. The sending of score updates and match
alerts via SMS amounts to interference with the normal operation of the Organisers business.
The defendant’s act of appropriating facts and information from the match telecast and
selling the same is nothing but endeavouring to reap where the defendants have not sown.

Respondent

The defendants; argument centred on four points, viz., (i) the plaintiff cannot seek any
remedy under common law because section 16 of the Copyright Act, 1957 precludes the
plaintiff from claiming a copyright or any other similar right, other than those which are
provided in accordance or under the Act; 51 (ii) they only publish the match information after
it has come into public domain 52 and-that the information arising from the match is purely
factual in nature 53 and acquires the position of news; (ii) their actions do not amount to free
riding on the efforts of the plaintiff because they neither copy the actual content of the
broadcast nor provide access to audio or visual footage of the broadcast and (iv) they are
exonerated under article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution whereby they have the freedom to carry
on trade by dissemination of information to the public 54 and such rights can only be subject
to the reasonable restrictions under article 19(2) and not by common law.

On the other hand, BCCI the non-contesting defendant, has contended that as the organiser of
cricket in India, it has the exclusive rights in relation to the content generated during a
cricketing event, including the right to commercially exploit all content arising from such
event. the defendants do not contribute their revenue or a part thereof for the purpose of
promoting the game of cricket in India and hence the defendants are eating away into the
mobile and internet rights, without sharing the profit gained by them; thereby indulging in
unfair competition and unjust commercial enrichment.

The defendants also contended the case relied upon by the plaintiffs claiming that the
maximum number of cases have been reversed, giving rise to the “hot news doctrine”.

Judgement:

BCCI Issue

The court answered the first question in affirmative. Regarding the defendant’s contention
that common law rights are abrogated/ precluded/pre-empted under section 16 of the
Copyright Act, the court held that the pre-emption under section 16 of the Act only applies to
copyright or any similar right only with respect to “works”; and cannot be extended to the
other rights in any manner whatsoever.

The court has quoted with approval the observation in ESPN Star Sports v. Global
Broadcast News Ltd. that “satellite broadcasting rights are treated as separate rights and the
said rights are recognized throughout the world as independent rights.”

Free Riding Issue

The court categorically held that the “contemporaneous dissemination” of score

updates/match alerts, without payment, but encashing the labour and expenditure of the
plaintiff would amount to unjust commercial enrichment.

Public Domain Issue

The court ruled against the contention, holding that since the audience that has access to the
information is limited in nature, the news cannot be held to be in public domain.

Fundamental Right Contention:

The court negated the contention retracing the intention of Article 19. The court relied upon
New Delhi Television Ltd V. ICC Development (International) Ltd wherein it was observed
that raising revenue under the garb of “reporting” (fair dealing as well) was not in
consonance with the spirit of article 19(l)(a). The public also cannot, as a matter of right,
claim the access to contemporaneous score updates/match alerts, equal to those who are
enjoying rights at a premium, by buying the tickets at the stadium or watching it live on TV.
The court directed the defendants to ither get premium rights to disseminate minute-to-minute
details of the match, or should provide information at a considerable time lag of 15 mins.
Such a process would ensure both the rights of the plaintiffs and the accessibility of the
information in the public domain.

2. The Chancellor, Masters & ... vs Rameshwari Photocopy Services & ... on 16
September, 2016 - CS(OS) 2439/2012
Facts

The five plaintiffs, namely i) Oxford University Press along with 4 other renowned
publishing houses, being the publishers, including of textbooks, instituted this suit for the
relief of permanent injunction restraining the two defendants namely Rameshwari Photocopy
Service (carrying on business from Delhi School of Economic (DSE), University of Delhi)
and the University of Delhi from infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs in their publications
by photocopying, reproduction and distribution of copies of plaintiffs; publications on a large
scale and circulating the same and by sale of unauthorised compilations of substantial
extracts from the plaintiffs; publications by compiling them into course packs/anthologies for
sale.

The plaintiffs claim for interim injunction against the defendants to prevent them from
photocopying and reproducing the content leading to infringement of copyright and exclusive
rights of the publishing houses.

Issues

Whether the circulation of material by the defendant come under the scope of educational and
research purposes?

Whether the defendants violated the Copyright principles?

Arguments

Plaintiff

The primary contention of the plaintiff was the improper use and no blanket immunity to
unfair usage of the content. Reliance was placed on Princeton University Press Vs.
Michigan Document Services Inc. also concerned with an action for restraining the
defendant from reproducing substantial segments of copyrighted works of scholarship,
binding the copies into course packs and selling the course packs to the students for use in
fulfilment of reading assignments given by professors at University of Michigan and
negativing the defence of fair use doctrine; it was held that the fair use of copyright work
does not provide blanket immunity for multiple copies for classroom use.

Under Section 52(1) provided specifically for the field of education/instruction, the scope
thereof cannot be expanded or restricted for commercial purposes. It is acceptable to have
access to the material but large scale sale of it, violated the principles of copyright.

Syndicate of The Press of The University of Cambridge Vs. B.D. Bhandari, holding that the
defence of “fair use” as provided in Section 52(1) (h) is only available to the teacher and
pupil to reproduce the literary work in the course of instructions or examination paper setter
to reproduce any literary work as part of the questions or to the pupil to reproduce the literary
work as answers to such questions and further holding that the publishers of commercial
books were neither teachers nor students nor a person giving or receiving instruction.

Respondent

The counsel for the defendant

(a) that the actions of the defendant in this suit are licensed by the has been acting strictly in
accordance

(b) that the rate charged by the defendant No.1 of 40 paise per page for photocopying is an
inclusive charge / binding charge and there is no commercial angle

(c) drew attention to Articles 39(f) and 41 of the Constitution of India constituting giving of
opportunities and facilities to children to develop in a healthy manner, protected from
exploitation and right to education as Directive Principles of State Policy.

The contention of the respondent was based on the doctrine of fair use and the usage of the
material for educational and research purposes. The material is just being used by students for
research and study purposes. The contention was supported by the arguments in the EBC v D
B Modak case.

