UNIT-3

INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS & COPY RIGHT

Introduction

When consumers decide to buy an article choosing from an array of competing goods they are
influenced in their choice not only by the utility aspect of the goods but also significantly by the
aesthetic aspect – the visual appeal of the article. Design imparts the visual appeal to an object and it
serves to differentiate it from other products in the same category. For the purpose of this chapter the
term design is the same as industrial design. An industrial design is the ornamental or aesthetic aspect
of an article which is generally mass-produced and useful. It may consist of three- dimensional
features such as shape or surface or two-dimensional features such as patterns, line or colours (or their
combination) applied on an article by any industrial process or means which in the finished article are
judged solely by the eyes; it does not include any mode or principle of construction. If a design cannot
be applied to an article, it would fall under artistic works and more appropriately form the subject
matter of copyright. Some designs may qualify for protection as trademark.

The object of Design registration is to see that the creator of a profitable design should be rewarded
by the exclusive use of it seeking to reconcile it with the other objective of removing impediments to
the free use of available designs. In India, the law of design protection was contained in the Designs

Act, 1911, which has now been repealed by the Designs Act, 2000 referred to as the Act in the

following text.

What is an Industrial Design?

In everyday language, an Industrial Design generally refers to a product’s overall form and
function. An armchair is said to have a “good industrial design” when it is comfortable to sit
in and we like the way it looks. For businesses, designing a product generally implies
developing the product’s functional and aesthetic features taking into consideration issues
such as the product’s marketability, the costs of manufacturing or the ease of transport,
storage, repair and disposal.

From an intellectual property law perspective, however, an industrial design refers only to the

ornamental or aesthetic aspects of a product. In other words, it refers only to the appearance
of an armchair. Although the design of a product may have technical or functional features,

industrial design, as a category of intellectual property law, refers only to the aesthetic nature

of a finished product, and is distinct from any technical or functional aspects.

Industrial design is relevant to a wide variety of products of industry, fashion and handicrafts
from technical and medical instruments to watches, jewellery, and other luxury items; from
household products, toys, furniture and electrical appliances to cars and architectural
structures; From textile designs to sports equipment. Industrial design is also important in
relation to packaging, containers and “get–up” of products.

As a general rule, an industrial design consists of: three-dimensional features, such as the
shape of a product, two-dimensional features, such as ornamentation, patterns, lines or color
of a product; or a combination of one or more such features.
Creative Designs in Business

Enterprises often devote a significant amount of time and resources to enhancing the design
appeal of their products. New and original designs are often created to:

1. Customize products to appeal to specific market segments: small modifications to the

design of some products (e.g. a watch) may make them suitable for different age groups,
cultures or social groups. While the main function of a watch remains the same, children and
adults generally have very different tastes in design.

2. Create a new niche market: in a competitive marketplace, many companies seek to create

a niche market by introducing creative designs for their new products to differentiate them

from those of their competitors. This could be the case for ordinary items such as locks,

shoes, cups and saucers to potentially expensive items such as jewellery, computers or cars.

3. Strengthen brands: creative designs are often also combined with distinctive trademarks

to enhance the distinctiveness of a company’s brand(s). Many companies have successfully

created or redefined their brand image through a strong focus on product design.
Why protect industrial designs?
An industrial design adds value to a product. It makes a product attractive and appealing to
customers, and may even be its unique selling point. So protecting valuable designs should be
a crucial part of the business strategy of any designer or manufacturer.

By protecting an industrial design through its registration at the national or regional

intellectual property office, the owner obtains the exclusive right to prevent its unauthorized

copying or imitation by others. This makes business sense as it improves the competitiveness

of a business and often brings in additional revenue in one or more of the following ways:

• By registering a design you are able to prevent it from being copied and imitated by
competitors, and thereby strengthen your competitive position.
• Registering a valuable design contributes to obtaining a fair return on investment
made in creating and marketing the relevant product, and thereby improves your
profits.
• Industrial designs are business assets that can increase the commercial value of a
company and its products. The more successful a design, the higher is its value to the
company.
• A protected design may also be licensed (or sold) to others for a fee. By licensing it, you
may be able to enter markets that you are otherwise unable to serve.
• Registration of industrial designs encourages fair competition and honest trade
practices, which, in turn, promote the production of a diverse range of aesthetically
attractive products.
Protecting Industrial Designs

How do you obtain protection for industrial designs? In most countries, an industrial design
must be registered in order to be protected under industrial design law.

To register an industrial design you must file an application at the national intellectual
property (IP) office of the country where you are seeking protection (a list of web sites of IP
offices is provided in Annex I). For protection abroad, see Section 3.

A note needs to be made for some countries or common economic areas such as the European
Union, where recent legislation has made it possible to obtain limited industrial design
protection for unregistered designs for three years from the date on which the design has been
published in the European Union.

The unregistered design provides companies with the opportunity to test market their

products before going through the effort and expense of registering all designs, many of

which may not succeed in the marketplace. In addition, some designs may remain on the
market for a very short time, especially in the fashion industry. For such products, the
unregistered design provides a good alternative. However, once the product is manufactured,
designers have up to 12 months in which to register it. The protection provided to an
unregistered design is limited, in that it is more difficult to enforce than for a registered
design, and shorter, as it lasts for three years as opposed to the 25 years provided to registered
designs in the European Union.

While this guide focuses mainly on registered industrial designs, it is important to point out

that, in some countries, there may be alternative ways of protecting industrial designs:

• Depending on the particular national law and the kind of design, one such
alternative for protecting designs is copyright law. Copyright generally provides
exclusive rights for literary and artistic works. As some designs may, in some
countries, be considered works of art or applied art, copyright protection may apply
and may represent an attractive option for SMEs.
• In addition, in some countries, if an industrial design functions as a trademark in the
marketplace, then it may be protected as a three-dimensional mark. This may be the
case when the shape of the product or its packaging are considered to be distinctive.
• Laws on unfair competition may also protect a company’s industrial design in some
countries from imitation by competitors.

For more details on protecting your design under copyright, trademark or unfair
competition laws, see Section 5.
What rights are provided by Industrial Design Protection?

When an Industrial Design is protected by registration, the owner is granted the right to

prevent unauthorized copying or imitation by third parties. This includes the right to exclude

all others from making, offering, importing, exporting or selling any product in which the
design is incorporated or to which it is applied. The law and practice of a relevant country or

region determine the actual scope of protection of the registered design.

What can be registered as an Industrial Design?

As a general rule, to be able to be registered, a design must meet one or more of the following
basic requirements, depending on the law of the country:
• The design must be “new”. A design is considered to be new if no identical design has
been made available to the public before the date of filing, or the application for
registration.
• The design must be “original”. A design is considered original if it has been
independently created by the designer and is not a copy or an imitation of existing
designs.
• The design must have “individual character”. This requirement is met if the overall
impression produced by a design on an informed user differs from the overall
impression produced on such a user by any earlier design which has been made
available to the public.

Traditionally, protectable designs relate to manufactured products such as the shape of a shoe,

the design of an earring or the ornamentation on a teapot. In the digital world, however,

protection is gradually extending in some countries to a number of other products and types

of design. These include electronic desktop icons generated by computer codes, typefaces,

the graphic display on computer monitors and mobile telephones, etc.

What cannot be protected by Industrial Design rights?

Designs that are generally barred from registration in many countries include the following:

• Designs that do not meet the requirements of novelty, originality and/or individual
character (as explained above).

• Designs that are considered to be dictated exclusively by the technical function of a

product; such technical or functional design features may be protected, depending on

the facts of each case, by other IP rights (e.g. patents, utility models or trade secrets).
• Designs incorporating protected official symbols or emblems (such as the national
 flag).
• Designs which are considered to be contrary to public order or morality.

In addition, it is important to note that some countries exclude handicrafts from design
protection, as industrial design law in these countries requires that the product to which an
industrial design is applied is “an article of manufacture” or that it can be replicated by
“industrial means”.

Depending on the national legislation there may be further restrictions on what cannot be

registered as a design. It is advisable to consult an IP agent or the relevant national IP office.

Registration and prohibitions

Criteria for Registration

• To be entitled to protection as intellectual property in India, a design is required to be

registered with the Controller of Designs. The Controller General of Patents, Designs
and Trade Marks is also the Controller of Designs.

