Trace Your Case

Category: Copyright

Categories
Copyright

Najma heptulla v. Orient Longman ltd AIR 1989 Delhi 63

NAJMA HEPTULLA v. ORIENT LONGMAN LTD.

Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd, AIR 1989 Del 63

ISSUE:

  • Whether Maulana Azad was the sole author of the book ‘India Wins Freedom’?

RULE:

  • According to the Copyright Act, 1957, Joint Authorship is “when more than one author creates work with the intention of their contributions being merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole”.
  • In the event of Joint Authorship, the authors will be regarded as co-owners of the copyright that subsists in that work.
  • The consent of the dead heir’s legal representatives is required when there are joint authors and one of them is deceased.

FACTS:

  • The dispute revolves around the autobiography book of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, titled “India Wins Freedom,” written by Professor Humayun Kabir.
  • Maulana Azad and Professor Kabir worked closely to create this literary work where Maulana would recite his life stories and provide notes to the Professor, who in turn documented the same in written format.
  • When Azad passed away in 1958 before the book’s publication, Professor Kabir requested the National Archive Library to be the trustee of the book and an additional 30 pages.
  • He entered into an agreement with Oriental Longman Ltd. for the book’s publication, excluding the 30 pages and the legal heirs of Azad, Fatima Begum, and Noorudin Khan consented to the arrangement.
  • In a property dispute, it was clarified by the Court that it was Noorudin who was the sole owner of all rights over Maulana’s writings, whether published or unpublished.
  • Noordin consented when Oriental Longman intended to publish the additional 30 pages in 1988.Noordin consented when Oriental Longman intended to publish the additional 30 pages in 1988.
  • The plaintiff, Fatima Begum’s granddaughter, filed a legal notice stating that Azad’s legal heirs have the right over her writings.

HELD:

  • The Delhi High Court ruled that Prof. Kabir and Maulana are co-authors because Prof. Kabir made notes based on the fact that Maulana only spoke in Urdu, which was ultimately turned into a book. As a result, they both contributed to writing the book.
  • The Court placed more emphasis on the value of the author’s intentions than on the technical elements of authorship.
  • The evidence proved that the legal heirs, including Fatima Begum, had given their consent to the arrangement in a written agreement. The court decided that if one or more of the joint authors are deceased, the consent of the legal heirs is required.
  • According to the evidence, Fatima Begum approved the arrangement and the publication of the books throughout the duration of the arrangement so the legal representatives of Maulana Azad were estopped from disputing the validity of the aforementioned arrangement after reaping its benefits for so long without raising any issues. In addition, the plaintiff did not sustain any permanent loss or harm.
  • The injunction was therefore rejected.
Categories
Copyright

Ladbroke (football) ltd. V. William hill (football) ltd. [1964] 1 WLR 273

LADBROKE (FOOTBALL) LTD. v. WILLIAM HILL (FOOTBALL) LTD.

Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd. [1964] 1 W.L.R. 273

ISSUE:

  • Whether or to what extent copyright attaches to these coupons? In whole or in part?
  • If the coupons are subject to copyright, has enough copying been done to amount to infringement, and whether it was proper to look at the several parts of the work separately?

RULE:

  • Copyright protection exists in the betting industry and intellectual property rights should be protected to prevent infringement.

FACTS:

  • Since 1951, the Respondents, who were well-known bookmakers, had sent their customers each week fixed odds football betting coupons arranged in a certain general form. In 1959, the Appellants, who were also bookmakers, started to send out coupons closely resembling the Respondents.
  • A coupon was a sheet of paper on which were printed several lists of forthcoming matches. The Respondents’ coupon contained 16 lists, each with an appropriate name. The Appellants’ coupon contained 15 lists.
  • The lists offered by the Appellants were almost identical to those offered by the Respondents in their corresponding lists.
  • The only differences were that the Appellants devised new headings and they worked out for themselves the different odds offered in respect of the various kinds of bets.
  • The coupons of some 20 other firms in the business were produced at the trial, and, while they have a general similarity, they vary very much like their lists and the variety of bets offered concerning many of the lists. It is not disputed that a vast amount of skill, judgment, experience, and work has gone into building up the Respondents’ coupon.