Judgement

Applying the tests as aforesaid laid down by the Courts of

(i) integral part of continuous flow;

(ii) connected relation;
 (iii) incidental;
(iv) causal relationship;
(v) during and while doing;
(vi) continuous progress from one point to the next in time and space; and,
(vii) in the path in which anything moves,

it has to be held that the words ―in the course of instruction within the meaning of Section
52(1) (i) supra would include reproduction of any work while the process of imparting
instruction by the teacher and receiving instruction by the pupil continues i.e. during the
entire academic session for which the pupil is under the tutelage of the teacher and that
imparting and receiving of instruction is not limited to personal interface between teacher and
pupil but is a process commencing from the teacher readying herself/himself for imparting
instruction, setting syllabus, prescribing text books, readings and ensuring, whether by
interface in classroom/tutorials or otherwise by holding tests from time to time or clarifying
doubts of students, that the pupil stands instructed in what he/she has approached the teacher
to learn.

International Treaties and their related provisions were also relied upon. Reliance was place
on International Convention, Articles 9 and 10 of the Berne Convention, elaborating upon the
Right to Reproduction and the Situations of Fair Use. Both the principles involve the right to
education and dissemination of information.

Thus, the appeal is dismissed and the defendants did not infringe the copyright of the
plaintiffs.

3. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd vs. Super Cassette Industries Ltd &
Ors. AIR 2004 Delhi 326, 112 (2004) DLT 549 S.B. Sinha, Lokeshwar Singh
Panta
(Compulsory Licensing and Copyright Society Chapter 7)

Facts

First respondent is one of the leading music companies engaged in the production and/or
acquisition of rights in sound recordings. It has copyright over a series of cassettes and CDs
commonly known as T- series. It has copyrights in cinematographic films and sound
recordings. Appellant M/s. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. (ENIL) broadcasts under the
brand name Radio Mirchi. It is a leading FM radio broadcaster. Disputes and differences
arose between Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., the holding company of the first respondent
and Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) as regards the playing of the songs of which
copyrights belongs to the first respondent in their FM radio network.

Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties in regard to broadcast of the songs
in respect whereof the first respondent holds a copyright as owner thereof or by reason of
purchase of the copyright belonging to others.

Issues

The core questions which, therefore, arise for consideration in these appeals are:

(i) Whether the Copyright Board has jurisdiction under Section 31 (1)(b) of the Copyright
Act, 1957 to direct the owner of a copyright in any Indian work or a registered copyright
society to issue compulsory licences to broadcast such as works, where such work is
available to the public through radio broadcast?

(ii) Whether in any event such a compulsory license can be issued to more than one
complainant in the light of Section 31(2)?

(iii) What would be the relevant considerations which the Copyright Board must keep in view
while deciding on;

(a) Whether to issue a compulsory license to a particular person; and

(b) The terms on which the compulsory license may be issued, including the compensation?

Arguments

Plaintiff

The appellants argued that the word 'or' used between clauses (a) and (b) of sub section (1) of
Section 31 should be read disjunctively. It was argued that the term 'such work' occurring in
the clauses (a) and (b) operate in different fields and as such song broadcasting cannot be
compared with publication in print media. The sub section (2) should be confined to clause
(a) alone otherwise it would lead to anomaly.

Defendant

The respondents argued that importance should be provided given to the copyright protection.
The rights should be dealt within the four corners of the statute. It was Supreme argued that
Section 31 must be given literal meaning. The literal interpretation would mean that the
Board royalty can exercise its power provided there is a refusal for copyright publication or
the work has been withheld from the which public. Both the interests need to be considered,
that is determined (i) the interest of the copyright owners and (ii) the interest of the general
public. It was argued that the narrow commercial interests of the balance broadcasters should
not be given preference under Section 31 of the Act.

Provisions and Principles

Public Interest

The principles of Public Interest and its contentions were to be decided based on
circumstances. The factual matrix of each case varies and thus the requirement of public
policy also differs.

Prior to examining the ruling in Entertainment Networks, one may consider the findings of
the Bombay High Court in Phonographic Performance Ltd v Music Broadcast (P) Ltd, which
rightly concluded that:

(a) Under Section 31(1)(b) grounds to seek compulsory licence should fall outside the ambit
of Section 31(2) of the Act. The relief stipulated under Section 31(2) should only be restricted
to Section 31(1)(a); and,

(b) Section 31(1)(b) of the Act includes broadcasting of sound records which are already
available to the public. Therefore, since the general public is not deprived of their right to
enjoyment, the issue of grant of compulsory licence in relation to Section 31(2) does not
arise.

The court read the meaning of Section 31 is an elaborative manner, reading the word “or” in a
disjunctive manner, elaborating upon the powers of the Board. It was held that apart from the
explicit functions, the case provided an added responsibility to the Board to decide the
amount of Royalty to be paid. Compulsory License can be granted to more than one
broadcaster envisioning the powers of the Board.

Copyright Society

Relevant Provisions of the same are contained within Chapter 7 of the Copyright Act. The
Chapter introduces Copyright Societies, discusses voluntary licenses, along with compulsory
licenses under Sections 30-35. Section 34A(2) Chapter V of the Copyright Rules, 1958
makes detailed provisions with respect to the conduct of business by Copyright Societies.
Section 31 deals with compulsory license in works withheld from the public and the
submissions relating to these provisions are set out in detail in the next section of this outline
of submissions. The same being under consideration in the present case. The main question is
the application of multiple broadcasters under Section 31 (2).

The court interpreted the section in a purposive way. Holding that license should not be
granted to a single person for an indefinite time, rather multiple personalities can have an
understanding and license under the Act, to ensure effectivity of the legislation.

Judgement

As it was a case of abuse, the Board had the jurisdiction to entertain any application for grant
of compulsory licence. How far and to what extent appellant has infringed the right of the
respondent is a matter which may be taken into consideration by the Board. A suit was filed
and injunction was granted. Apart from the fact that the appellant offered to take a license
held negotiations with the respondents in the suit as soon as it came to know that Super
Cassettes is not a member of PPL, it gave an undertaking. Each case must be considered on
its own facts. However, we do not approve the manner in which the Board has dealt with the
matter. It has refused to examine the witnesses. It took up the matter on a day for hearing
which was fixed for production of witnesses. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the order
of the Board should be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Board again for the
consideration of the matter afresh on merit. These appeals are allowed with the
aforementioned directions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall pay
and bear their own costs.

