Section 13 – Works in which copyright subsists
Meaning:
Section 13 tells us which kinds of works can get copyright protection in India. Copyright is not for every work, but only for certain categories.
1. Categories of works covered
According to Section 13(1), copyright exists in:
-
Original Literary Works
- Books, articles, poems, computer programs, compilations.
- Case law: University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd. (1916) – originality does not mean novelty; it means the work must come from the author and not be copied.
-
Original Dramatic Works
- Plays, scripts, choreographic works.
- Example: A drama written by someone will get protection, but performing an old folk story without new expression won’t.
-
Original Musical Works
- Musical notations, compositions (not sound recordings).
- Case law: Indian Performing Right Society v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (1977, SC) – music composer has rights even if his composition is used in a film.
-
Original Artistic Works
- Paintings, drawings, photographs, sculptures, architectural works, engravings.
- Case law: Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005, Delhi HC) – artist’s copyright and moral rights protected when his mural was destroyed.
-
Cinematograph Films
- Movies, short films, documentaries.
- Includes both visuals and sound.
-
Sound Recordings
- Songs, audio recordings, audiobooks.
2. Conditions for subsistence
- Work must be original (not copied).
- Work must be expressed in material form (ideas are not protected).
- Work must belong to an Indian citizen, or a country that is a member of an international convention (like Berne Convention).
3. What is NOT protected?
- Ideas, methods, facts.
- Names, titles, short phrases.
- Works that have lost copyright after the term expired.
Case law: R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978, SC) – ideas are free; only expression is protected.
4. Important Case Laws under Section 13
- Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008, SC) – Copyright in law reports: headnotes not protected unless they show skill and judgment.
- Macmillan & Co. v. K. & J. Cooper (1924, PC) – Mere selection of passages in a guidebook without creativity not original.
- Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey (1984, SC) – Sound recording rights recognized; copyright is a statutory right.
Case Laws Related to Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957
1. University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd. (1916, UK)
- Facts: Question papers for an examination were copied by another publisher.
- Issue: Can exam papers be considered “literary works”?
- Held: Yes. Copyright subsists in exam papers. "Original" means that the work originated from the author, not that it must be novel.
- Relevance to Sec. 13: Clarifies the test of originality – originality = independent skill and effort, not necessarily new invention.
2. Macmillan & Co. v. K. & J. Cooper (1924, Privy Council)
- Facts: A book compiled from Shakespeare’s works was published with notes and summaries. Another publisher copied it.
- Issue: Can a compilation of pre-existing works get copyright?
- Held: Copyright exists in compilations only if there is sufficient skill, labor, and judgment. Mere selection of extracts without originality is not enough.
- Relevance: Supports Section 13’s idea that only original works get copyright.
3. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008, Supreme Court of India)
- Facts: Eastern Book Company published Supreme Court Cases (SCC) with headnotes and formatting. D.B. Modak copied them.
- Issue: Are headnotes and formatting “original literary works”?
- Held: Copyediting requires skill and judgment, but not enough creativity for copyright. Headnotes with interpretation may qualify.
- Relevance: Defined originality in India → “Skill and judgment test” (higher than “sweat of the brow,” lower than “creativity test”).
4. R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978, Supreme Court of India)
- Facts: Plaintiff wrote a play “Hum Hindustani” on communal harmony. Defendant made a film “New Delhi” with a similar theme.
- Issue: Does copying an idea amount to copyright infringement?
- Held: No. Only expression of idea is protected, not the idea itself.
- Relevance: Supports Sec. 13 principle → copyright subsists in expression, not ideas.
5. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (1977, SC)
- Facts: Music composers claimed rights over their compositions used in films. Producers argued they had full rights.
- Issue: Do composers retain rights after assigning them for films?
- Held: Producers have rights in the film as a whole, but composers also retain separate copyright in their music (unless fully assigned).
- Relevance: Explains that multiple copyrights can coexist under Section 13 (literary/musical + cinematograph).
6. Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey (1984, SC)
- Facts: Foreign sound recordings were imported without permission.
- Issue: Does Indian copyright law protect foreign works?
- Held: Yes. Works from countries in international conventions (e.g., Berne) are protected.
- Relevance: Shows Section 13’s scope → protection extends to foreign works under international law.
7. Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005, Delhi HC)
- Facts: A moral created by artist Amarnath Sehgal for Vigyan Bhavan was removed and damaged by the government.
- Issue: Do moral rights and copyright exist in artistic works?
- Held: Yes. Copyright and moral rights (Sec. 57) protect artistic works. Government liable for destruction.
- Relevance: Confirms artistic works under Section 13 are protected even against destruction.
- University of London (1916) → originality test.
- Macmillan v. Cooper (1924) → compilations need originality.
- DB Modak (2008) → Indian originality standard = “skill & judgment.”
- R.G. Anand (1978) → idea v. expression.
- IPRS v. Eastern Motion Pictures (1977) → multiple copyrights.
- Gramophone Co. (1984) → international protection.
- Amarnath Sehgal (2005) → artistic works & moral rights.
Comments
Post a Comment