Did the reproduction of sections in the course packs constitute copyright infringement?
Section 52(1)(i), in particular, stated that the reproduction of any work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction or as part of the question to be answered in an examination or answers to such questions all constituted fair dealing of that work.
Whether the Appellants had actual knowledge of infringing material and thus involved section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957?
For communication of copyrighted work to the public, it is important to have authorization and licence or else such a communication amounts to infringement of copyright.
Whether Defendant’s use of “an abstract of the whole” of Plaintiff’s play constitute infringement?
A series of abstractions and stock characters, which are universal in nature, are not protected by copyright.
The Idea- Expression dichotomy states ideas are not protected but expressions are.
Whether names, phone numbers, and addresses from a directory be copyrighted or not?
Compilations of facts which possess the required creativity to be considered as original can be copyrighted.
Information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by being copyrighted.
What should be the standard of originality with respect to the derivative works (here, the copy-edited version of supreme court judgments) to make the work eligible to be called the author's original work and hence get protection under the Copyright Act of 1957?
The originality which is required relates to the expression of the thought.
A derivative work to receive copyright protection, it must be demonstrated that the derivative work is more than just a copy of the original and must contain the author's independent skill apart from capital and labour, which is not negligible or trivial.
Whether the common law’s Wilful Blindness doctrine be used to show knowledge or awareness of specific instances of infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA's) safe harbor mandates knowledge or information of specific infringing behaviour. Under the DMCA, evidence of knowledge or awareness of particular instances of infringement may be presented in accordance with the common law wilful blindness theory.
The Wilful Blindness doctrine permits courts to tell juries that they may convict a Defendant under a legislation that calls for the Defendant to do something deliberately by demonstrating either that the Defendant acted with knowledge of, or that he was wilfully blind to, the pertinent fact at issue.
Whether the Defendant's copying of the Plaintiff's photograph for the purpose of making sculptures intended as social commentary on the photograph’s image was fair use?
Substantial similarity is the standard used to determine whether the reproduction right of a copyright has been infringed or not. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if copyright infringement were limitless to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work.
Content that is thought to be protected by copyright, makes an exception for the doctrine of fair dealing. It is a legal principle that allows someone to use any work that is protected with a limited amount of usage of that work in order to preserve the uniqueness and sanctity of that work as well as the registered owner of the work.
Whether Defendant’s “reverse engineering,” which involved copying, of a copyrighted computer program to gain an understanding of the unprotected functional elements of the program constitutes of fair use?
Copyright disassembly refers to the process of legally breaking down or circumventing the protections granted by copyright law. This can involve analysing, modifying, or dismantling copyrighted content or technological safeguards, often with the goal of accessing or distributing copyrighted material without permission. However, such actions typically violate copyright laws and may lead to legal consequences. If disassembly of a copyrighted object code is the only means to access unprotected portions of the code and the goal is justified, it qualifies as a fair use of the material.
Whether Oracle can claim a copyright on Java APIs and, if so, whether google infringes Oracle’s copyrights?
The doctrine of Fair Use was applied stating that the intention of the usage has to be completely free from any malice and should extend the current purpose of that particular thing.
Whether Grokster and StreamCast might be held accountable for copyright infringement by their users of peer-to-peer file-sharing software?
Whether the Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios precedent, which shielded technology manufacturers from liability if their technology had significant non-infringing applications, applied to the Grokster and Streamcast case?
A party who distributes a device intending to encourage its use for copyright infringement, as evidenced by plain expression or other affirmative steps intended to foster infringement, is liable for the resultant acts of infringement by third parties. A firm can be held accountable for contributory copyright infringement if it deliberately encourages or induces users to infringe copyright.