4. Google LLC v Oracle America Inc.

Facts

1. The dispute started in 2010 when Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems, the previous
owner of Java, and subsequently filed a copyright infringement case against Google
for using Java APIs (Application programming interfaces) in its Android operating
system.
2. APIs are lines of code in a software program used for interaction and communication
among different programmers.
 3. Oracle claimed that Google had copied the structure, sequence, and organization of
the overall original code for 37 packages in its Java API, into Android which
performs various fundamental computing operations.
4. Oracle sought damages of US $8.8 billion from Google and also licensing of earlier
infringing versions of Android.
5. Two District Court-level jury trials were in the favour of Google. After this Federal
Court reversed both decisions and, held it in favour of Oracle.
6. Writ petition of certiorari was filed by Google in January 2019 to challenge the
decision of the appeal court in Oracle’s favour, focusing on the copyrightability of
APIs and later fair use.

Issues

1. Whether Copyright protection can be extended to API?

2. Whether the usage by Google comes under the preview of Fair Use?

Arguments

Plaintiff

Google claimed that the APIs’ declaring code of JAVA was so “functional” that it was not
copyrightable; Copyright protects only the “expression” of the author and not “the ideas of
the author”. Tye lower courts reasoned that Google used its own implementation code, thus
moving it out of the preview of infringement further, the principles of copyright are not wide
enough to cover expressions and codes as API.
2. Google accepted that Copyright Act protected the implementing code, but it argued that the
“method of operation” of declaring code is outside the scope of protection because it is much
more functional.
3. Due to the “merger doctrine” that bars copyright protection when there is one option to
express an idea, Google also contend that declaring code is not copyrightable and, should be
excluded from protection.
4. Google argued that the declaring code is different from the regular program code. They
perform a specific function of linking programs to pre-written subroutines only if they are
written in a certain way.
5. Concerning fair use, Google contended that the four fair use factors explained in the
Copyright Act inclines in Google’s favour.

Defendant

1. Oracle argued that the legal principle of the Copyright Act does not allow them to give a
pass just because it would be expensive to recreate our expression.
2. Oracle contended that declaring code should not be treated differently from regular
program code and if they are treated so, they should be conferred more protection because
declaring code reflects more creativity than other code.
3. Oracle argued that Google’s use of declaring code in the Android platform was not
transformative because the declaration is performing the same function in the JAVA platform
and Android platform.
4. Oracle argued that Google did not alter the original work’s expression, meaning, or
message of API’S. Every line of code is copied.
5. Oracle claimed that Google used the Java API in the smartphone market which harms the
market for Java API’s.
6. Oracle argued that Google’s use was unfair because the factor 1 and factor 4 that outlined
in Copyright Act favoured Oracle and that Google’s use was superseding.

Judgement

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the 6-2 majority opinion. The court held that by assuming
that a software interface may be subjected to copyright protection, under Copyright law
Google’s copied Java Se Application Programming Interface is limited so it constituted fair
use of that material. The court considered four statutory factors mentioned in Copyright Act
in evaluating whether a secondary use is fair. All four-factor support Google’s action and the
record showed that Google's new smartphone platform is not a market substitute for Java SE,
thus Google’s limited copying constituted fair use. Regarding market impact, the court found
that Sun Microsystems was unlikely to be able to compete in the Android marketplace and
the copying of API’S by Google created a lot more market opportunity for others.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored the dissenting opinion, in which Justice Samuel Alito also
joined. Justice Thomas concluded that by copying Oracle’s code, Google erased 97.5 of the
value of Oracle’s partnership with Amazon, made tens of billions of dollars, and established
its position as the owner of the largest mobile operating system in the world.

Impact:
The upshot is a highly case-specific decision that is unlikely to directly dictate the result in
future disputes. After all, to be on all fours with this precedent, a future case would need to
entail the use of limited portions of a highly popular programming language, valued more for
its familiarity than its creative expression, by a company seeking to develop a platform in a
new landscape—a field that the entity that created the language had tried and failed to enter.

Further, the case of API as copyrightable was remained untouched by the court. Thus, leaving
a lacuna of unanswered questions.

5. Mannu Bhandari vs Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1987 Delhi 13
(Special Rights along with Copyright. Section 57 and 55)

Facts

Manna Bhandari's suit against M/s. Kala Vikas Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. and its producer and
director. Kala Vikas has produced motion picture 'Samay Ki Dhara' eider assignment of
filming rights of her novel 'Aap ka Bunty'. Her complaint is of the mutilation and distortion
of the novel. She pleads for permanent injunction against its screening and exhibition. The
trial court refused to grant interim injunction, thus, the present appeal was preferred by the
authors.

Issues

At the bottom of the controversy is the question of demarcating the boundaries of the rights
of the author and that of a director of the film. Does the assignment of the filming rights
mean the end of the author's rights? Does it mean that the Director has absolute freedom to
'make any changes in the theme and characters?

The basic question is how to balance freedom (of expression) of the author with that of the
director in the field of art.

Arguments
Plaintiff

The plaintiffs base their arguments on Section 57 of the Copyright Act, emphasizing upon the
fact, that the legislation provides enough room for exclusivity of rights of the author. Even
after giving the novel for production, the director and producer cannot change the basic
theme of the text, making it entirely different from the existing literature.

Even though a contract of assignment was signed, the provisions of Section 57 had to be read
in conformity and not separately from the same. The special protection of the intellectual
property is emphasised by the fact that the remedies of a restraint order or damages can be
claimed "even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright". Section
57 thus clearly over-rides the terms of the Contract of assignment of the copyright. To put it
differently, the contract of assignment would be read subject to the provisions of Section 57
and the terms of contract cannot negate the special rights and remedies guaranteed by Section
57 The Contract of Assignment will have to be so construed as to be consistent with Section
57. The assignee of a copyright cannot claim any rights or immunities based on the contract
which are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 57.

