Copyright Act 1957

 Extension of the British Copyright Act, 1914.

 Part of the Berne Convention of 1886,
Universal Copyright Convention of 1951,
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights Agreement of
1995.
 Right given to creators of literary, dramatic,
musical and artistic work and producers of
cinematograph films.

 Not an Idea
 Copyright Act 1957
 Definition of Work
– Artistic Work
– Musical Work
– Sound Recording
– Cinematograph Film
– Government Work
– Indian Work
 Copyright Act 1957
 Literaryor dramatic work – Creator
 Musical Work – Composer
 Cinematograph Film – Producer
 Sound Recording – Producer
 Photograph – Photographer
 Computer generated work – Creator
 Government Work - Government
 Copyright Act 1957
Registration
 Application for registration is to be made on
Form IV

 Separate applications should be made for

registration of each work;

 Pay the prescribed fees

 The applicant or the advocate in whose

favor a Power of Attorney has been
executed should sign the applications.
 Copyright Act 1957
Duration

 Lasts for 60 years.

 In
case of literary, dramatic,
musical and artistic work the
period starts from the death of the
author

 Forthe other works the 60 year

period lasts from the date of the
 Copyright Board
 Quasi-judicial body

 Consists of
– Chairman
– 2 to 14 other members
 Copyright Societies
 Copyrightowners from the same
class form such a society.

 Seven members.

 Keep track of all the copyrights and

collect due royalties from the users
of those works.
 Copyright Societies
 Functions
– Issue licenses in respect of the
rights administered by the society.

– Collect fees in pursuance of such

licenses.

– Distribute such fees among owners

of copyright after making
Karishma - The Miracles
of Destiny (Sahara)
v/s
Barbara Taylor Bradford
 Barbara Taylor Bradford
allegations:

 Incidents/situations in the serial were

lifted directly from her novel “A
Woman of Substance”
 Changes made in the plot of serial were
insignificant and artfully disguised
fraudulent acts of infringement and
plagiarism
 Did not give authority to Sahara to
make a serial on her work
Sahara Channel in defense:

 Storybased on the original work

(Aparajita) of Hindi film story writer,
Sachin Bhowmick
 Substantial and Material differences
 Bradford LOST

 “Suppression of material facts”

 Fine line between ideas and
expressions of ideas
 Damages of approximately
US$30,000 (later waived off)
2 aspects: Legal &
Practical
 Legal
i. No copyright in an idea, subject
matter, theme, plot or historical or
legendary facts
ii. Material reproduction
iii. The reader, spectator or the viewer
are decision makers
iv. Theme presented and treated
differently
v. Broad dissimilarities to negate any
intention of copying
vi. Must be proved by clear and cogent
 Practical

 That the case may be seen as a

silent order against the alleged
plagiarism that has been widely
practised by the local Indian film
industry

 Law is TRIPS compliant

Controversy
of
“The
DA VINCI
CODE”
MICHAEL
BAIGENT V/S DAN BROWN

RICHARD
LEIGH
 INTRODUCTION
The Holy Blood and The Da Vinci Code:
the Holy Grail:  2003
 1982  Random House
Publication
 Non Fiction Book
 Best Book Award
 Random House
Publication  Sold 40m copies
Common Fact:
Both books dealt with the historical
facts and stories of Jesus and Mary that
 THE ALLEGATIONS

 Dan Brown copied ideas from HBHG.

 Random House published the “Da Vinci Code”

knowing the Contents were related to “The Holy
Blood and the Holy Grail.” Creating an
infringement of Copyright.
 THE DEFENCE

 Dan Brown Denied the allegations.

 His ideas were original.
 Copyright does not protect ideas or concepts
 Copyright law prohibits cut and paste.
 THE VERDICT
 Justice Peter Smith rejected claims against Dan
Brown.
 Claim for Copyright infringement failed and
dismissed.
 85% of Random House legal cost were slapped
against HBHG authors.
 Interim payment of £ 3,50,000.
 Dan Brown Wins.

“Mega selling author Dan Brown did not steal ideas

for Da Vinci Code”
 Software Copyrights
 IPR of computer software is protected
under the provisions of Indian Copyright
Act 1957
 It is illegal to make or distribute copies
of copyrighted software without proper
or specific authorization.
 Heavy punishments and fines
 Ex: Indian case- Bangalore case of 3
engineers
 Ex: International case - Apple Computer
Inc v/s Microsoft.
Rekha Modi
v/s
Zee Star
 Facts of the case

 ZEE Network filed a case against

Star TV for copyright infringement
of title and theme of the show,
Betiyaan.
 Star dismissed Zee's charges.
 HC refused to stay on the serial
"Betiyan Ghar Ki Laxmi", aired on
Zee Television – Filed by Rekha
Modi.
 Case resolved through an out-of-
Will ‘ Translation ‘ constitute
infringement ?

The reproduction in language of a

book, document or speech in another
language is translation.
Pocket diaries, calendar does contain
copyright ?
Does copyright subsist in examination
paper ?
Is there copyright in a song ?
Originality in form and not in
idea
 Conclusion

Protecting, recognising, and encouraging

the labour, skill and capital of another is
the object of copyright
 Complied by:
 Abhaj (01)
 Abhishek (03)
 Ankur (05)
 Anurag (07)
 Aradhita (09)
 Devendra (11)
 Fiona (13)
 Gomati (15)
 Harjot (17)
 Jaisukh (19)