Copyright Act

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  Literary

or 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

 For

the other works the 60 year period lasts from the date of the

Copyright Board  Quasi-judicial  Consists

body

of

– Chairman – 2 to 14 other members

Copyright Societies  Copyright

owners from the same class form such a society.

 Seven  Keep

members.

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:  Story

based 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.

ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

No copyright in an idea, subject matter, theme, plot or historical or legendary facts Material reproduction The reader, spectator or the viewer are decision makers Theme presented and treated differently Broad dissimilarities to negate any intention of copying 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

RICHARD LEIGH

V/S

DAN BROWN

INTRODUCTION The Holy Blood and

The Da Vinci Code:

the Holy Grail:

 2003

 1982

 Random House Publication

 Non Fiction Book  Random House Publication

 Best Book Award  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)