Defendants

Counsel for the respondents submits that the restraint order in the nature of injunction under
section 57 can be passed when there is only literary reproduction, if the said novel is
published with impermissible changes the publisher can be restrained but where the film is
produced based on the novel, no restraint order can be passed under Section 57.

Further, the terms of the contract, specifically allow for modifications, and since the contract
acts as a specific contract between the parties, the copyright act, cannot be held to hold
people accountable. The counsel for the respondent has then submitted that the plaintiff has
acquiesced in the modifications in as much as she had filed a suit almost one year after the
alleged' cause of action mentioned in the Plaint.

Judgement

Just before the judgement, a settlement was agreed upon between the parties. The judgement
was pronounced even after the settlement, because there was no interpretation of Section 57
in the society.
The Court does not sit as a sentinel of public morals or super censor in exercise of its powers
under the said section. It cannot impose its views (prudish or liberated) on sex or its depiction
in the works of art. The concern of the Court is to examine how for the new 'avatar' is true
and authentic and what changes are necessary due to constraints of a medium.

The court directed to find a middle ground for the name of the movie. Further, the
playwright, songs, movies and locations, can be included in the creative ability of the
producer. It observed that the contract of assignment should be read along with section 57
and construe it in a manner of making the contract subject to restrictions under section 57 of
the act.

It moved on to express its views on the term ‘modifications’ as used under section 57 and
stated that modifications for a film by the director shall not be perverted to such an extent
where the modifications distort the form of what has been portrayed in the original novel.

After looking into various modifications, the judge recognized the special rights conferred
under section 57 of the act and held that the director of the film is free to choose any scene of
the novel to be expressed in the film through his changes which is the freedom to express and
has righto do so as per the contract also. But the changes should never distort or mutilate the
novel completely as appeared in this case, and therefore, the court insisted on balancing the
artistic treatment of the work and the subject by the author as well as the director. A balance
must be ensured to bring forth economic profits and author rights.

6. Indian Performing Right Society v Eastern India Motion (14.03.1977 - SC):

MANU/SC/0220/1977
Facts

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as
'the IPRS'), the appellant before us, was incorporated in the State of Maharashtra on August
23 1969, for performance in public of all existing and future Indian Musical works in which
copyright subsists in India. The incorporation of the IPRS was in terms of Section 2(r) of the
Copyright Act, 1957. The IPRS has amongst its members the composers of musical works,
authors of literary and dramatic works and artistes. In accordance with the provisions of
Section 33 of the Act, the IPRS published on September 27, 1969 and November 29, 1969 in
the 'Statesman' and the Gazette of India respectively a tariff laying down the fees, charges
and royalties that it proposed to collect for the grant of licences for performance in public of
works in respect of which it claimed to be an assignee of copyrights and to have authority to
grant the aforesaid licences.

A number of persons including various associations of producers of cinematograph films who

claimed to be the owners of such films including the sound track thereof and the
Cinematograph Exhibitors Association of India filed objections in respect of the aforesaid
tariff in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act repudiating the claim of the
IPRS that it had on behalf of its members authority to grant licences for performance in
public of all existing and future musical works which are incorporated in the sound track of
cinematograph films in which copyright may subsist in India or the right to collect in relation
thereto any fees, charges or royalties.

All the rights which subsisted in the composers and their works including the right to perform
them in public became the property of the producers of the cinematograph films. The
copyright in the case of a cinematograph film vests in the owner of the film as defined in
Section 2(d)(v) of the Act; and that in the premises any assignment purporting to have been
made in favour of the IPRS was void and of no effect and was incapable of conferring any
rights whatsoever in such musical works on the IPRS.

Issues

Whether in view of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, an existing and future right of
music, composer, lyricist is capable of assignment and whether the producer of a
cinematograph film can defeat the same by engaging the same person.

Judgement

The court established and re-iterated that according to provisions of Section 18, a person can
commit the copyrights to another person with certain limitations. Until and unless the
contract explicitly states the transfer of rights, the same continue to be with the musician.
However, the rights of a composer can be surpassed according to Section 17 of the Act.

Whether the producer of a cinematograph film can defeat the right of the composer of music
or lyricist by engaging him. The key to the solution of this question lies in provisos (b) and
(c) to Section 17 of the Act reproduced above which put the matter beyond doubt. According
to the first of these provisos viz. proviso (b) when a cinematograph film producer
commissions a composer of music or a lyricist for reward or valuable consideration for the
purpose of making his cinematograph film, or composing music or lyric therefore i.e. the
sounds for incorporation or absorption in the sound track associated with the film, which as
already indicated, are included in a cinematograph film, he becomes the first owner of the
copyright therein and no copyright subsists in the composer of the lyric or music so
composed unless there is a contract to the contrary between the composer of the lyric or
music on the one hand and the producer of the cinematograph film on the other. The same
result follows according to aforesaid proviso (c) if the composer of music or lyric is
employed under a contract of service or apprenticeship to compose the work. It is, therefore,
crystal clear that the rights of a music composer or lyricist can be defeated by the producer of
a cinematograph film in the manner laid down in provisos (b) and (c) of Section 17 of the
Act.

We are fortified in this view by the decision in Wallerstein v. Herbert. (1867) 16 L.T. 453
relied upon by Mr. Sachin Chaudhary where it was held that the music 'composed for reward
by the plain tiff in pursuance of his engagement to give effect to certain situations in the
drama entitled "Lady Andley's Secret", which was to be put on the stage was not an
independent composition but was merely an accessory to and a part and parcel of the drama
and the plaintiff did not have any right in the music.

Though a clarificatory opinion was provided by the court, The film producer has the sole
right to exercise what is his entitlement under Section 14(1)(c) qua film; but he cannot trench
on the composer's copyright which he does only if the 'music' is performed or produced or
reproduced separately in violation of Section 14(1)(a) For instance, a film may be caused to
be exhibited as a film but the pieces of music cannot be picked out of the sound track and
played in the cinema or other theatre. To do that is the privilege of the composer and that
right of his is not drowned in the film copyright except where there is special provision such
as in Section 17, proviso (c). So, beyond exhibiting the film as a cinema show if the producer
plays the songs separately to attract an audience or for other reason, he infringes the
composer's copyright.

