Skip to main content

Section 14 – Meaning of Copyright in( ipr )


Section 14 – Meaning of Copyright

What does Section 14 

  • Copyright means the exclusive right given to the author/owner of a work to do certain acts.
  • No one else can do those acts without the owner’s permission.
  • Copyright is not just one right – it is a bundle of rights.

Bundle of Rights (Depends on type of work)

1. Literary, