Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Originality for Copyright Protection in Literary Works: After EBC v DB Modak


Affiliations
1 Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur — 721 302, West Bengal,, India
 

Originality, can be termed as the grund norm (the basic norm) for copyrightability. However, no one-size-fits-all formula is adopted by countries on this aspect, and this article first explores the position and benchmarks to determine original literary work (because even for different ‘works’ the criteria differs). Pursuant to this inquiry of identifying the ambit of the respective thresholds, the Indian perspective is analysed with special emphasis on the decision delivered by Indian Supreme Court in DB Modak. The judgement is critiqued to identify lacunae and absurdity in determining the law laid down and its application in the factual matrix. Finally, subsequent Indian decisions are looked upon by the author to find out the underlying approach by the courts wrt interpretation of DB Modak and what common threads emerge from them.

Keywords

Copyright, Original Literary Work, EBC v DB Modak, Copy-Edited Judgements, Copyright Act 1957.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Quoted from - Judge E F & Gervais D, Of silos and constellations: Comparing notions of originality in copyright law, Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 27 (2) (2009) 375.
  • Olson D P (1983), Copyright originality, Missouri Law Review, 48 (1) 29.
  • Landes W M & Posner R A An economic analysis of copyright law, Journal of Legal Studies, 18 (2) (1989) 325.
  • Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42.
  • https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-3.html#h- 102747 (19 May 2021).
  • http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf (19 May 2021).
  • https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf (19 May 2021).
  • Nimmer M &Nimmer D, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], [B] (1990).
  • Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 9 September 1886, 1161 U.N.T.S. 3.
  • Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 April 1994, 33 I.L.M. 1197.
  • https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/283693 (19 May 2021).
  • [1916] 2 Ch 601 (Eng.).
  • [1900] AC 539 (HL) (appeal taken from Eng.).
  • Hariani K &Hariani A, Analyzing originality in copyright law: Transcending jurisdictional disparity, IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review, 51 (3) (2011) 491.
  • 111 S Ct 1282 (1991).
  • https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html (19 May 2021).
  • Nimmer 1 M &Nimmer D, Copyright § 1.08 [C] [1] (1990)
  • Keynote, a presentation application by Apple Inc. was used.
  • (2002) 119 FCR 491.
  • (2009) 239 CLR 458.
  • Fisher W, Recalibrating originality, Houston Law Review, 54 (2) (2016) 437.
  • Gervais D J, Feist Goes Global: A Comparative Analysis of the Notion of Originality in Copyright Law, Journal of Copyright Society of the U S A, 49 (2002) 949, 968.
  • 2004 SCC 13, 2004 CSC 13 in the Supreme Court of Canada.
  • CCH Canadian Ltd. v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, para 16.
  • Keynote, a presentation application by Apple Inc. was used.
  • MANU/SC/4476/2007
  • Fisher W, Recalibrating originality, Houston Law Review, 54 (2) (2016) 437.
  • Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v Rajnish Chibber, 1995 (15) PTC 278.
  • Govindan v Gopalakrishna, 1955 A.I.R. Mad. 391, paras. 8-10; McMillan v Suresh Chunder Deb, I.L.R. 17 (Cal.) 951, 961.
  • EBC v Navin J Desai, 2001 PTC 57.
  • Nimmer M B &Nimmer D, Nimmer on Copyright (Matthew Bender ed., LexisNexis), 2010.
  • 2002 (25) PTC 641 (Del.) (Div Bench).
  • 1916 U. 119., (1916) 2 Ch 601.
  • 111 S.Ct. 1282 in the Supreme Court of the US.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property#cite _note-1 (19 May 2021).
  • MANU/SC/1723/2016.
  • No.14 of 1957.
  • https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf (18 May 2021).
  • 2005 (30) PTC 253 Del.
  • SehgalAmar Nath v Union Of India, 2005 (30) PTC 253 Del.
  • Landes W M & Posner R A, An economic analysis of copyright law, Journal of Legal Studies, 18 (2) (1989) 325.
  • Agitha T G, Idea-Expression Dichotomy and Originality Requirements for Copyright Protection: An Analysis of the Jurisprudential Underpinnings of the Judicial Pronouncements in India, Sinha M, Mahalwar v (eds) Copyright Law in the Digital World., (Springer Nature Pvt Ltd, Singapore), (2017) 1.
  • Stern S, Copyright originality and judicial originality, University of Toronto Law Journal, 63 (3) (2013) 385.
  • MANU/FENT/0484/1971 : (1971) 446 F2d738.
  • MANU/SC/0256/1978 : (1978) 4 SCC 118.
  • Curative Pet. (C) No. 261/2014 in R.P. (C) No. 376/2014 in C.A. No. 6472/2004.
  • https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_of_india/fun damental_rights/articles/Article%2032 (19 May 2021).
  • Servewell Products Pvt. Ltd. v Dolphin, MANU/ DE/1019/2010.
  • 2008 (38) PTC 385.
  • 2008 (38) PTC 416.
  • MANU/DE/1019/2010.
  • MANU/DE/7256/2011.
  • MANU/DE/5012/2018.
  • 2008 (38) PTC 308 (Del.).
  • 2014 (60) PTC 121.
  • MANU/DE/3355/2018.
  • MANU/DE/3012/2011.
  • MANU/DE/0084/2014.
  • MANU/UKWA/0098/2007: (2007) FSR 24.
  • MANU/DE/1699/2016.
  • MANU/KA/4066/2015.
  • MANU/TN/9246/2019.
  • MANU/MN/0047/2018.
  • Khaidem Jacko Meitei v Union of India, MANU/MN/ 0047/2018, Para 7.
  • MANU/IK/0380/2015.
  • Income Tax Act 1961 [43 OF 1961], Section 80QQB.
  • Pearson India Education Service Pvt. Ltd. v New Rubric Solutions LLP, MANU/DE/1699/2016.
  • Sterling J A L, World Copyright Law, (Sweet & Maxwell) 2nd ed., 303.
  • Relx India Pvt. Ltd. v Eastern Book Company, MANU/SC/1723/2016.
  • Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Limited v Eastern Book Company, MANU/UP/2321/2014.
  • Parchomovsky G & Stein A, Originality, Virginia Law Review, 95 (6) (2009) 1505.

Abstract Views: 84

PDF Views: 76




  • Originality for Copyright Protection in Literary Works: After EBC v DB Modak

Abstract Views: 84  |  PDF Views: 76

Authors

Sparsh Sharma
Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur — 721 302, West Bengal,, India

Abstract


Originality, can be termed as the grund norm (the basic norm) for copyrightability. However, no one-size-fits-all formula is adopted by countries on this aspect, and this article first explores the position and benchmarks to determine original literary work (because even for different ‘works’ the criteria differs). Pursuant to this inquiry of identifying the ambit of the respective thresholds, the Indian perspective is analysed with special emphasis on the decision delivered by Indian Supreme Court in DB Modak. The judgement is critiqued to identify lacunae and absurdity in determining the law laid down and its application in the factual matrix. Finally, subsequent Indian decisions are looked upon by the author to find out the underlying approach by the courts wrt interpretation of DB Modak and what common threads emerge from them.

Keywords


Copyright, Original Literary Work, EBC v DB Modak, Copy-Edited Judgements, Copyright Act 1957.

References