7. New Delhi Television Ltd v ICC Development (International) Ltd.

(Broadcasting Rights, Section 39 and Section 52)

Facts

The respondents instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from
infringing their copyright in the broadcast of the cricket matches organized by ICC as also the
reproduction rights therein. As per the plaint, International Cricket Council (ICC) organizes
cricket events and the first respondent, ICC Development (International) Ltd. owns and
controls the commercial rights in the said cricket events. It is pleaded that ESPN (Mauritius)
Ltd. has acquired the broadcasting and the reproduction rights from respondent for all cricket
members organized by ICC till the year 2015 as per an exclusive licence agreement dated
July 11, 2007. They have the exclusive broadcasting rights for ICC events which include, but
are not limited to, making live transmissions, deferred transmissions and/or delayed
transmissions on designated channels and designated websites by means of any delivery
system and any permitted payment mechanism together with commentary in any language.
ICC Development (International) Ltd. claims to own the copyright in the footage i.e.
recording. ESPN (Mauritius) Ltd. claims the right as a licensee to the exclusivity to record,
edit and use footage for the purpose of making and transmitting highlights/clippings in
television shows relating to cricket organized by ICC.

Issues

Whether disseminating information through other news platforms infringe the copyright of
the plaintiff?

Judgement

If the offending activity fails to qualify as 'reporting' as understood afore-noted i.e. is not
result oriented but is by way of analysis or review that would be the end of the matter.
Injunction must follow without any further analysis. Question of further considering whether
the use of the footage is fair or unfair does not arise because law permits a broadcast or a
performance to be used for reporting a current event or an affair and thereafter places
restrictions in the use by requiring the same to be in a fair manner. In other words news,
including sports news, would qualify to be a case of reporting if the broadcast is result
oriented and not an analysis by way of review or comments. Specialist sports news
programmes may also be reporting current events.

8. ESPN Star Sports v. Global Broad Case News Ltd, 2008(38) PTC477 (Del)
(Fair Dealing)

Facts

The Plaintiff, ESPN Stars Sports, sought a permanent injunction against the Defendants,
Global Broadcast News Ltd. and Ors., seeking to restrain the Defendant news channels from
utilizing the future footage of Plaintiff, in the matches played, and to be played during the
India-Australia test matches, 20×20 series and the one day internationals involving Sri Lanka,
India and Australia, (all the matches to be played in Australia, during December 26, 2007 to
March 8, 2008) without obtaining the Plaintiff’s prior permission or in violation of the
Plaintiff’s terms and conditions.

It is pertinent to note that the footage was used and to be used by the news channels in special
segments/programmes telecasted by the news channels in relation to these matches. Some
examples of these programs being ‘LOC: Love of Cricket’, ‘Sydney Ke Villain’, and ‘Wah
Cricket’ (the Bollywood inspired names of these programs are cited here for pure
entertainment purposes).

Besides the broadcasting rights, the main contention was the maintainability of the suit. Since
the parties did not join one of the main parties being affected by the same, in the suit.

Issues

Does the non-joinder of the necessary broadcasting parties, render the case as not maintable?

Judgement

It was held that Section 61 would not apply to broadcasting organizations that sue for
violation of broadcast reproduction rights. The Court felt that this recognition of broadcast
reproduction right as a separate and distinct right offered further clarity on the rationale
behind Section 39A in listing out clearly the specific provisions of the Act which would
apply to both copyright as well as broadcast reproduction right. As a consequence, it was
open to the broadcaster to initiate the suit for infringement of such rights without joining the
original licensee as a defendant as mandated by this provision.

9. Diljeet Titus, Advocate v Mr. Alfred A. Adebare & Ors - 130 (2006) DLT 330
Facts

Diljeet Titus, the Plaintiff and Alfred A. Adebare, one of the opposing parties to the suit were
associates in the firm M/s. Titus & Co. Both the plaintiff and the respondent, previously,
were advocates in a firm, Singhania and which they started as a venture together. They left
the concern collectively, when the Plaintiff setup M/s. Titus & Co. While the Plaintiff
claimed that the Defendant was an employee, working for remuneration, the same was denied
on the grounds that the nature of work was more on the lines of partnership. the Defendant’s
taking away privileged information of the law firm, use of which by anyone but the Plaintiff,
could make him liable to his clients. In this regard, Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction apart
from criminal complaints, grieving infringement of copyright.

The defendants took with them and utilizd, two kinds of data,

(i) the list of clients and law firm

(ii) opinions and advises in respect of which the plaintiff itself had an obligation to
maintain confidentiality.

The plaintiffs claimed interim injunction on the use of the data, while the defendants filed a
counter suit, claiming they were the original owners of the data.

Issues

Does the list of clients in the database come under the purview of Section 17?

Did the defendants encroach the copyrights of the plaintiff after using the list?

Arguments

Plaintiff

i) The Defendants were the employees of the Plaintiff, though not in the strict sense
of the term. All billing to the clients was in the name of the Plaintiff alone.
(Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajnish Chibber: As per section 17(c)
of the Copyright Act, any work which is made in the course of other’s
employment under a contract of service, belongs to the employer. Thus, all
documents in this case belong to the Plaintiff even if they have made by the
Defendants during the course of their employment.)
ii) The Defendants were under a contract of service of working under the direction,
supervisions and control of the Plaintiff as per the normal practice in the legal
profession in India. (S.D. Gupta v. Dasuram Murzamull: In the absence of a
proper written partnership contract, there exists no partnership between the
individuals.)
iii) Referring to Section 49(1)(c) of The Advocates Act, 1961, Rule 17 in Section II
and Section 126 of the Evidence Act, it was stated that the documents were
generated to render services to clients, and hence the Plaintiff being solely entitled
to be in possession of the same.
 iv) The database was considered under the preview of Chapter 6, where apart from
individual copyrights for the artistic and literary ability, the combined status of the
same can also be protected in the computer base.