• To be eligible for registration, a design must be new or original, must not have been
disclosed to the public, must be significantly distinguishable from known designs or
their combinations and must not comprise or contain scandalous or obscene matter.

• The novelty of a design is judged on the worldwide basis. A design not meeting any of
these conditions shall not be registered.
Registration of Designs

The Controller may, on the application of any person claiming to be the proprietor of any new
or original design not previously published in any country and which is not contrary to public
order or morality, register the design after due consideration. On getting the application for
registration, the Controller may appoint an examiner to check whether the design is
registerable under the Act and submit a report to the Controller. The application for
registration should be filed in the prescribed form along with the prescribed fees. For the
purpose of registration, goods are divided into 32 classes. A design is registered only in one
of these classes. The registration may be in respect of any or all articles of a class. If a
question arises as to the class in which an article falls, the decision of the Controller in this
regard will be final. If the proprietor of a design registered for an article in a class wants to
register it for more articles in the same class, his request to that effect shall not be refused nor
shall the registration thereof invalidated, on the ground that the design is not new or original
but such request will not extend the period of protection beyond the first registration.

After the registration of a design, the Controller publishes the application and the

representation of the article to which the design is applied in the official Gazette and opens it

for public inspection. The Controller then grants a certificate after the registration of the

design and enters the same in the Registry of Designs. If an application has been refused, the

aggrieved person may appeal to the High Court.

Where an application for a design has been abandoned or refused, the application and any
drawings, photographs, tracings, representations or specimens left in connection with the
application shall not at any time be open to public inspection or be published by the
Controller.

The Controller, if satisfied, has the power to substitute another person in place of the original

applicant on a claim by such person that he is entitled to an undivided share or has an interest

in the design. Thereafter, the Controller may direct that the application shall proceed in the

names of the claimants or in the names of the claimants and the applicant as the case may be.

The Controller shall grant a certificate of registration to the proprietor of the design when
registered. During the existence of copyright in a design any person can inspect the design on
making an application giving particulars to identify the design and paying the prescribed fee.
Register of Designs

The names and addresses of the proprietors of registered designs, notifications of assignments

and transmissions of registered designs and any other matter that may be prescribed shall be

entered in a register of designs kept at the Patent Office. The Register may be maintained

wholly or partly on computer, floppies or diskettes, subject to safeguards. The register of

design is the prima facie evidence of any matter authorised to be entered therein.

Every register is open to inspection of the public. Any person can obtain certified copies of
any entry in the register on making necessary request with prescribed fee.
Steps for filing an application

1. The already existing designs are searched.

2. A representation showing the exact article on which the registration is applied is

prepared.

3. The appropriate class for the design is identified from the internationally accepted 32
classes of designs.
4. Evidence of novelty in the design is prepared.

5. A priority date for Convention Countries is claimed.

6. The required fees should accompany application. Presently the fee for registration is
Rs. 1000 and for renewal, it is Rs. 2000.
7. After completing the above procedures the application can be filed either in the Design
Office in Kolkata or any branch of the Patent Office in Delhi, Mumbai or Chennai.
8. After the examination, if demanded, additional information required by the Design
Office should be submitted as soon as possible.
9. To facilitate easy communication and registration full and correct addresses should be
furnished.
Cancellation of Design

Any person interested may file an application to the Controller for cancellation of the
registration of a design on any of the following grounds:
• That the design has been previously registered in India; or
• That it has been published in India or in any other country prior to the date of
registration; or
• That the design is not a new or original design; or
• That the design is not registerable under this Act; or
• That it is not a design as defined in the Act.

An appeal shall lie to the High Court against the order of the Controller. The Controller may
at any time refer any such petition to the High Court.
 COPYRIGHT

WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?

When a person creates a literary, musical or artistic work, he or she is the owner of that work
and is free to decide on its use. That person (called the “creator” or the “author” or “owner of
rights”) can control the destiny of the work. Since, by law, the work is protected by copyright
from the moment it comes into being, there is no formality to be complied with, such as
registration or deposit, as a condition precedent for that protection. Mere ideas in themselves
are not protected, only the way in which they are expressed is protected.

Copyright is the right given by law to the creators of literary, dramatic, musical and a variety

of other works. It ordinarily means the creator alone has the right to make copies of his or her

works or alternatively, prevents all others from making such copies. The basic idea behind

such protection is the premise that innovations require incentives. Copyright recognises this

need and gives it a legal sanction. Moreover, commercial exploitation of copyright yields

income to the creators and thus making pecuniary rewards to individual’s creativity
Copyright is the legal protection extended to the owner of the rights in an original work that

he has created. It comprises two main sets of rights: the economic rights and the moral rights.

The economic rights are the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public performance,
adaptation, translation, public recitation, public display, distribution, and so on. The moral
rights include the author's right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of
his work that might be prejudicial to his honour or reputation.

Both sets of rights belong to the creator who can exercise them. The exercise of rights means

that he can use the work himself, can give permission to someone else to use the work or can

prohibit someone else from using the work. The general principle is that copyright protected

works cannot be used without the authorization of the owner of rights. Limited exceptions to

this rule, however, are contained in national copyright laws. In principle, the term of

protection is the creator's lifetime and a minimum of 50 years after his death.

These legal aspects are specified in international conventions to which most countries are
now party. On their accession, member States should have national legislation that are in line
with the international standards.

At the international level, the economic and moral rights are conferred by the Berne
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, commonly known as the "Berne
Convention". This Convention, which was adopted in 1886, has been revised several times to
take into account the impact of new technology on the level of protection that it provides. It is
administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), one of the specialized
agencies of the United Nations system.
COPYRIGHT IN INDIA

The copyright in India has travelled a long way since it was introduced during the British
rule. The first law on copyright was enacted in the year 1847 by the then Governor General of
India. When Copyright Act of 1911 came into existence in England, it became automatically
applicable to India, India being an integral part of British Raj. This Act was in force in the
country until after independence when a new Copyright Act (the Act of 1957) came into
effect in 1958. Thereafter the Act has undergone many amendments. The latest in the series is
the 2003 Amendment, which came into force in May 2004.
The Indian Copyright Act confers copyright on (i) original literary, dramatic, musical and
artistic works, (ii) cinematographic films and (iii) sound recordings. The word `original'
means that it should not be copied from other works or alternatively it should be the outcome
of independent efforts. The Act empowers copyright holder(s) to do or authorise doing a
number of activities. The important among these are:
a) to reproduce the work,
b) to publish the work,
c) to perform the work in public or communicate it to the public,
d) to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work,
e) to make any cinematographic film or a record in respect of the work,

f) to make any adaptation of the work,

g) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified to
the work in sub clauses to (a) to (f).
The above mentioned rights are `exclusive' in the sense that the creator (or right holder) alone
has the right to enjoy these to the exclusion of others. The author by virtue of his creation
becomes the `owner' of the copyright in the work. However, there can be exceptions to this as
in the following two cases:-

1. The creator may be employed by someone and having been employed to create a
work, the rights belongs to the creator(s),the employer and

2. The creator may transfer his copyright by a document in writing to another person.
This is known as assignment.

The grant of copyright is a limited monopoly. It is limited in the `scope' of the rights granted

and in terms of `time'. Subject to these limitations, copyright is a monopoly ownership. In

India, copyright on a literary work is provided for the lifetime of the author plus sixty years

after his death. In case of joint authorship, the sixty years period is calculated from the

beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the last (surviving) author dies.

Copyright with respect to photographs, cinematographic works and sound recordings spans
for 60 years after its first publication. In order to strike a balance between the society's need

for access to knowledge and the need to reward creators, limited uses of copyright protected

works are permitted without author’s consent. These are called `fair use' of copyright. Section

52 of Indian Copyright Act permits certain activities which do not amount to infringement.

Important in this `exception list' are reproduction of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic

works for educational purposes, e.g. research, review etc., and reporting in newspapers,

magazines, periodicals, etc.

The Copyright Act of India provides right holders dual legal machinery for enforcing their rights. The

enforcement is possible through (1) The Copyright Board and (2) The courts.