HELD:

  • The Court held that the Copyright Act is not concerned with the “originality of ideas”, but with the expression of thought, and, in the case of ‘literary work, with the expression of thought in print or writing.
  • The Originality which is required relates to “the expression of the thought”. As regards compilation, originality is a matter of degree depending on the amount of skill, judgment, or labour that has been involved in making the compilation.
  • The precise amount of knowledge, labour, judgment, or literary skill or taste which the author must bestow to acquire copyright must in each case be very much a question of degree.
  • The Court also held that the extent to which the Appellants copied from the Respondents’ coupon appears to amount to be a very substantial part of the coupon both in quantity and quality. Therefore, there has been an infringement in this case.
Categories
Copyright

CCH Canadian ltd v. Law society of upper Canada [2004] 1 SCR 339

CCH CANADIAN LTD v. LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA

CCH Canadian Ltd v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339

ISSUE:

  • Whether the Law Society’s dealings with the publishers’ works “fair dealing(s)” under Sections 29 of the Copyright Act of Canada?
  • Did the Great Library authorize copyright infringement by maintaining self-service photocopiers and copies of the publishers’ works for its patrons’ use?
  • Are publishers’ materials “original works” protected under copyright?

RULE:

  • For a work to be “original” within, it must be more than a mere copy of another work. At the same time, it need not be creative, in the sense of being novel or unique. What is required to attract copyright protection in the expression of an idea is an exercise of skill and judgment. This aspect of the work is the main point of difference between identifying an original work and a copied work.
  • The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical process, it should include the intellectual effort of the author.

FACTS:

  • Since 1954, the Law Society of Upper Canada, a statutory non-profit organization, has provided students, members, the Court, and authorized scholars with request-based photocopying services of legal articles, statutes, and decisions at its Great Library at Osgoode Hall.
  • CCH Canadian Limited, Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing, and Canada Law Book Inc., three of the biggest publishers of legal materials, sued the Law Society for copyright infringement of 11 specific works based on their activities along with asking for a permanent injunction to prevent further copying.
  • In addition to this, they asked for a remedy in the form of a declaration of the continuation of copyright in these works.
  • Law Society denies the infringement and files a counterclaim to declare that its activities did not infringe the publisher’s copyrights.
  • The Court of Appeals decided in favour of the Petitioner.

HELD:

  • The Law Society’s practice was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in a majority decision. The Court of Appeals decision was overturned.
  • The works were held to be original under the Originality Test of Copyright.
  • The Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Law Society’s posting of the notice constitutes an express acknowledgment that copiers will be used in an illegal manner. Law Society lacks sufficient control over the works the patron chooses to copy, purposes for copying, or photocopiers themselves.
  • Six factors will be taken into account by the courts when deciding whether a dealing is “fair”: the purpose of the dealing; the character of the dealing; the amount of the dealing; the nature of the job; the alternatives to the dealing; and the effect of the dealing on the work.
  • It was held by the Supreme Court that the Law Society’s dealings with the publishers’ works were fair dealings.
Categories
Copyright

Baker v. Selden 101 U.S. 99 (1879)

BAKER V. SELDEN

Baker v. Selden ; 101 U.S. (1879)

ISSUE:

  • Whether Baker had infringed copyrights held by Selden?
  • Whether Selden had an exclusive right to the use of the system explained in his book?

RULE:

  • Idea-Expression Dichotomy: A copyright can be obtained only over a particular expression of an idea, it does not protect the idea that underlies that expression and this is what limits copyrights and differentiates it from patents.
  • An idea/art/method can be patented whereas the expression of an idea/art/method can be copyrighted.

FACTS:

  • “Selden’s Condensed Ledger, or Book-keeping Simplified” was written by Selden.
  • It was released in 1859, and its legitimate copyrights were registered. This book introduced a novel approach to bookkeeping.
  • Additionally, Selden had the rights to any modifications made to this system in the future. Selden had written six such novels in total.
  • These works provided an explanation of the system and its justification. He held the copyrights for future improvements made to this system as well.
  • Baker has used a similar system in his books. Although the tables used in Baker’s publications had varied headers and column configurations, they employed a similar structure.