Defendant

The defendant used, two limbs of the argument,

i) The principle of damnum sine injuria. Every person who leaves the firm will leave
with some information. However, no one can claim any legal damage on the same.
ii) The defendants also focussed on the nature of relationship between the plaintiff
and the respondent. According to the respondent, the advocates shared a
partnership ideology instead of an employee and employer relationship, thus, each
of them, had an equal access and share to the information.
iii) The nature of the documents was also contended. Saying that the same does not
come under attorney client privilege.
iv) The defendants argued that they prepared the list during their stay at the firm,
thus, it was a part of original creation, thus qualifying as a literary work. Thus,
keeping the applicability of Section 17 (c) out of question.

Judgement

i) There is no documentation placed by the Defendants on record to substantiate any

such written arrangement of partnership.
ii) With reference to Section 17(c) of the Act, it was stated that the work done by the
Defendants for the clients of the Plaintiff would fall in the definition of contract of
service. It was further stated that irrespective of this, a breach of trust or
confidence had been committed, which could not be ignored in view of Section 16
of the Copyright Act.
iii) Defendants were restrained from using the documents, data base, client lists etc.
of the Plaintiff for their own benefit.

10. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd - 2 2003 (5) BomCR 404. -
A.P. Shah J.
Facts
This suit has been brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for breach of copyright and
misuse of confidential information. The claim is for various reliefs in respect of the plaintiffs'
work titled 'Krish Kanhaiyya'. According to the plaintiffs, by the custom of their business, the
concepts generated by them are registered with Film Writers' Association and the titles for
such programmes are registered with Indian Motion Pictures Producers' Association.
The plaintiffs produced the concept of a serial Krish Kanhaiyya, and sent the pilot to a
number of places, for broadcasting. The plaintiffs found that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have
applied to Indian Motion Pictures Producers' Association for registration of the name 'Krish
Kanhaiyya'. The plaintiffs also came across promotional materials for the production
'Kanhaiyya' as also hearing announcing the launch of 'Kanhaiyya' by the defendants. M/s.
Sony Entertainment Television has declined to sign the contract after coming to know that
M/s. Zee Television of the defendants is going to produce and broadcast serial 'Kanhaiyya'
from 9th March 2003.
The plaintiffs claimed injunction, for breach of confidentiality, encroaching copyrights and
reverse passing off, ie, for representing plaintiffs work as their own.
Issues
Is the concept of Krishna Kanhaiyya protected under Copyright, considering it was never
published?
Arguments
Plaintiff
Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Campbell Engineering Co. Ltd., stated, “If a defendant is
proved to have used confidential information, directly or indirectly obtained from a plaintiff,
without the consent, express or implied of the plaintiff, he will be guilty of an infringement of
the plaintiff's rights.”
In the case of Fraser v. Thames Television Ltd, utilized the similar facts and similar
principles to claim damage for the breach of confidentiality.
The decision of the Delhi High Court is in the case of Anil Gupta and Anr. v. Kunal Das
Gupta and Ors, the court emphasized that an original concept fully developed can be
protected under the Copyright Act.
Respondent
The defendant based its argument on the fact, that the serial was just an idea which wasn’t yet
fully developed thus, cannot be protected under the Copyright Act. The learned counsel for
the defendants strenuously urged that the plaintiffs' plea of confidentiality is not supported in
law.
In the absence of any originality in the idea conceived by the plaintiffs, the principles of
confidentiality do not apply. According to him Lord Krishna appearing either in divine form
or human form is not novel or a new concept. Similar themes have been used in TV serial
'Amanat' and the move 'Yahi Hai Zindagi'.
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films and Ors., where the Court has held that there is no copyright in
an idea, subject matters, themes, plots or historical or legendry facts and violation of the
copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of
the idea by the author of the copyrighted work.
In the case of Mohendra Chundra Nath Ghosh v. Emperor, the court while defining what a
copy is held that copy is one which is so near too original as to suggest original to the mind of
spectator. In the current case, the principle is just a concept and there can exist no similarity
among the spectators.
Judgement
The court found that striking similarities in two works cannot in the light of the material
placed on record be said to constitute mere chance. We feel that the only inference that can be
drawn from the material available on record is unlawful copying of the plaintiffs' original
work.
The conclusion that this was the case of reverse passing off. We find some substance in the
submission of the learned counsel that the action of the defendants may also amount to an act
of reverse passing off.
The court did not present any opinion on the confidentiality aspect as the issue was properly
answered in the reverse passing off concept.

11. John Wiley and Sons Inc. and Ors. vs. Prabhat Chander Kumar Jain - Manmohan
Singh, J. 2010 (44) PTC 675 (Del)
Facts
In this spirit, the plaintiff No. 1 (John Wiley & Sons Inc., USA) authorized plaintiff No. 2
(Wiley India Pvt. Ltd.) to publish its works in Wiley Student Edition for distribution only in
the territories of India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Myanmar,
Phillipines and Vietnam. The books which are published are subject to territorial restrictions
imposed by the plaintiff No. 1 and should contain the following notice:
The grievance of the plaintiffs begins with the rampant problem of the export of books which
are reprint editions meant for the Indian and neighbouring territories to the Western Countries
which not only causes copyright infringement but also leads to royalty losses of the plaintiffs
who are the owners of the respective copyrights.
The plaintiffs seeked temporary injunction against the defendants which came up for hearing
with the main suit on 17.09.2008 when this Court passed an ex parte order to the following
effect: The plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for the grant of ex-parte ad interim
injunction. The Defendants and their agents and assigns and other sister concerns, till the
disposal of this application, are restrained from advertising, offering for sale/exporting any
publications of the plaintiffs to the countries outside territories specified on the books
published by the plaintiffs.
Issues
Whether the doctrine of first sale is applicable in India?
Whether the plaintiffs can claim damage in the absence of a specific provision in the
legislation.
Arguments
Plaintiff
Section 14 of the Copyright Act which provides the meaning of copyright which includes the
right to issue copies of the work to the public and not being copies already in circulation.
Section 51 of the Copyright Act to state that infringement is deemed to be done by a person
who does without licence or permission any acts which are conferred on the owner of the
work. Thus, as per the counsel for the plaintiffs, a clear-cut case of infringement is made out.
Penguin Books Ltd. v. India Book Distributors and Ors. wherein this Court has held that
import of Britain published books from USA without seeking licence from exclusive licencee
amounts to infringement of copyright.
Thus, the first sales doctrine has limited applicability to the extent of territorial limitation.
Defendant
The nature of activities carried out by them i.e. export of the books does not tantamount to
infringement of copyright. As per the defendants, there is no infringement of copyright in the
act of export of the books. No section of copyright prevents exports and imports once the
right has already been granted. Further there was no privity of contract. The Specific Relief
Act, also does not contain anything that allows the plaintiffs to sue the defendants.
Section 51 of the Act was read by Mr. Gupta to contend that there is no provision in the said
Section and nor there is any provision under Section 14 of the Act whereby the export of the
books would tantamount to infringement. Thus, learned Counsel submitted that no provision
of the Copyright Act, 1957 is attracted which can lead to infringement of copyright.
The defendants rely upon the rule of ‘exhaustion of rights’ enshrined in the copyright regime
whereby the rights of the copyright holder are lost once the first sale of the article is effected
i.e. the owners control over the article and the rights therein are exhausted on the first sale
and he/she cannot control every subsequent sale by enforcing rights over the same. The said
doctrine of first sale, according to the defendants operates in USA and is legally accepted.
Thus, USA is the place where the plaintiffs ought to have sued the defendants. As the
plaintiffs are conscious that their rights can be defeated in the USA because of first sale
doctrine, the plaintiffs have filed this suit in India where there is no act of infringement.
Judgement
The court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs providing the injunction. The parameters for the
grant of injunction have been succinctly discussed in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, which
include prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