Legal remedies include imprisonment and/or monetary fines - depending upon the gravity of the
crime. Sometimes remedies also include seizure, forfeiture and destruction of infringing copies and
the plates used for making such copies. The 1984 amendment has made copyright infringement a
cognizable and non-bailable offence. Under the provisions of the Act any person who knowingly
infringes or abets the infringement of copyright is considered as an offender and is punishable with a
minimum of six months imprisonment which may extend to three years and a fine between fifty
thousand and two lakh rupees.

The 1994 Amendment has incorporated a special penal provision against deliberate using of
infringing computer software. The punishment provided for this act is imprisonment for a term of
seven days to a maximum of three years and a fine between fifty thousand and two lakh rupees.
In case the infringing copy of the computer software is used not for pecuniary gain or it is used in
the course of trade or business, the imprisonment can be relaxed and fine can be maximum of
fifty thousand rupees.

Beside amending the Copyright Act, the Indian Government has taken a few more steps in
strengthening the enforcement in the country. A Copyright Enforcement Advisory Council has been
set up for advising the Government on measures for improving the copyright enforcement. Training
programmes and seminars are arranged for police personnel. Necessary legislation was made for
bringing video shops, cable operators under regulation. State governments are encouraged to set up
IPR cells for exclusively dealing with copyright and other IPR violations. In spite of all these,
enforcement of IPR violations, particularly copyright violations have not been strong enough in the
country and piracy prevails in all types of copyright works notably musical works, video films and
softwares
PROTECTION OF RELATED RIGHTS

Whereas the rights provided by copyright apply to authors, “related rights”, also known as
“neighbouring rights” concern other categories of owners of rights, namely, performers, the
producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations.
Related rights are the rights that belong to the performers, the producers of phonograms and
broadcasting organizations in relation to their performances, phonograms and broadcasts
respectively.

Related rights differ from copyright in that they belong to owners regarded as intermediaries
in the production, recording or diffusion of works. The link with copyright is due to the fact
that the three categories of related rights owners are auxiliaries in the intellectual creation
process since they lend their assistance to authors in the communication of the latter's works
to the public. A musician performs a musical work written by a composer; an actor performs
a role in a play written by a playwright; producers of phonograms -- or more commonly "the
record industry" -- record and produce songs and music written by authors and composers,
played by musicians or sung by performers; broadcasting organizations broadcast works and
phonograms through their broadcasting stations.

At the international level, related rights are conferred by the International Convention for the
Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, better known as
the "Rome Convention". This Convention was adopted in 1961 and has not been revised since. It is
jointly administered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), the International Labour Organization (ILO) and WIPO.

The 1994 Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (or TRIPS
Agreement), which is administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), incorporates or
refers to this international protection.

There are still other international treaties that concern copyright and related rights protection;
further information may be obtained on them by visiting the WIPO’s Web site
(www.wipo.int).
WHAT RIGHTS DOES COPYRIGHT PROVIDE?
The original creators of works protected by copyright, and their heirs, have certain basic
rights. They hold the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the work on agreed
terms.
The creator of a work can prohibit or authorize:
• Its reproduction in various forms, such as printed publication or sound recording;

• Its public performance, as in a play or musical work;

• Recordings of it, for example, in the form of compact discs, cassettes or videotapes;
• Its broadcasting, by radio, cable or satellite;
• Its translation into other languages, or
• Its adaptation, such as a novel into a screenplay.

Many creative works protected by copyright require mass distribution, communication and

financial investment for their dissemination (for example, publications, sound recordings and

films); hence, creators often sell the rights to their works to individuals or companies best

able to market the works in return for payment. These payments are often made dependent on

the actual use of the work, and are then referred to as royalties.

These economic rights have a time limit, according to the relevant treaties; it is 50 years
after the creator's death. National law may establish longer time-limits. This limit enables
both creators and their heirs to benefit financially for a reasonable period of time. Copyright
protection also includes moral rights, which involve the right to claim authorship of a work,
and the right to oppose− changes to it that could harm the creator's reputation. The creator or
the owner−can of the enforce copyrights in administrative work and in the courts, by
inspection of premises− for evidence of production or possession of illegally made “pirated”
−goods related to protected works. The owner may obtain court orders to stop such activities,
as well as seek damages for loss of financial rewards and recognition.
Are ideas, methods or concepts protected by copyright?

Copyright protection extends only to expressions, and not to ideas, procedures, methods of
operation or mathematical concepts as such. This principle has been confirmed by the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) of
the World Trade Organization (WTO).
How are rights related to copyright?

A field of rights related to copyright has rapidly developed over the last 50 years. These
related rights grew up around copyrighted works, and provide similar, although often more
limited and of shorter duration, rights to:
• performing artists (such as actors and musicians) in their performances;

• Producers of sound recordings (for example, cassette recordings and compact

discs) in their recordings;
• broadcasting organizations in their radio and television programs.

WHY PROTECT COPYRIGHT?

Copyright and its related rights are essential to human creativity, by giving creators
incentives in the form of recognition and fair economic rewards. Under this system of rights,
creators are assured that their works can be disseminated without fear of unauthorized
copying or piracy. This in turn helps increase access to and enhances the enjoyment of
culture, knowledge, and entertainment all over the world.
When does Copyright Protection begin, and what is required?

Copyright protection begins when any of the above described work is actually created and
fixed in a tangible form.

For example, my brother is a musician and he lives in the United States. When he writes new
lyrics, he prints them out on paper, signs his name at the bottom with the Copyright © symbol to
show that he is the author, places it in an envelope and mails it to himself without opening it. His
copyright begins at the moment he puts his idea in a tangible form by printing the lyrics out on
paper. He creates proof when he mails it to himself - the postmark establishes the date of creation.
He then registers his copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office which is a requirement under the
US law in order to sue for monetary damages should a violation of his copyright arise. However,
if somebody copies and redistributes his lyrics without permission before his copyright is
registered, he still has the right to assert a copyright claim as the true author.

The above applies to digital art and graphics. Open a gif, jpg or png file that you created and
look at the properties. It states the date that you saved it to your hard drive as the date of
creation. If somebody copies a graphic from your web site I assure you that the date of
creation on your copy of the file is earlier than the copy taken off your web site. If that still
doesn't feel like enough proof for you, save everything to a floppy disk and mail it to yourself
via certified mail. Keep the envelope sealed, wrap it in protective plastic and put it in a safe
place.
Somebody once asked if it was “illegal” to place the copyright © symbol next to your name if
you have not registered your copyright. Unless you have stolen the work from somebody else
and you are not the true owner of the work, it is not illegal to place the copyright © symbol
next to your name - it is your right to do so.
The proper way to place a copyright notice is as follows: Copyright © (first date of creation)
(name of owner). Like this: Copyright © 2003 John Smith.
WHEN DOES COPYRIGHT PROTECTION END, OR EXPIRE?

If a copyright statement reads, “© Copyright 1998, 1999 John Smith.” does that mean that John
Smith's copyright expired in 1999? The dates that you see in a copyright statement do not refer to
the dates−that the owner's material will expire and become public domain they actually refer to
the dates that the material was created.

When you see several dates in a copyright statement, it simply means that certain things were created
in one year and modified later. It could also mean that new things were created and added in a later
year. It most definitely does not refer to the date that a copyright will expire. Expiration of a copyright
actually takes place much later, and this period of validity begins from the date that you see in the
copyright statement. The Berne Convention establishes a general and minimum period that lasts the
life of the author and fifty years after his (or her) death. Cinematographic works and photographic
works have a minimum period of protection of 50 and 25 years upon the date of creation, respectively.
This applies to any country that has signed the Berne Convention, and these are just the minimum
periods of protection. A member country is entitled to establish greater periods of protection, but
never less than what has been established by the Berne Convention.

So, what does all this mean? This means that if a copyright statement reads, "© Copyright 1998, 1999
John Smith" and John Smith is from a country that has signed the Berne Convention, he created his
works in 1998 and 1999, and his copyright is not going to expire until at least fifty years after he dies
(this period may be greater - remember that member countries may establish longer periods of
protection through their national laws).

