Facts: When an FIR was lodged against the accused under Section 63 of the Act, they prayed for quahing of the FIR on the sole ground that the offence under Section 63 is non-cognizable.

Held: For the offence Under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine. Only in a case where the offence is punishable for imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only the offence can be said to be non-cognizable.

Facts: When an FIR was lodged against the accused under Section 63 of the Act, they prayed for quahing of the FIR on the sole ground that the offence under Section 63 is non-cognizable.

Held: For the offence Under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine. Only in a case where the offence is punishable for imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only the offence can be said to be non-cognizable.

Facts: Najma Heptullah is the granddaughter of Maulana Azad. "India Wins Freedom" is the book written by Maulana Azad. Some chapters were published during his lifetime and some were to be published after 30 years. A professor, Kabir approached Maulana Azad and took notes from him about his life. Maulana Azad then made necessary changes in it.

Held: The process by which the book was written by the two was that Azad, during his lifetime, dictated and gave notes to Prof. Kabir and out of that Prof. had composed a book which was approved by Azad. Hence, both were joint authors because there was joint authoring in furtherance of a common design. There was an evident active and close collaboration between the two. Hence, joint authorship exists.

Facts: Plaintiff readily agreed to the offer to accomplish the task of research and untiring work, spanning over half a decade producing a piece of art - a bronze mural sculpture - on the entrance wall of Vigyan Bhawan. The wall was no ordinary wall. The mural was a delicate balance between cultural and material aspects in national perspective and science of rural and modern India being its theme. The mural continued to occupy it's place of pride at the lobby of Vigyan Bhawan till it was pulled down and consigned to the store room of the Union of India in the year 1979. This act of destruction of the mural was without the permission, consent or authorization of the plaintiff.

Held: Whatever be it's form today is too precious to be reduced to scrap and languish in the warehouse of the Government of India. It is only the plaintiff who has a right to recreate his work and, therefore, has a right to receive that broken down mural. Plaintiff also has a right to be compensated for loss of reputation, honour and mental injury due to the offending acts of the defendants. Damages of sum of Rs.5 lacs are awarded.

Facts: Two examiners were appointed for a matriculation exam of the University of London on the condition that all copyrights of examination papers should be vested in the University. The University assigned the copyright by deed to the plaintiff company. After the Exam the defendant company published the exam question papers and answers with criticisms.

Held: a. The papers are indeed literary works as it entailed brain exercise and trained judgement.
b. The papers were found to be original as they originated from themselves hence were a proper subject of copyright under the Act.
c. The copyright was vested in the examiners but the University was equitably entitled to it subject to the assignment agreement between the examiner and the University.
d. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case there is an infringement of copyright.

Facts: The plaintiff was a cine artiste of a Hindi motion picture entitled "Darling Darling" produced by the first defendants. In the course of correspondence exchanged between the parties, it was inter alia provided that in consideration of his services to the producers he would be paid remuneration of Rs. 7 lakhs in certain amounts on or before the release of the picture in the territories of Delhi-U. P., Bengal, Nizam, Mysore, C.P.-C I., Tamil-Nadu and Andhra. It was further provided that the copyright in the cine artiste's work in the motion picture was to vest in the cine artiste till full payment of the agreed amount was made to him on which it would automatically vest in the producers. The plaintiff alleged that the producers were releasing the picture in the Bombay and overseas territories without full payment of the remuneration to him, and he sued to restrain the producers from doing so.

Held: The Honourable Supreme Court stated that an actor in a film has no rights over his performance in the film. This was before 1994. After the amendment in the Act, Sections 38 and 39 were added.

Facts: The plaintiff company is the manufacturer, producer and marketeer of pre-recorded audio cassettes and other records under the logo T Series. The plaintiff produced a sound recording under its banner T Series which was inter alias based on the song `Chalo Dildar Chalo' from the film `Pakeezah' by giving notice to the original producer Mahal Pictures under Section 52(1)(j) & Rule 21(2) (b) of the Copyright Act. Such a recording is known in the music business as a version recording and inter-alia involves the singing of a well-known song by a lesser known singer. The plaintiff gave prescribed royalty of Rs. 400 for producing 10, 000 copies to the original owner. When the defendant attempted to produce a version recording of the version recording of the plaintiff by treading the path carved out by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has come to this Court for an injunction restraining the defendant from what is averred to be a copyright violation of its version recording. The dispute in the present suit inter-alia pertains to a song "Chalo Dildar Chalo' from the film `Pakeezah', for which the original owners of the musical works were M/s Mahal Pictures Pvt. Limited. This song forms part of two audio cassettes produced by the plaintiff called Yadein Vol. I and Yadein Vol. II. The plaintiff claims to have paid a sum of Rs. 400/- to Mahal Pictures the original owner of the musical work `Chalo Dildaar Chalo' for producing 10, 000 records of Chalo Dildar Chalo.