12. [Singham Case]Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network and Ors.- I.A.
No. 11242/2011 in CS(OS) No. 1724/2011
Facts
The Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent piracy and loss of revenue, apprehending
copies of movie ‘Singham’ being made and sold/distributed in the form of DVDs/CDs in the
market and/or shown on TV by cable operators.
Issues
Can injunction be granted even before the release of the movie?
Judgement
In this case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, after establishing the basic ingredients of the case,
that is, imminent danger and balance of convenience, passed John Doe order restraining all
Defendants and other unknown persons constituting part of the same class from distributing,
displaying, duplicating, uploading, downloading or exhibiting the movie in any manner.

13. International News Service v. Associated Press 248 U.S. 215: 39 [Link]. 68 (1918) -
Justice PITNEY
Facts
During the First World War, International News Service (INS) freely admitted that it used
news stories from the Associated Press (AP) in its own publications. To compensate for its
lack of independent sources, INS owner William Randolph Hearst resorted to tactics such as
bribery. The INS rewrote the news and failed to credit the AP for it.
The AP believed that this violated its right to all of the news that it gathered from
contributors around the world. By contrast, INS argued that the AP's proprietary rights
expired when the news was first published. The AP received an injunction from the lower
court.
Issues
Whether the Defendant can be lawfully restrained under theories of interference with
Complainant’s property rights in the news and unfair competition, from appropriating news
taken from bulletins issued by Complainant or any of its members, or from newspapers
published by them, for the purpose of selling it to Defendants’ clients.
Judgement
Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Co., “This court held that, apart from certain
special objections that were overruled, plaintiff's collection of quotations was entitled to the
protection of the law; that, like a trade secret, plaintiff might keep to itself the work done at
its expense, and did not lose its right by communicating the result to persons, even if many, in
confidential relations to itself, under a contract not to make it public; and that strangers
should be restrained from getting at the knowledge by inducing a breach of trust.”
Affirmed. In the present case there is unfair competition by the Defendants, as two competing
parties are endeavoring to make money and Defendants are misappropriating.

14. NBA vs. Motorola -105 F.3d 841, 843 (2d Cir. 1997) - VAN GRAAFEILAND, WINTER,
and ALTIMARI
Facts

Motorola manufactures and markets the SportsTrax paging device while STATS supplies the
game information that is transmitted to the pagers. The information received is through a
complex mechanism, that provides specific and confidential means. The opposite party,
started publishing the information, without required permission or credits. NBA filed a claim
for state law unfair competition by misappropriation; false advertising under Section 43(a) of
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a); false representation of origin under Section
43(a) of the Lanham Act; state and common law unfair competition by false advertising and
false designation of origin; federal copyright infringement; and unlawful interception of
communications under the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 605.

Motorola counterclaimed, alleging that the NBA unlawfully interfered with Motorola's
contractual relations with four individual NBA teams that had agreed to sponsor and
advertise SportsTrax.

The District Court dismissed all the appeals, except the one of appropriation under the New
York Law. The court also dismissed Motorola's counterclaim. Finding Motorola and STATS
liable for misappropriation. Motorola and STATS appeal from the injunction, while NBA
cross-appeals from the district court's dismissal of its Lanham Act false-advertising claim.

Issues

Whether ongoing events come under the purview of copyrights?

Judgement

In claiming a copyright in the underlying games, the NBA relied in Baltimore Orioles, Inc.
v. Major League Baseball Player's Assn., which stated that the "[p]layers' performances"
contain the "modest creativity required for copyrightability."

As noted, recorded broadcasts of NBA games - as opposed to the games themselves - are now
entitled to copyright protection. “A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being
transmitted, is "fixed" for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made
simultaneously with its transmission.”