I have actually seen copyright statements with future dates, such as “© Copyright 2006, 2007
John Smith”, most likely because the copyright holder thought that they could establish an
expiration date for the copyright. This is incorrect unless John Smith travelled to the future and
created the work in question. These types of copyright statements also mislead others to believe
that dates in a copyright statement refer to the date a copyright expires, when the date should
really refer to its year of creation.
The Famous © Symbol

Why does it say Copyright © 1998-2003 WhatisCopyright.org at the bottom of this webpage?
Those are the dates that I created and/or modified the layout, text, graphics and other material
displayed on this web site and saved it to my hard drive. That entitles me to claim copyright.
Only I, as the author and creator of this work, am entitled to use, reproduce and distribute this
material unless someone else who wishes to use it obtains my prior written permission to use it as
well, and only in the manner that I previously approve. What does this mean? That nobody may
access my web site and copy my layout, text or graphics until I provide a written document that
states, “Yes, you can use my work, but only in the manner that I deem appropriate.” This
especially goes for those who want to use my material for lucrative purposes/economic benefits.

Would you let someone sell letters you've written for publication in a magazine without your
permission, and particularly without you getting some of the profit? Anybody who uses
copies or distributes my material in any manner, for commercial or personal purposes,
without my written permission, would be committing an infringement of my copyright. If I,
at any moment, detect a violation of my copyright by another individual or entity, I am
entitled to make a claim. It doesn’t matter if you are a novice or if you “don't know any
better”. As a principle of law states: “Ignorance of the law does not make one exempt from
compliance thereof.”
COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND IPR

Protection of computer software under copyright

During the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s, intensive international discussions regarding
the protection of computer software took place, mainly aiming at resolving the question of
whether such protection should be under copyright or patent law, or possibly under a sui
generis system of protection.

A Committee of Experts convened jointly by WIPO and UNESCO marked a decisive breakthrough in
the choice of copyright as the appropriate form of protection of computer programmes, which can be
assimilated to literary works. Soon afterwards, several countries passed legislation clarifying that
computer programmes were considered works subject to copyright protection, and since then it has
been generally accepted worldwide that copyright protection should be applied rather than a sui
generis approach.
There are important reasons for choosing copyright protection. First of all, computer
programmes are basically writings, and, under Article 2(1) of the Berne

Convention, the purpose for which writings are created is irrelevant from the viewpoint of
their qualifying as literary works, if they are original intellectual creations.

Computer programmes in object code form share the copyright status of other literary and artistic
works stored in computer systems in machine-readable form. While they are unintelligible for us in
object code, they can be retrieved – “decompiled” – into source code form where they are intelligible.
It is generally recognized that all categories of works are protected against storage in digital form,
because such storage is a reproduction. In this respect it does not matter that, for example, a musical
work cannot be perceived directly from a CD, but only after a “decompilation” has taken place in a

CD-player. Recompilation of computer programme means reproduction and adaptation

(“translation”) of computer programmes into a form in which the coding and structure of the
programme can be examined and analyzed.
AUTHORSHIP ISSUES IN WORKS USED OR MADE BY COMPUTER

The data processed by a computer, or the data that results from such processing, may well be
protected as literary and artistic works. This gives rise to some important questions in relation
to the copyright protection of such works, such as:

• If the information processed by a computer is expressed in a work protected by

copyright, is the use of such work by the computer under the control of copyright-

owner of the work?

• Where a computer has been used to process information in such a way as to produce a
work of a kind normally protected by copyright (for example, the processing of
statistics so as to produce them in tabulated form designed to serve a particular
purpose, or the use of a “synthesizer” to produce music) who is to be regarded as the
 “author,” and hence the copyright-owner, of the resulting literary or musical work?

Both internationally and nationally, there has been a very large measure of agreement on the

answers, and the general consensus is recorded in the Report of the Second Committee of

Governmental Experts on Copyright Problems Arising from the Use of Computers for Access

to or the Creation of Works, convened by WIPO and UNESCO in Paris in June 1982. The

major conclusions recorded in the report and the recommendations may be summarized in the
Following way:

• The input of a protected work into a computer system includes the reproduction of the
work on a machine-readable material support, and also the fixation of the work in the
memory of the computer system; both these acts (i.e. reproduction and fixation) are
governed by the Article 9(1) of the Berne Convention;

• The output of a protected work from a computer system should be protected under

copyright law, irrespective of the form of the output, for example, as a hardcopy

printout, a fixation in machine-readable form, a transmission from the database of one

system into the memory of another system (with or without an intermediary fixation),

or by making the work available to the public by audio or visual images presented on

a screen;

• In amending or modifying national legislation to take account of computer use of

protected works, care should be taken to ensure that authors’ moral rights should

continue to be exercisable in relation to computer use, and that the exemption and

limitations on the copyright owner’s right of control, which computer technology

might render desirable, do not exceed the limits on such exemptions permitted by the

Conventions; and

• Non-voluntary licenses in relation to the computer use of protected works should only

be adopted when voluntary licensing is impracticable, and should, in any case, be in

accordance with the convention principles; and where a non- voluntary license is

adopted by a national law, its effect should be confined to the territory of the country
 of that law.

In many countries the existing law appears to be regarded as implementing these general
conclusions, but in some countries there have been specific amendments to the copyright law
to put the matter beyond doubt.

The general view which emerged from these studies is that no matter how sophisticated a
computer may be, it is only a tool, and the author of a work produced by the aid of a
computer is the person who conceived the product and who gave the programmer and the
technician the instructions necessary to produce it. Neither the programmer who designed the
programme needed to operate the computer for the purpose of producing that work, nor the
technician who operated the computer when carrying out the task, would be regarded as the
author or a joint author; however, where the work of the programmer amounted to
collaboration with the originating creative person to such an extent that the programmer
contributed creatively in settling the form of the final product, he might be regarded as a co-
author.
Patenting of computer software

Computers powerful enough to run complex software have existed since the 1950s. Software related
inventions, initially, received a chilly reception at the patent offices around the world when patent
applications directed to computer related inventions were first filed. They were of the view that, by
statute, patents can only be granted to processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions
of matter. In particular patents cannot be granted to scientific truths or mathematical expressions. The
idea that the computer programmes solved mathematical problems and are thus mere equations has
long held them to be non-patentable. This means that most of the fundamental techniques of software

engineering have never been patented as the countries started to issue software patents only
around 1980’s. Some countries have now enacted laws that have made it possible to patent
computer software related technologies−theUSbeing the foremost.

However, many people are worried about this situation. They are of the view that as many
ideas of computer programming are being patented, it becomes impossible to write software
without infringing on patents thus they live under permanent threat of being blackmailed by
holders of large patent portfolios.
Another dimension to the problem is that, there is a striking difference of opinion among

different countries about which type of software related inventions should be patented. While

the United States has opened the doors for patents of business methods and mathematical

algorithms (as long as they have a useful application) other countries are divided. It has thus

become imperative to have a closer look at Patent laws of different countries.

The normal prerequisite for copyright protection, that a work must be original, is well suited
to be applied to computer programmes. Although most programmes consist of sub-routine
elements which often in themselves would hardly qualify as original works, the combination
of such elements and the structuring of the programmes – with the exception of a few very
simple programmes – make them sufficiently creative. Ideas and abstract methods for solving
problems (the so-called “algorithms”) are not protected under copyright, which limits the
protection to the expression of such ideas and algorithms, but this is actually a desirable
consequence of copyright protection, i.e. an appropriate protection is offered without creating
unreasonable obstacles to independent creation of such programmes.

The piracy in computer software simply means copying and distribution of computer
programmes without the copyright holder’s permission. The software industry, generally,
consists of creation and distribution of computer programmes. Creation of computer
programme is similar to writing a novel or other literary works and it requires intellectual
skill and training in software programming. Though a software can be written by individual
programmer, most of the major softwares are the outcome of group efforts, where medium to
large sized teams spend months or even years to write a complete programme.

Distribution of computer programmes in most of the developed countries occurs through a

two-tiered system of wholesalers and dealers, similar to that of many other industries. The
software publishers make a substantial amount of their shipments to a small number of
distributors in any given country, who maintain well-stocked warehouses and can respond
quickly to orders from hundreds or thousands of individual retail dealers or resellers. The
dealers market and provide the software products directly to end-users of computers. The end
users can be individuals, commercial enterprises, educational institutions and government
establishments. Sometimes, software publishers also deal directly with a small number of the
larger dealers or resellers in an individual country. Licensing is a common practice in
software industries. The publisher of a software generally authorises its end users through the
mechanism of the shrink-wrap license contained in the package.