HELD:

  • The court held in favour of Baker. They did not find Baker’s usage to be violative of copyright as was claimed by Selden.
  • It was held that though Baker has used the system as mentioned in Seldon’s books, that alone was not enough to prove that infringement is done.
  • The court emphasised that if this type of usage is held to by copyright infringement then the user could potentially stop others from using it as well and this would be countering the purpose of the copyright law protection.
  • The court reasoned that an author can explain the truths of a science or the methods of an art through his book and can obtain a copyright for his work but this copyright is limited to the expression of the method or system and does not extend to the idea or the system itself.
  • If the author wants to protect the system/idea he will have to be granted a patent for his method/idea and protecting an idea under the copyright law would amount to fraud on the public.
  • Copyright protects the book as a whole and the expression of an idea through that book.
  • The very object of publishing a book is to impart some knowledge to the public and if people were made liable of infringement each time they used the idea described in the book, it would defeat the purpose.
  • Copyright is mainly concerned with publishing and selling rights and does not give the author exclusive rights over an idea alone.
  • In this case, Baker was not infringing the copyrights of Selden’s book as he borrowed the idea from Selden’s book but expressed it in a different manner by ensuring that the columns and headings to those columns were different.
Categories
Copyright

Amar Nath Sehgal v. UOI 2005 (30) PTC 253 Del

AMAR NATH SEHGAL V. UNION OF INDIA

Amar Nath Sehgal v. UOI 2005 (30) PTC 253 Del

ISSUE:

  • Whether the plaintiff  is entitled to the special rights u/s 57 of the Copyright Act even after the copyrights are vested in the interest of the defendants?
  • Whether there are any damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the said work, which is done before the expiration of the term of copyright?

RULE:

  • Moral rights – The right of the author to claim ownership of his work along with his right to restrain or claim ownership of his work along with the right to restrain or claim damages. The same has been mentioned in section 57 of the copyright act.
  • Article 6bis of the Berne Convention urges the members of the Berne Union to provide legal recognition for the moral rights of attribution and integrity in a work in which copyright exists.

FACTS:

  • Amar Nath (plaintiff), who was a well-known sculptor, was commissioned by the Government for the preparation of a mural at the Vigyan Bhawan.
  • The mural was created over a period of half a decade- by a bronze sculptor and was displayed in 1962.
  • In the year 1979, the government decided to remove the sculptor who was earlier in the lobby to the godown of the Vigyan Bhawan without the authorization and permission of the plaintiff.
  • During the removal of the mural, there was some sort of damage that was done to it due to mishandling and negligence on their part. The plaintiff, Amar Nath, sued the government for the mistreatment of his mural and claimed that it was a violation of his moral rights.

HELD:

  • The Apex court held that the damages done to the plaintiff’s work are extreme in nature and include mutilation done to the artwork due to negligence and mishandling.
  • The court also reiterated that moral rights protect the soul of an author’s work and said that these cannot be taken away from the author, no matter the work scale.
  • The destruction and mutilation were considered an infringement of the author’s moral rights. The court held that the destruction of the mural is related to the author’s reputation, regardless of the owner.
  • The Court held that the mural whatever be its form today is too precious to be reduced to scrap and languish in the warehouse of the Government of India. It is only Mr. Sehgal who has the right to recreate his work and therefore has the right to receive the broken down mural.
  • He also has the right to be compensated for the loss of reputation, honor and mental injury due to the offending acts of UOI”.
  • The Court passed mandatory injunction against the UOI directing it to return the mural to Mr. Sehgal within two weeks from the date of judgment. Court passed a declaration transferring all the rights over the mural from UOI to Mr. Sehgal and an absolute right to recreate the mural and sell the same.
  • The plaintiff was awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and ordered to give back the mural to the plaintiff to be restored.