The district court found, "[a]fter viewing the complained-of statements in this action in their
context," that "[t]he statements as to the particular origin of game updates constitute nothing
more than minutiae about SportsTrax.“ On the present facts, however, the complained-of
statements are not material and do not misrepresent an inherent quality or characteristic of the
product.
 15. Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v Rajnish Chibber & Anr. 1995 PTC (15) 278
Facts
The plaintiff is a mail order service company. According to the plaintiff it publishes mail
order catalogues dealing with several consumer items which are posted to the select list of the
plaintiff's clients. The plaintiff has developed a list of clientele/customers database over a
period of three years prior to the institution of the suit by investing considerable amount of
money and time. The said database is an expensive and gradual process of compilation.
The defendant was at one time an employee of the plaintiff. After leaving the firm, the
defendant, got access of the database and started utilizing it for its own benefit.
Issues
Does a database come under the purview of copyright?
Did the defendant by utilizing the database violate the copyright of the plaintiff?
Arguments
Relevant Provisions.
Section 2(o) defines `literary work' to include (among others) computer programmes, tables
and compilations including computer databases.
Section 2(y) defines `work' as meaning any of the following works namely: (i) a literary,
dramatic, musical or artistic work, (ii) a cinematographic film, (iii) sound recording. Under
section 14, literary work is one of the items wherein exclusive rights can be claimed so as to
amount to copyright.
Under Section 17(c) if a work is made in the course of other's employment under a contract
of service or apprenticeship it is the employer who is the first owner of the copyright therein
in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.
Plaintiff
The plaintiffs contend that the list comes under the purview of original artistic work, at the
same time is also protected under the prospects of trade secrets. Further, it does npt matter, if
the directory has been previously published or not, as long as the same is an original work of
the plaintiff, it will come under the purview of copyright.
Respondent
It is submitted that the said database is neither developed by the plaintiff nor does he have
any copyright therein. It is also submitted by the defendant that he has developed his own
database and utilisation thereof does not amount to any infringement of the copyright of the
plaintiff.
Judgement
In Waterlow Directors Ltd vs Reed Information Service Ltd, held that, t was clear that a
person could not copy entries from a directory and use such copies to compile his own
directory.
William Hill (Football) Ltd vs Ladbroke (Football) Ltd, It was a case of compilation of
certain lists by the plaintiff which were copied down by the defendant. It was held : " In my
judgment the selection of those 16 lists and the writing of them down in the coupon, with
headings and notes, it a compilation which is the subject of copyright.
Govindan vs Gopalakrishna, “It was held that though in the case of "compilation" the
amount of originality will be very small but even that small amount is protected by law and
no man is entitled to steal or appropriate for himself the result of another's brain, skill or
labour even in such works.”
The application filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The defendant shall remain restrained during
pendency of the suit from carrying on any business including mail order business by utilising
the list of clientele/customers included in the database exclusively owned by the plaintiff.
Principles
(1) A compilation which may be derived from a common source fall within the ambit of
literary work.
(2) The question whether an impugned work is a colourable imitation of another persons'
work is always a question of fact and has to be determined from the circumstances in each
case.
(3) The determining factor in finding whether another person's copyright has been infringed
is to see whether the impugned work is a slavish imitation and copy of another person's work
or it bears the impress of the author's own labours and exertions. The aforesaid principles are
by no means exhaustive.

16. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books - 575 F. Supp. 2d 513
Facts

J.K. Rowling is the author of the Harry Potter series of books. The popularity of the book
series extends around the globe. As a result of the success of the book series, Warner
Brothers Entertainment, Inc. obtained the exclusive rights from Rowling to create the entire
film series. Each of the movies is covered by copyright registration. Warner Brothers have
licensed certain rights, such as a license to Electronic Arts to create a video. Further, Rowling
also showed the intent and interest to publish an encyclopaedia.

Steven Vander Ark owns a website called the Harry Potter Lexicon. That website was an
online encyclopaedia that contained characters, facts, etc. from the book. Based off the
website and some outside sources, Vander Ark sought to create a written encyclopaedia.
RDR Books approached Vander Ark to publish the book. RDR planned to create the book,
but Warner Bros. and Rowling instituted suit.

Issues
Does the publishing by Lexicon come under the principle of fair use?

Did Lexicon violate the copyright considering that the encyclopaedia was still not published?

Provisions

The court looked to the four factors laid out in §107 of the Copyright Act:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work
as a whole, and
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Judgement

Court held that the Harry Potter Lexicon violated Warner Brothers’ and Rowling’s copyright
protections and that the use was not a fair use. The court reasoned that an injunction both
benefited and harmed the public interest. The court explained that "to serve the public
interest, copyright law must 'prevent the "misappropriation of the skills, creative energies,
and resources which are invested in the protected work." Ultimately, the court decided that a
permanent injunction must be issued because "The Lexicon" uses too much of Rowling's
creative work to serve as a reference guide, and permitting publication of works like Vander
Ark's would "deplete the incentive for original authors to create new works."

DOCTRINES
Modicum of Creativity: This doctrine, requires a minimum degree of creativity involved in
the work to be eligible for copyright protection.
In 1991, in the case Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, the US Supreme Court
held that facts cannot be a subject matter to copyright as they do not owe their origin to the
author, the court also emphasized that in addition to effort and skill, a minimum amount of
creativity is necessary for a work to be considered original. The courts observed that a
minimal level of creativity is needed by an artist in addition to putting efforts independently.
The courts stated that copyright protection can only be granted when the work and creativity
are original in the making of art and not merely presenting the works differently.

Doctrine of Merger: The Doctrine of Merger is a negative doctrine. By applying this

doctrine, the courts refuse to protect the expression of an idea that can be expressed in one
way only as it monopolizes the idea as a whole. The merger doctrine in copyright states that
if an idea and the expression of the idea are so tied together that the idea and its expression
are one - there is only one conceivable way or a drastically limited number of ways to express
and embody the idea in a work - then the expression of the idea is uncopyrightable because
ideas may not be copyrighted.

In Chancellor Masters of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing House, The Supreme Court of

India held 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.
For these reasons, the Court held that copyright could not be extended to the questions.

Doctrine of Sweat of the Brow: The Sweat of the Brow doctrine emphasizes on the amount
of labour, skill and diligence that went into producing the work as opposed to how original
the work was. This doctrine was first propounded in the United Kingdom in the case Walter
v Lane, where copyright ability of verbatim reproduction of an oral speech in a newspaper
was in question. Considering the amount of labour undertaken by the reporter in taking down
and recording the speech, the court was of the opinion that the work was copyrightable in
respect to such skill and labour.

Hot News Doctrine: It is evolving as an emerging intellectual property right. This doctrine
confers quasi property right in the news and it is evolved to prevent news; piracy. Hot news
doctrine was recognised in the US in International News Serviqe v. Associated Press, as a
variant of the common law tort of misappropriation, wherein the court held that “stripped of
all disguises, the process amounts to an unauthorized interference with the normal operation
of complainant’s legitimate business precisely at the point where the profit is to be reaped, in
order to divert a material portion of the profit from those who have earned it to those who
have not; with special advantage to defendant in the competition because of the fact that it is
not burdened with any part of the expense of gathering the news. Unfair Advantage.