Like other copyright based industries, the software industry also faces several forms of

piracy. In fact, piracy in software is more than in others because it is relatively easy to copy a

software in computers especially in PCs and for all practical purposes the pirated version

looks and performs in an identical manner as the original. The five principal types of software

piracy involve:
1. Counterfeiters
2. Resellers
3. Mail order houses
4. Bulletin boards and
5. End-user piracy.

Counter feiters are relatively new phenomenon in the software industry and most flagrant
software counterfeiters produce disks, documentation and packaging that look very similar to
those of the software publisher. Reseller piracy occurs in the software distribution channel,
when distributors or dealers either make copies of software onto floppy disks, or the internal
storage device or the "hard disk" of computers that they are selling, without authorisation
from the software publisher. Mail-order piracy consists of the unauthorised copying of
software onto diskettes, CDs, or other media and distribution of such software by post.
Bulletin board pirates engage in unauthorised reproduction and distribution of software via
telecommunication. Typically, this involves an individual computer user who has installed a
number of software programmes on his computer, and who allows other users to connect to
his computer through the telephone line via modem and copy the programmes onto discs. The
pirate in most cases has copied the programme onto his own computer without authorisation
of the copyright holder's consent is also a copyright violation. End-user piracy takes place
when a user copying software onto hard disks of more computers than the number authorised
by the publisher. This form of piracy perhaps takes place on a wider scale than other forms
because end-users often make substantial copies of the softwares possessed by them and then
distribute or exchange the same. Though this harms the interests of right holders, end users
definitely gain out of it because this leads to obvious economic advantages for them.
Identifying pirated software is not an easy task. This is primarily for two reasons. First, as
mentioned earlier there is hardly any difference between original software and pirated
software, once it is copied onto hardware. Second, detection of piracy requires access to
software or hardware or both, which may not be feasible in many cases. However, there are
some ways through which an unauthorised copy of software can be identified. Many a time
publishers supply softwares in packaged form which contain software on diskettes with
printed labels giving manufacturer's name, full product name, version number, trade mark
and copyright notices. Besides these, the packages also typically, contain professionally
printed documentation, a keyboard template, end user license and registration cards and other
printed materials pursuant to a standard bill of materials that would apply to all packages of
that particular product. In such cases, the most simple pirated copies may be spotted easily on
“black-disks”, which do not contain manufacture's label but rather type written, hand-written
or crudely printed labels indicating the programmes contained on the diskettes. In case of
installed software it is more difficult to identify a pirated copy. Once a computer is searched,
the programmes copied onto it can be found and identified. Then users can be asked to
produce the proof of original possession (e.g. original packages, documentation, purchase
record, license cards etc.) of such programmes. If users fail to do so, there is a prima facie
case of infringement. In some cases even test purchases can be made to secure evidence of
piracy.
The extent of software piracy and losses due to such piracy cannot be given in exact
quantitative terms though it is believed that piracy in this sector is widespread. In Europe
alone the sofware industries lose an estimated US$ 6 billion a year. In fact, Europe holds the
dubious distinction of accounting for about 50 per cent of worldwide losses from software
piracy, more than any other region. Asia comes at number two. According to a study of
Software Publishers Association, a US based body, losses due to piracy of personal computer
business application softwares nearly equalled revenues earned by the global software
industry. In 1996, piracy cost the software industry US$ 11.2 billion, a 16 percent decrease
over the estimated losses of US$ 13.3 billion in 1995. The country-specific data show that in
1996 Vietnam and Indonesia had the highest piracy rate of 99 per cent and 97 percent
respectively, followed by China (96%), Russia (91%), Thailand (80%) etc. In India software
piracy is costing the IT industry quite dear. According to a survey conducted jointly by
Business Software Alliance (BSA) and NASSCOM in May 1996, total losses due to software
piracy in India stood at a staggering figure of about Rs. 500 crores (US $ 151.3 million)
showing about 60 per cent piracy rate in India.
BROADCASTER’S RIGHTS: AN INTRODUCTION
Historical Setting
As already noted above, the right of broadcasters protected under the copyright regime has
been provided under a set of neighbouring rights being associated with the original version of
copyright protection wherein only literary or artistic work were protected. As Cornish
explains, Broadcasting opened great opportunity of relying performances to truly mass
audience and thus emerged a set or rights which were exclusive to these broadcasters.
Thus, initially, the copyright issues were resolved by adopting a two fold method, holding
broadcasting as an act of infringement and thus requiring broadcasters to seek copyright
licenses, and by making the act of broadcasting as an activity which itself attracted copyright
and thus requiring licenses for re-transmission purposes.
Nature of Broadcast rights
Thus under the law of copyright a broadcast is treated at par with an original literary or
dramatic work and is in itself amenable to copyright. This does not however, affect the
copyright vested in the work which is the subject matter of broadcast. Therefore it is the
contents of the communication made that are protected under the Copyright regime. For
illustration, some artists perform stage a drama in the theatre and consent to a live broadcast
of the same. Now the performance on their part is itself a subject matter of protection under
the copyright regime (under ‘Performer’s Right’). Here the sole protection that is offered for
the broadcaster is the inability on the part of any other to legally broadcast the same or a
substantial part of the broadcast so made, unless consented to by the original broadcaster.
This also brings us privy to the issue whether anyone can make a broadcast of anything?
Acknowledging the generally accepted limitation imposed on account of public policy,
morality etc. one would find that broadcaster has to be doubly careful. He has to make sure
that the object to be broadcasted is not protected under copyright regime for the ‘right to
communicate the work’ to public is often included as a right vested in the copyright owner in
various jurisdictions. 8 Thus in such cases the broadcast can be made only with the licence or
the consent of the copyright owner of the object to be broadcasted. This also brings us the
proposition that the broadcast reproduction rights do not affect the copyright in the literary,
dramatic or musical work which has been broadcasted.

Thus the original copyright vested in the work does not merge with the broadcaster’s right to
reproduce the broadcast. It still remains a separately protected right under Copyright regime.
At the cost of repetition, therefore, one must note that unlike copyright the broadcaster's right
are not based upon a creative contribution to a work. They are rather based on the protection
of the broadcaster's investment, and is obtained simply by broadcasting the work to the public
The broadcaster's right is an therefore only an additional intellectual property right that
applies over an above a copyright, if the work is protected under copyright, and it also applies
to works that would be in the public domain under copyright laws.
What is a broadcast?

A careful analysis of the above situation would also reveal that the fact whether a particular

broadcast is protected under the copyright regime is contingent upon its being covered within

the meaning of the ‘broadcast’ as defined under the statute. This is on account of the fact that

the medium of transmission must be covered within the meaning of ‘broadcast’ as assigned in

the enactment for purposes of it being amenable to protection. Thus irrespective of the fact

that a particular mode of transmission may be scientifically or technologically be defended as

a broadcast, it shall not be protected unless the medium is so covered under the statute.

Therefore the Australian Federal Court ruled that communication of a work by a private

individual to another party through mobile phone was not an instant of broadcast.
BROADCASTER’S RIGHT IN INDIA

Statutory Ambit

Protection to broadcasts was not envisaged under the original state of affairs under the
Copyright Act of 1957. However with an amendment in 1994, Section 37 of the Act was
substituted with the new section providing for broadcasting reproduction rights. The amended
section conceives of a methodology wherein the broadcaster is given the right to reproduce
the broadcast made already. Thus the broadcasting organisation is conferred with
‘Broadcasting Reproduction Rights’ wherein the organisation is conferred with a series of
rights in respect to the broadcast made namely,

1. reproducing the broadcast;

2. causing the broadcast to be heard or seen by the public on payment of any charges;
3. making any sound recording of visual recording of the broadcast;
4. making any reproduction or such sound recording or visual recording where the initial
recording was unauthorized;

5. selling or hiring or offering for sale or hire to the public any such sound or visual
recording.

Following the operation of Section 37, the performance of any act as under (a) to (e) shall
require a licence of the broadcasting organisation or else the act shall be treated to be a
violation of copyright. However exceptions to the same have been provided in Section 39 of
the Act. These exceptions can be broadly categorised as;
1. for private use,
2. for purposes of bona fide training or research,

3. for reporting of current events (here it is to be noted that only excepts of such
broadcast are allowed to be used under this exception), and
4. general exceptions as provided under Section 52 of the Act.

Further, Section 39A extends the general provisions under the Act to broadcasting rights.
Thus one shall note that in many aspects broadcast reproduction rights are treated at part with
copyright. However the enunciation of the broadcasts rights have not been so widely
reverberated in India as has been abroad. Nevertheless there are some judicial decisions
wherein the existing position of law is brought forth.
Judicial Dictum

(a) Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.

Facts : The Appellant, a music company, challenged the direction of the Copyright Board

directing the Registrar of Copyrights to grant a compulsory licence to the Respondent, a

leading FM (Radio Mirchi) broadcaster, to broadcast the songs the copyright in which was

owned by the Appellants when in a legal battle the Respondents had accepted that there was a

violation on their part in broadcasting the songs. Decision : (i) Since the respondent has not

obtained any authorization or licence to broadcast the songs from the appellant, it was an

infringer and granting compulsory licences under Section 31 to such infringers would be like

putting premium on their defaults which would also encourage others to first infringe and

where infringement was discovered, apply for a compulsory licence. Therefore such could

not be allowed. (ii) Since Section 31(1) employs the term ‘may’, its not mandatory for the

Board to grant licence to each and every applicant. Thus a licence can be granted or deniedon

valid grounds. However Section 31 envisages that the decision to grant or refuse a licence

should be made after holding sufficient inquiry. (iii) While making an order under Section

31(1) the Board has to maintain a delicate balance between private rights of the copyright vis-

à-vis public interest.

(b) Video Master v. Nishi Productions

Facts : The Plaintiff claimed that the sole and exclusive video copyrights in a cinematographic
film [Bees Saal Baad] were assigned to it under an agreement by the producer of the film i.e. the
Defendant. It alleged that the Defendant had entered into an agreement with another distributor
whereby a copy of the film was given to them, which in turn was used to make cassettes which
were to be used for satellite TV transmission. Thus a violation of the copyright of the Plaintiff
was alleged. Decision : (i) Copyrights in Cable TV rights and satellite broadcasting rights are two
different rights under the Copyright Act, which can exist in different persons without infringing
copyright of each other. (ii) By receiving satellite signals on dish antenna owned/maintained by
Cable TV operator or private party and by relaying signals through media of Cable to the viewers,
there was no violation of the exclusive video copyright of the Plaintiff.
(c) Garware Plastics and Polysters Ltd. v. Telelink

Facts : The Plaintiffs claimed that that were the owners of a copyright in respect of a
cinematographic film who had assigned the right of broadcasting their films to Government
of India or Doordarshan but retained in themselves the right to telecast films by cable
television. They claimed that the Defendants, cable operators, by showing the film on their
cable television had violated their copyright in the film. Therefore the issue before the High
Court was whether by showing video films over Cable television network to various
subscribers the defendants were broadcasting video films to the public and thereby infringing
the copyright of the plaintiffs.

Decision : (1) Whether a communication is to the public or whether it is a private

communication depends essentially on the persons receiving the communication. It they can

be characterized as the public or a portion of the public, the communication is to the case laid

down that showing a film on a cable television network was a broadcast of the film to the

members of public. (2) The viewers of a Cable network or those who receive such broadcast

through a dish antenna to which their television sets are connected, are either residents of
Apartments in a building which has such a network or they may be residents of a locality
which is covered by this facility. A number of houses - both private homes and public places -
may avail of this facility. As the viewers are not members of one family or their guests and do
not have any homogeneity, they are the members of public. (3) Therefore communication of a
film by cable television is a broadcast of the film and therefore the defendants were violating
the copyright in the film.

Thus one would find that the elaboration of the Broadcaster’s rights, despite their statutory

incorporation for more than a decade as of now, has been minimal in the Indian context.
PERFORMERS’ RIGHTS

Performers engage more in recreative and artistic activities than broadcasters, producers of
phonograms, etc. There was reluctance, for quite a long time, to give performers an
equivalent property right. It was believed on one hand, that giving copyright to all the
performers in a play, a film or an orchestra would lead to unnecessary complications. On the
other hand, some right to stop illegal appropriation of performances has long been considered
necessary to cover, in particular, surreptitious recording of the performance itself. In other
words, a law was needed which protects the rights of performers, such as actors in stage
plays, musicians, dancers etc. from being televised later through a covert recording. Such a
broadcasting strikes at the very root of the object of the Copyright Act which aims at
encouraging creative pursuits.

Over the last three decades, the “bootlegging” or surreptitious recording, as Cornish describes
it, of performances by pop stars and others has grown considerably; and parts of music
industry had become particularly alarmed. The lack of some kind of right to performance was
a blemish in the copyright law which has now been remedied in India with the 1994
amendment to the Copyright Act, 1957.

The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 has conferred certain special rights to singers and
other performers in India.1 A performer includes an actor, singer, musician, dancer, acrobat,
juggler, snake charmer, a person delivering lecture, or any other person who makes a
lecture.2 “Performance” in relation to a performer’s right means any visual or acoustic
presentation made live by one or more performers.3
The performer has the exclusive right to do the following:
a) To make a sound or visual recording of the performance.

b) To reproduce a sound or visual recording of the performance.

c) To broadcast the performance.

d) To communicate the performance to the public other than through broadcast.

Section 38 of the Act lays down the rights of the performer. According to it, if any person
during the continuance of a performer’s right without the consent of the performer does any
of the following acts in respect of the performance or substantial part thereof, he will be
deemed to have infringed performer’s rights:
a) Makes a sound recording or visual recording of the performance, or

b) Reproduces a sound recording or visual recording of the performance, which sound

recording or visual recording was--
i) made without the performer's consent; or

ii) made for the purposes different from those for which the performer gave his
consent; or
iii) made for purposes different from those referred to in section 39 or from a sound
recording or visual recording which was made in accordance with section 39; or

c) broadcasts the performance except where the broadcast is made from a sound recording or
visual recording other than one made in accordance with section 39, or is a re-broadcast by
the same broadcasting organisation of an earlier broadcast which did not infringe the
performer's right; or

d) Communicates the performance to the public otherwise than by broadcast, except where
such communication to the public is made from a sound recording or visual recording or a
broadcast.

When a performer has authorized the incorporation of his performance in a cinematograph

film, the performer loses the right to complain of infringement of the performance as the

entire rights stand assigned to the producer of the film as an outcome of such authorization.
EXCEPTIONS TO INFRINGEMENT OF PERFORMER’S RIGHTS

Section 39 broadly lays down the acts which do not constitute infringement of a performer’s
right as the following:

a) the making of any sound recording or visual recording for the private use of the

person making such recording, or solely for purposes of bona fide teaching or

research; or

b) the use, consistent with fair dealing, of excerpts of a performance or of a broadcast in

the reporting of current events or for bona fide review, teaching or research; or

c) such other acts, with any necessary adaptations and modifications, which do not
constitute infringement of copyright under Section 52. These acts are:
 i. the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the

purpose of a judicial proceeding or for the purpose of a report of a judicial

proceeding;

ii. The reproduction or publication of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work

in any work prepared by the Secretariat of a Legislature or, where the
Legislature consists of two Houses, by the Secretariat of either House of the
Legislature, exclusively for the use of the members of that Legislature;

iii. the reproduction of any literary, dramatic or musical work in a certified copy
made or supplied in accordance with any law for the time being in force;

iv. the performance, in the course of the activities of an educational institution, of

a literary, dramatic, or musical work by the staff and students of the institution,
or of a cinematography film or a record, if the audience is limited to such staff
and students, the parents and guardians of the students and persons directly
connected with the activities of the institution or the communication to such
an audience of a cinematograph film or sound recording. 7

Therefore mentioned acts can be done only with the sound or video recording of the
performance. Accordingly the making of a sound or video recording for the aforesaid reasons
cannot also be an encroachment on the rights of performers.