Held: The traditional repertoire of Indian music which may not now enjoy copyright protection due to passage of time and being in the public domain, cannot be appropriated by any individual by virtue of a later and current sound recording by excluding other performers and/or composers. The tradition of Indian classical and folk music is a valuable public heritage common to all adherents and cannot be purloined by a contemporary performer/composer by denying to others the benefit of the same. Performer's rights are different from copyright, held that re-recording of a song without the authorization of original performer constituted an infringement of the performer's rights.

Facts: Plaintiff was a singer who claimed that her voice was used by the defendants for three versions of song in Hindi film produced by defendant No. 2. Plaintiff alleged that defendant no. 2 in connivance with defendant No. 1 (music director) had shown herself to be the singer along with defendant No. 2, whereas plaintiff was shown as backup vocalist in all three versions of song. Plaintiff prayed that instead of defendant No. 2's name, her name should appear as lead singer.

Held: Addressing the question of what would constitute a 'live performance', the Court observed that "Every performance has to be live in the first instance whether it is before an audience or in a studio. If this performance is recorded and thereafter exploited without the permission of the performer, then the performer's right is infringed." Court heard all versions of song. It was found that the voice contained in all versions belonged to petitioner. Thus, plaintiff should have been shown as lead singer instead of defendant. Court issued interim order for restraining defendants from in any manner using, selling, distributing, exhibiting, advertising the motion picture as well as cassettes, CDs, promos of the film.

Facts: Plaintiff developed a play "Hum Hindustani" which was based on the provincialism of new delhi. The defendant produced a film "New Delhi", based on the same theme.

Held: a. The plaintiff was the owner of the copyright in the play 'Hum Hindustani'.
b. There was no violation of the copyright of the plaintiff because there was a vast and sustantial difference between the play and the film.
c. The defendants have not infringed the plaintiff's copyright in any manner what so ever.

Facts: The defendants made profits by photocopying, reproduction and distribution of copies of plaintiffs' publications on a large scale and circulating the same and by sale of unauthorised compilations of substantial extracts from the plaintiffs' publications by compiling them into course packs/anthologies for sale.

Held: "It would thus be seen that under the Berne Convention also, the only binding obligation on the privy countries is to in their respective legislations i) not permit reproduction of the work so as to conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and so as to unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interest of the author; and, ii) to while permitting utilization of the literary works including in publications for teaching ensure that such utilization is to the extent justified by the purpose and compatible with fair practice. Similarly, under the TRIPS Agreement also the member countries have agreed to confine the exceptions to the copyright to the extent they do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interest of the right holder." The actions of the defendants to be not amounting to infringement of copyright of the plaintiffs. Ratio Decidendi: Reproduction of any copyrighted work by teacher for purpose of imparting instruction to pupil as prescribed in syllabus during academic year would be within meaning of Section 52(1)(i) of Copyright Act, 1957.

Facts: Plaintiff created a show which had a theme of Lord Krishna. He approached a producer and insisted to sign an NDA. Defendant refused to sign it on the grounds of goodwill and reputation. The negotiations failed and the plaintiff approached other producers. He found out that the defendant had created a pilot episode on the same theme.

Held: Verbal contracts are binding but hard to prove. Hence, the circumstances are proved to be such which had the quality of confidentiality. Keeping in view numerous striking similarities in two works and in the light of the material produced on record, it is impossible to accept that the similarities in two works were more coincidence. The inference of unlawful exploitation of plaintiffs' original concept in defendants' T.V. serial is more in consonance with the materials placed on record and all probabilities of the situation therein disclosed. The plaintiffs business prospect and their goodwill would seriously suffer if the confidential information of this kind was allowed to be used against them in competition with them by the defendants and as observed by Lord Evershed (M.R.) it is not merely of compensation in pounds, shillings or pense. Therefore, the plaintiffs would certainly be entitled to have injunction for breaching confidentiality. Secondly, In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the plaintiffs have established that there has been infringement of their copyright.

