1- COPY RIGHT

Definition is in section 14

Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, deals with the works in which copyright subsists. It
specifies that copyright protection is granted to original literary, dramatic, musical, and
artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings1. However, there are certain
conditions that must be met for these protections to apply, such as the work being first
published in India or the author being a citizen or domiciled in India.

Section 14 defines the meaning of copyright. It outlines the exclusive rights granted to
copyright holders, such as the right to reproduce the work, issue copies to the public, perform
the work in public, make adaptations, and more2. These rights apply to various types of
works, including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound
recordings.

2- TRANSFER AFTER DEMISE OF AUTHOR

DURATION OF PROTECTION:. This means that the heirs can benefit from the copyright for this
period. In India, the duration of copyright protection for literary, dramatic, musical, and
artistic works is 60 years from the beginning of the calendar year following the death of the
author. This is outlined in the Copyright Act, 1957

JOINT WORKS: If the work was created jointly with other authors, the copyright protection
extends for 70 years after the death of the last surviving author.

WILLS AND ESTATES: Authors can specify in their wills who should inherit their copyrights.
Without a will, the distribution of copyrights will follow the local laws of inheritance.

LICENSING AND TRANSFERS: Any existing licenses or transfers of copyright remain valid
even after the author's death. The new copyright holders must honor these agreements
 3- LAW APPLIES TERRITORIALLY OR NOT
It's important to note that copyright laws can vary slightly between countries, so it's always a
good idea to check the specific laws in the relevant jurisdictions. but, a person cannot obtain
copyright for a work that is already copyrighted by someone else in another country.
Copyright protection is granted to the original creator of the work, and this protection is
recognized internationally through various treaties, such as the Berne Convention. This
means that the original creator's rights are respected in other countries as well.

BERNE CONVENTION –

The Berne Convention, adopted in 1886, deals with the protection of works and the rights of
their authors. It provides creators such as authors, musicians, poets, painters etc. with the
means to control how their works are used, by whom, and on what terms. It is based on three
basic principles and contains a series of provisions determining the minimum protection to be
granted, as well as special provisions available to developing countries that want to make use
of them.

4- TRANSLATED COPY OF WORK COPYRIGHTED OR NOT

ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S PERMISSION: You need permission from the original author or copyright
holder to translate their work. Without this permission, the translation could be considered an
infringement of copyright.

COPYRIGHT IN TRANSLATION: Once you have permission and create a translation, your
translated version can be copyrighted as a new, derivative work. This means that you, as the
translator, hold the copyright to the translation, but the original author retains the copyright to
the original work.

MORAL RIGHTS: The original author may retain moral rights over their work, meaning they
have the right to be credited for their original creation and to object to any distortion,
mutilation, or modification of their work.

For example, if you translate a novel written in Urdu into Hindi with the original author's
permission, you would own the copyright to the Hindi translation, while the original author
would still own the copyright to the Urdu version.

This balance ensures that creators can extend their work into new languages and cultures
while respecting the original author's rights.
CASES

1 - THE CASE OF R.G. ANAND VS M/S DELUX FILMS & ORS (1978)

This revolved around the question of copyright infringement concerning a play titled Hum
Hindustani written by the petitioner, R.G. Anand, and a subsequent film, New Delhi,
produced by the respondents. The petitioner alleged that the film was a substantial
reproduction of his copyrighted play, amounting to an act of piracy.

Background:

R.G. Anand authored the play Hum Hindustani in 1953, which was successfully staged and
widely appreciated.

In 1954, Mr. Mohan Sehgal, representing the respondents, approached Anand to discuss the
possibility of making a film based on the play. Anand explained the play to them but did not
reach any agreement.

In 1955, the respondents announced the production of the film New Delhi, which Anand later
viewed in 1956. He found significant similarities between the play and the film.

Petitioner's Allegation:

Anand claimed that New Delhi was a direct imitation of Hum Hindustani. He argued that the
plot, characters, and theme were copied, leading to copyright infringement.

Respondent’s Defense:

The respondents denied plagiarism and argued that similarities were coincidental because
both works were based on the common theme of provincialism in Indian society. They
contended that there was no substantial copying, as the film introduced new themes like
dowry and caste, absent in the play.