Where copyright subsists in respect of any work or performance that has been broadcast, a
license to reproduce such broadcast will require the consent of the owner of rights of
performer, as the case may be, or both of them.
CASE STUDIES

SUPER CASSETTE INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. BATHLA CASSETTE INDUSTRIES

LTD.
In Super Cassette Industries Limited Vs. Bathla Cassette Industries Pvt. Limited, the Delhi
High Court discussed in detail copyright infringement in sound recording and the concept of
performers rights. The relevant extracts of the judgement are given below:

1. This is an application for interim injunction in a suit asserting rights under Section 52(1)(j)
of the Copyright Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 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 alia 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 version
recording and involves inter-alia 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 has further
averred that it has produced this song under the provisions of Section 52(1)(j) of the
Copyright Act read with Rule 21 of the Copyright Rules, 1958. By the letter dated 10th June,
1986 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. The said letter dated 10th June, 1986 also stated in para (b) as under:

“(b) We do not propose to make any alteration in or omission from the work unless such
alteration and omissions are necessary for the adaptation of the work to the record in
question."

The audio cassettes are said to have been produced pursuant to the said letter sent under the

provisions of Section 52(i)(j) of the Act and said to carry such an endorsement on the inlay

card. The defendants had offered to purchase similar rights under Section 52(1)(j) of the Act

in respect of the tapes Yadein Vol. I & I produced by the plaintiff which included the song

‘Chalo Dildar Chalo’ from the plaintiffs and had accordingly issued a cheque for Rs. 1,000/-
as 5 per cent royalty prescribed by the Copyright Board for manufacturing 400 audio

cassettes to be sold at Rs. 25/- per cassette.

2. The defendants’ case was that the plaintiff itself produced a copy and it was protected by
the statutory protection failing which the plaintiff would have been guilty of violation of the
copyright of original work under Section 51. The plaintiff can not claim to be an owner of the
original work but nevertheless, the payment was made only to avoid any petty disputes.

3. On the other hand, the plaintiff’s case is that in re-recording the song in question the

plaintiff had to engage musicians, singers and music conductors and to create the original

music track of the musical works. It was further submitted by the plaintiff that in re recording

it has used sufficient independent skill and labour and has therefore, got its own legitimate

and legal rights of copyright in the Record and the musical work so produced. The record

produced was a substantially new arrangement and/or necessary adaptation of the existing

records. The plaintiff's case was that its sound recording (version recording) would be entitled

to a separate sound recording copyright and the reproduction of the same would require the

licence and consent of the owner of the copyright in the version sound recording, i.e., the

plaintiff. Appearing for the plaintiff, Mr. Praveen Anand advanced a plea that the defendant is

not entitled to make a recording of a version recording produced by the plaintiff and the

defendant is not entitled to avail of Section 52 (1) (j) qua the plaintiff's recording.

4. After exchange of correspondence between the parties, the defendant had filed a suit under
Section 60 of the Copyright Act before the District Judge, Delhi in which a prayer was made
for restraining by an injunction the present plaintiffs (the defendants in that suit) from
continuance of any threat by the plaintiff for the alleged infringement of the copyright in
respect of the titles Yadein Vol., 1 and 2 which contained the song Chalo Dildar Chalo. Both
the counsel, Shri Praveen Anand for the plaintiff, and Shri Ajay Sahni for the defendant
agreed that the song ‘Chalo Dildar Chalo’, from the film ‘Pakeezah’ and its incorporation in
the plaintiff's Yadein-I would be the basis on which this application is to be decided.
5. It is, inter alia, averred in the plaint that by its own labour the plaintiff has invested large
amounts and encouraged new young singers. The plaint therefore prayed for declaration that
the plaintiff was the owner and copyright holder of Section 52(1)(j) version, i.e., Yadein I &
II and it further sought a permanent injunction against the defendants from reproducing the
records and musical works of the plaintiff contained in the works of the records titled Yadein
Vol I & Yadein Vol II.

6. In reply to the application for injunction, the defendant has taken the plea that since the
plaintiff has admitted to having their production covered under (the statutory defences
enlisted in) Section 52 of the Copyright Act 1957, the same cannot be the subject matter of
protection under the provisions of the Copyright Act as (the plaintiff's) sound recording is not
an original work. It is further stated that the alleged re–creation of the original music track
amounts to an infringement of the copyright of the original work and that if both the works
sound similar then it is an infringement. The right said to be derived from section 52 of the
Copyright Act pre-supposes that the derived product is an infringement under Section 51 of
the Act. Further, since any creation under Section 52 of the Act cannot claim to be an original
work, it is not entitled to protection. Some skill and labour is always required to make a copy
of the original on behalf of the plaintiff but as long as the musical work created by the
plaintiff keeps the original work as a model or guide, the work so created cannot be said to be
an original work. The statutory defence conferred by Section 52 cannot be so construed as to
confer on the plaintiff's copy the status of an original work. The audio cassettes being
manufactured by the plaintiff are an effort to mislead the public by printing the titles as
Mukesh Ki Yaaden, Lata Ki Yaaden and Rafi Ki Yaden with the photographs of these
renowned singers by creating an impression that the songs are sung by such renowned
singers. In fact the songs have been sung by lesser known singers. In the instant case the
lyrics are identical and the tune similar. The plaintiff has not exercised any independent
labour and skill in the said musical work but merely attempted to recreate the existing work
in a manner which makes it sound to the uninitiated as if they were sung by the original
singer. Consequently, the plaintiff is guilty of passing off their work as the original work. The
plaintiff who itself has secured such rights under Section 52(i)(j) cannot be heard to complain
when others follow the plaintiff’s method.
7. The claim of the plaintiff for an injunction that the plaintiff is the owner and the copyright
holder of rerecorded musical work and record made under Section 52 (I)(j) of the Act, is
therefore not sustainable and the product of the plaintiff of which protection is sought cannot
be the subject matter of independent protection under the provisions of the Copyright Act,
1957.

8. The Defendant's case is that no license having been granted by the original Copyright owner
and the only claim forwarded being under Section 52(I)(j), cannot ipso facto confer a right
entitling the plaintiff for independent protection for its musical works. The defendant has relied
upon Section 13(3)(b) which postulates that the copyright shall not subsist in any sound recording
if in making such a sound recording, copyright has been infringed. Since 10th May, 1995, not
only is the copyright of the literary and musical work violated, but also that of the performer's
right, statutorily recognized since the amendment of 1994.

It is, therefore, submitted by the counsel for the defendant that the performer's rights and the
integrity of the musical work are clearly violated by the substitution of the principal
performer by a lesser known singer and performers' rights were duly recognized by the 1994
amendment to the Act.

9. In sum and substance, the as euphemistically by the learned counsel (for the defendant),
the defendant himself is a plagiarist and therefore, though claiming the protection of Section
52 (1)(j) he cannot now prevent anyone else from plagarizing its work under Section 52(1)(j)
of the Act. In other words, the plaintiff cannot use the Section 52(1)(j) means to derive
benefit from a product of another person and yet ride a high moral horse when the same
method is adopted by another in respect of its own product.

10. What needs to be resolved in view of the rival pleas is the nature and manner of rights which
accrue to a musical work created under Section 52(1)(j), the effect of Section 13(3)(b) upon such
rights and whether the plaintiff's work constitutes infringement of the original musical work.
Further, in such a situation whether such work can be said to be entitled to avail of the protection
under Section 52(1)(j). It is still awaited for the Court to decide whether a Section 52 (1) (j)
product can be considered to be an original musical work.

Intellectual property and cyberspace

History of Cyber Crime
The first recorded cyber crime took place in the year 1820!
In 1820, Joseph-Marie Jacquard, a textile manufacturer in France, produced the loom. This
device allowed the repetition of a series of steps in the weaving of special fabrics. This
resulted in a fear amongst Jacquard's employees that their traditional employment and
livelihood were being threatened. They committed acts of sabotage to discourage Jacquard
from further use of the new technology. This is the first recorded cyber crime!
1971
John Draper discovers the give-away whistle in Cap'n Crunch cereal boxes reproduces a
2600Hz tone. Draper builds a ‘blue box’ that, when used with the whistle and sounded into a
phone receiver, allows phreaks to make free calls. Esquire publishes "Secrets of the Little
Blue Box" with instructions for making one. Wire fraud in the US escalates.

1972
The InterNetworking Working Group is founded to govern the standards of the Internet.
Vinton Cerf is the chairman and is known as a "Father of the Internet”.

1973
Teller at New York's Dime Savings Bank uses a computer to embezzle over $2 million

1978
First electronic bulletin board system (BBS) appears; becomes the primary means of
communication for the electronic underground..