Facts: Appellants were involved in printing and publishing of law books including "Supreme Court Cases" (SCC). Appellants alleged Respondents of lifting sequencing, selection and arrangement of the cases, text of copy-edited Judgments as published in SCC, style and formatting, paragraph and footnote numbers, cross-references, etc. for incorporation in their CD product. Appellants contended that inputs placed in the raw text constitutes 'original literary work' and thus Respondents liable for causing infringement of copyright.

Held: a. Copy-edited Judgments in such situation would not satisfy the copyright merely by establishing amount of skill, labour and capital put in the inputs of the copy-edited Judgments and the original or innovative thoughts for the creativity are completely excluded. Creation of paragraphs has a flavour of minimum amount of creativity. The said principle would also apply when the editor has put an input whereby different Judges' opinion has been shown to have been dissenting or partly dissenting or concurring, etc. It also requires reading of the whole judgment and understanding the questions involved and thereafter finding out whether the Judges have disagreed or have the dissenting opinion or they are partially disagreeing and partially agreeing to the view on a particular law point or even on facts. In these inputs put in by the appellants in the judgments reported in SCC, the appellants have a copyright and nobody is permitted to utilize the same.
b. Collection of material and addition of inputs in the raw text does not give work a flavour of minimum requirement of creativity, as skill and Judgment required to produce the work trivial - To establish copyright, the creativity standard applied is not that something must be novel or non-obvious, but some amount of creativity in the work to claim a copyright is required. Selection and arrangement can be viewed as typical and at best result of the labour, skill and investment of capital lacking even minimal creativity, which does not as a whole display sufficient originality so as to amount to an original work of the author. To claim copyright, there must be some substantive variation and not just a trivial variation, not the variation of the type where limited ways of expression available and author selects one of them. Inputs put by the Appellants in the copy-edited Judgments do not touch the standard of creativity required for the copyright. However inputs and task of paragraph numbering and internal referencing requires skill and Judgment in great measure having a flavour of minimum amount of creativity.
Ratio Decidendi: "To invoke copyright protection in a derivative work, variation must be substantive in nature then merely trivial". "Judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court being in public domain, its reproduction or publication would not infringe copyright."

Facts: The plaintiff's and the defendant's serial had uncanny similarities in terms of the plot and characters as well as the theme of the serial.

Held: The alleged similarity given by the plaintiff in the format of his serial "24" and defendant's "Time Bomb", conspicuously ignores various dissimilarity which are apparent on watching the two serials and consequently, on the basis of the just 14 frames of the two serials, it is difficult for this Court to draw inferences that serial "Time Bomb' is a copy of the serial "24". The list of differences rather clearly shows that story line is different and the treatment and expression are also different. Ratio Decidendi: "In considering the question of substantiality, the similarities between the program should be considered individually and then it should be considered whether the entirety of what had been copied represented a substantial part of the Plaintiff's program." "Whether a part was substantial is to be decided by its quality rather than by its quantity."

Facts: The plaintiff had an agreement with OK Magazine for exclusive pictures of their wedding. Due diligence was taken and the guests were told not to take any photographs. A paparazzi gate crashed the wedding and took photos. He sold the photos to Hello! Magazine. Hello! published them before OK!. Both OK! and the plaintiffs suffered monetary losses. The information was not a commercial secret but confidential information.

Held: Since the guests were told not to take photos, circumstances imply confidentiality. Hence, damages were awarded under confidential information.

Facts: Duffy Mott (Licencor)-Licenced to- Ceasar Canning (Licencee)- Contract with- FBI Foods; Licencor invented a drink named 'CLAMATO' which had 2 secret ingredients- tomato and clam broth. It was licenced to Canning to manufacture and sell it as it is, hence the recipe was shared. The licencee was not able to meet the demands on his own and hence entered into an agreement with FBI Foods. Later, Duffy was taken over by Ceasar; Ceasar went bankrupt and was taken over by FBI Foods. Then Cadbury decided to cancel the licencing agreement. Therefore, Ceasar and FBI Foods had no authority to use the recipe. There was a clause in the agreement that the licencee cannot make any drink containing tomato and clam broth for 5 years after the licencing agreement is terminated. FBI Foods introduced a new drink containing only clam broth.

Held: FBI Foods used only one ingredient. They might have not come up with a similar drink so early if they did not have the said recipe. There was no violation of confidential information directly but indirectly. It was held under the spring board doctrine that FBI Foods had undue advantage and the recipe was similar, therefore they cannot sell the product for 5 years.