Legal Principles Examined:

The court analyzed the concept of copyright under the Copyright Act of 1911 (then
applicable in India).

It emphasized that copyright does not protect ideas, themes, or concepts but only their
expression in a tangible form.

Substantial imitation is necessary to prove infringement, and mere incidental or trivial

Key Observations:
The court compared the play and the film in detail, identifying both similarities and
significant differences:

Similarities: Both works dealt with provincialism, featured comparable family setups, and
depicted a romantic conflict influenced by provincial biases.

Differences: The film incorporated additional social issues like dowry and caste
discrimination, created new characters, and had a distinct plot development and climax.

Court’s Decision:

The court ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that there was no copyright infringement.
It concluded that while the central theme of provincialism was common, the treatment,
presentation, and additional elements of the film made it a distinct work.

It established that copyright does not protect general ideas or themes but their specific
expression. As the film did not reproduce the play substantially or materially, it was not
considered a violation.

Significance:

This judgment set a precedent for interpreting copyright laws in India. It clarified the
distinction between ideas (not protected) and their expression (protected), laying down
criteria for determining infringement in literary and dramatic works.

2 - RATNA SAGAR PVT. LTD. VS. TRISEA PUBLICATIONS AND ORS. (1996):

dealt with a dispute regarding copyright infringement of educational books. Below is a

Case Summary

Parties Involved:

Plaintiff: Ratna Sagar Pvt. Ltd., a leading publisher specializing in educational books,
including a series titled Living Science.

Defendants: Trisea Publications and its editors, accused of publishing a series titled Unique
Science, which allegedly infringed on the plaintiff’s copyrighted work.
Plaintiff's Claims:

Ratna Sagar alleged that the Unique Science books were near-identical copies of their Living
Science series (Volumes III, IV, and V).

They sought:

A perpetual injunction to stop further publication and distribution of the infringing books.

Destruction of existing copies and related materials of Unique Science.

Rendition of accounts for profits made by selling the infringing books.

Compensation for damages.

Defendants' Defense:

They argued the works derived from common sources (nature) and were not copied.

Claimed their books were original and presented the same subject matter differently.

Alleged that the plaintiff had acquiesced to their publication and could not now claim
infringement.

Challenged the plaintiff's proof of copyright ownership and assignment.

Legal Issues Examined

Copyright Protection:

The plaintiff claimed ownership of the copyright for Living Science, supported by
registration certificates under the Copyright Act, 1957.

The defendants contended that copyright protects expression, not ideas or themes derived
from nature.

Proof of Copying:

The plaintiff argued that the similarities between the books, including content arrangement,
diagrams, and style, demonstrated blatant copying.

The defendants maintained that similarities were coincidental and attributed to the shared
nature of the subject matter.
Assignment and Ownership:

The plaintiff asserted rights as the registered copyright owner, including those assigned by
the original authors.

The defendants disputed the validity of the assignment, arguing the plaintiff failed to produce
sufficient evidence.

Court's Analysis and Decision

Examination of Similarities:

Upon comparing the books, the court found substantial similarities in structure, content, and
presentation.

The defendants’ work was not an independent creation but a reproduction of the plaintiff’s
work.

Copyright and Expression:

The court reaffirmed that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the underlying ideas
themselves.

The plaintiff’s books were protected as literary works under the Copyright Act.

Validity of Copyright:

The court held that registration certificates were prima facie evidence of ownership under
Section 48 of the Copyright Act.

The plaintiff, as the registered owner, was entitled to protection.

Grant of Injunction:

The court granted an injunction, restraining the defendants from further printing, publishing,
or selling the infringing books.

It concluded that the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case of infringement, with the
balance of convenience in its favor.

Significance of the Judgment

This case underscores the importance of copyright registration as evidence of ownership.

It highlights the distinction between the protection of ideas (not copyrightable) and their
expression (copyrightable).

The ruling reinforces that reproducing substantial elements of a copyrighted work, even if
derived from common sources, constitutes infringement.
3 - SHREE VENKATESH FILMS PVT. LTD. VS. VIPUL AMRUTLAL SHAH AND ORS. (2009)

This concerns a dispute over copyright infringement between the Bengali film Poran Jaye
Joliya Re and the Hindi film Namastey London. Below is an explanation of the case:

Background and Claims

Parties:

Plaintiff/Respondent: Vipul Amrutlal Shah, the producer of Namastey London.