1981
Ian Murphy, aka. "Captain Zap“, becomes first felon convicted of a computer crime. Murphy
broke into AT&T’s computers and changed the billing clock so that people receive discounted
rates during normal business hours.

1982
Elk Cloner, an AppleII boot virus, is written.

1983
• Movie WarGames introduces public to the phenomenon of hacking (actually war-
dialing).
• US Secret Service gets jurisdiction over credit card and computer fraud.

Introduction to Cyber Law:

Cyber Law is the law governing cyber space. Cyber space is a very wide term and includes
computers, networks, software, data storage devices (such as hard disks, USB disks etc), the
Internet, websites, emails and even electronic devices such as cell phones, ATM machines
etc.
Cyber crimes can involve criminal activities that are traditional in nature, such as theft, fraud,
forgery, defamation and mischief, all of which are subject to the Indian Penal Code. The
abuse of computers has also given birth to a gamut of new age crimes that are addressed by
the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The expression ‘Crime’ is defined as an act, which subjects the doer to legal punishment or
any offence against morality, social order or any unjust or shameful act. The “Offence" is
defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure to mean as an act or omission made punishable by
any law for the time being in force. Its an unlawful act wherein the computer is either a tool
or a target or both. Acts that are punishable by the Information Technology Act.
Cyber space is a virtual space that has become as important as real space for business,
politics, and communities.
Cyber Crime is emerging as a serious threat. World wide governments, police departments
and intelligence units have started to react.
Cyber Crime is a term used to broadly describe criminal activity in which computers or
computer networks are a tool, a target, or a place of criminal activity and include everything
from electronic cracking to denial of service attacks. It is also used to include traditional
crimes in which computers or networks are used to enable the illicit activity.
• Computer crime mainly consists of unauthorized access to computer systems data
alteration, data destruction, theft of intellectual property. Cyber crime in the context of
national security may involve hacking, traditional espionage, or information warfare
and related activities.
• Pornography, Threatening Email, Assuming someone's Identity, Sexual Harassment,
Defamation, Spam and Phishing are some examples where computers are used to
commit crime, whereas Viruses, Worms and Industrial Espionage, Software Piracy
and Hacking are examples where computers become target of crime.
A computer crime is any illegal act, the commission of which (in whole or in part):
o targets computer hardware or software as its focal point, or utilizes computer
hardware or software to accomplish or assist in accomplishing the act, or
involves or uses computer hardware or software to store, preserve, assimilate,
or secrete any evidence or any fruits of the act, or unlawfully accesses, invades
or violates computer hardware or software integrity in accomplishing or in
attempting to perform the act notice by this definition, that a murder
committed by bashing someone’s head with a computer monitor would be
considered a computer crime! CATEGORIES OF CYBER CRIME:
Cyber crimes can be basically divided into 3 major categories:
 1. Cyber crimes against persons :
Cyber harassment is a distinct Cyber crime. Various kinds of harassment can and do
occur in cyberspace, or through the use of cyberspace. Harassment can be sexual,
racial, religious, or other.
2. Cyber crimes against property :
These crimes include computer vandalism (destruction of others' property),
transmission of harmful programs, unauthorized trespassing through cyber space,
unauthorized possession of computer information.
3. Cyber crimes against government :
The growth of internet has shown that the medium of Cyberspace is being used by
individuals and groups to threaten the international governments as also to terrorize
the citizens of a country.
Types Of Cyber Crime
Technical Aspects Technological advancements have created new possibilities for criminal
activity, in particular the criminal misuse of information technologies such as
a) Unauthorized access & Hacking:- Access means gaining entry into, instructing or
communicating with the logical, arithmetical, or memory function resources of a computer,
computer system or computer network.

b) Trojan Attack:- The program that act like something useful but do the things that are
quiet damping. The programs of this kind are called as Trojans. Trojans come in two parts, a
Client part and a Server part. When the victim (unknowingly) runs the server on its machine,
the attacker will then use the Client to connect to the Server and start using the trojan.
c) Virus and Worm attack:- A program that has capability to infect other programs and
make copies of itself and spread into other programs is called virus. Programs that multiply
like viruses but spread from computer to computer are called as worms.
d) E-mail related crimes:-
• Email spoofing : Email spoofing refers to email that appears to have been originated
from one source when it was actually sent from another source. Please Read
• Email Spamming: spamming refers to sending email to thousands and thousands of
users - similar to a chain letter. Sending malicious codes through email. E-mails are
 used to send viruses, Trojans etc through emails as an attachment or by sending a link
of website which on visiting downloads malicious code.
• Email bombing: E-mail "bombing" is characterized by abusers repeatedly sending an
identical email message to a particular address. Making of false, derogatory
statement(s) in private or public about a person's business practices, character,
financial status, morals, or reputation. Oral defamation is a slander whereas printed or
published defamation is a libel.
• Email frauds: Email fraud is the intentional deception made for personal gain or to
damage another individual through email.
e) Internet Relay Chat (IRC) related crimes:-
Three main ways to attack IRC are: Denial of service attacks, clone attacks, and flood
attacks.
Denial of Service attacks:- Flooding a computer resource with more requests than it can
handle. This causes the resource to crash thereby denying access of service to authorized
users

f) Sale of illegal articles

This would include sale of narcotics, weapons and wildlife etc., by posting information on
websites, auction websites, and bulletin boards or simply by using email communication.

g) Online gambling
There are millions of websites; all hosted on servers abroad, that offer online gambling. In
fact, it is believed that many of these websites are actually fronts for money laundering.

NEED FOR CYBER LAWS

• Laws are necessary in all segments of society, and e-commerce is no exception.
• Those in the online world should recognize that copyright, patent, and trademark laws
protect much of the material found on the Internet.

• All Internet users, including minors, need to be assured of their privacy and the safety
of their personal information online.
• In today's highly digitalized world, almost everyone is affected by cyber law.

• Almost all companies extensively depend upon their computer networks and keep
their valuable data in electronic form.
• Government forms including income tax returns, company law forms etc are now
filled in electronic form.
• Consumers are increasingly using credit cards for shopping.
• Most people are using email, cell phones and SMS messages for communication.
• Even in "non-cyber crime" cases, important evidence is found in computers / cell
phones e.g. in cases of divorce, murder, kidnapping, tax evasion, organized crime,
terrorist operations, counterfeit currency etc.
• Cyber crime cases such as online banking frauds, online share trading fraud, source
code theft, credit card fraud, tax evasion, virus attacks, cyber sabotage, phishing
attacks, email hijacking, denial of service, hacking, pornography etc are becoming
common.
• Cyberspace is an intangible dimension that is impossible to govern and regulate using
conventional law.
• Cyberspace has complete disrespect for jurisdictional boundaries.
• Cyberspace handles gigantic traffic volumes every second.
• Cyberspace is absolutely open to participation by all.
• Cyberspace offers enormous potential for anonymity to its members. Electronic
information has become the main object of cyber crime. It is characterized by extreme
mobility, which exceeds by far the mobility of persons, goods or other services. A
software source code worth cores of rupees or a movie can be pirated across the globe
within hours of their release. Theft of corporeal information (e.g. Books, papers, CD,
ROMs, floppy disks) is easily covered by traditional penal provisions. Cyber Laws in
India :
• Under The Information Technology Act, 2000
• The primary source of cyber law in India is the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT
Act) which came into force on 17 October 2000. The primary purpose of the Act is to
provide legal recognition to electronic commerce and to facilitate filing of electronic
records with the Government. The IT Act also penalizes various cyber crimes and
 provides strict punishments (imprisonment terms upto 10 years and compensation up
to Rs 1 crore).

Cyber Laws in India

Under The Information Technology Act, 2000 The primary source of cyber law in India is the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) which came into force on 17 October 2000. The
primary purpose of the Act is to provide legal recognition to electronic commerce and to
facilitate filing of electronic records with the Government. The IT Act also penalizes various
cyber crimes and provides strict punishments (imprisonment terms upto 10 years and
compensation up to Rs 1 crore).

Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008

1. Destroys, Deletes or Alters any Information residing in a computer resource or

diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means;
2. Steals, conceals, destroys or alters or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or
alter any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to
cause damage;
3. “If any person, dishonestly, or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two three
years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.” [S.66]
4. S.66A - Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service,
etc
5. Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
and with fine.