Defendant/Appellant: Shree Venkatesh Films, the producer of Poran Jaye Joliya Re.

Claim by Plaintiff:

Alleged that Poran Jaye Joliya Re was a substantial copy of Namastey London, amounting to
copyright infringement.

Sought an injunction to stop the exhibition of the Bengali film, claiming exclusive copyright
over the Hindi film.

Defendant’s Position:

Argued that Poran Jaye Joliya Re was not a verbatim copy of Namastey London.

Asserted that similarities arose due to shared themes and sources.

Claimed the Hindi film itself borrowed elements from the 1970 film Purab Aur Paschim, thus
lacking originality.

Timeline:

Despite knowing about the Bengali film before its release, the plaintiff filed the case 10 days
after its release.

The plaintiff attempted to negotiate with the producers of Poran Jaye Joliya Re but failed,
prompting the suit.
Legal Issues

Definition of Copyright Infringement:

Whether the Bengali film constituted a "copy" of the Hindi film as defined under Section
14(d) of the Copyright Act.

The court examined if a substantial or material replication of the copyrighted work existed.

Originality of the Plaintiff’s Work:

The defendants questioned the originality of Namastey London, citing its resemblance to
Purab Aur Paschim.

Ownership and Right to Sue:

The plaintiff's ownership and right to sue were challenged, based on assignments made to
Adlabs and Eros, potentially limiting the plaintiff’s standing in court.

Court’s Analysis and Observations

Copyright Assessment:

The court viewed both films and found substantial similarities in the storyline, scenes, and
presentation.

However, it was noted that some scenes in the Bengali film were novel and not directly lifted
from the Hindi film.

Ownership:

The plaintiff had entered agreements with other parties (Adlabs, Eros), but retained partial
rights as a tenant-in-common.

As a joint copyright owner, the plaintiff had the right to sue.

Delay in Filing the Case:

The court criticized the plaintiff for delaying the filing of the suit and pursuing negotiations
instead.

Third-Party Interests:

Significant third-party rights (e.g., distributors) had been created in the Bengali film,
complicating the enforcement of an injunction.
Viewing by the Judge:

The court upheld that viewing the film was a valid method for assessing copyright
infringement, as established in prior cases like R.G. Anand vs. Deluxe Films.

Outcome

Ad-Interim Order:

The court allowed the exhibition of Poran Jaye Joliya Re but ordered that a receiver collect
box office proceeds to protect the plaintiff’s interests.

Further Proceedings:

The court permitted both parties to provide additional documentation regarding copyright
ownership and infringement claims.

Modification of Interim Relief:

Distribution rights and box office collections were addressed, ensuring partial revenue
retention by the producers while safeguarding potential plaintiff claims.

Significance

The case reinforces principles from R.G. Anand vs. Deluxe Films, emphasizing that:

Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.

Substantial similarity in expression can constitute infringement.

The judgment highlights the complexity of enforcing copyright in cases involving third-party
rights and shared themes in creative works.

5- ADAPTING A LITERARY WORK INTO A CINEMATOGRAPHIC

If it is done without proper authorization from the original copyright holder. However, if the
necessary permissions and licenses are obtained, it is not considered infringement. Here are
the key points:

Permission Required: You must obtain explicit permission from the original author or
copyright holder to adapt their literary work into a film. This often involves negotiating and
securing the necessary licenses.
Derivative Work: The adapted film is considered a derivative work, which means it is based
on the original literary work but presents it in a new form. Copyright law protects the original
work and its adaptations, provided the proper permissions are secured.

Infringement Cases: If a film is made without authorization, the copyright holder of the
original literary work has the right to take legal action for infringement. Courts will assess
whether the adaptation has unlawfully used protected elements of the original work.

For example, in the case of R.G. Anand vs. Deluxe Films and Ors. (1978), the Supreme Court
of India held that the adaptation of a play into a film without the playwright's permission
constituted copyright infringement.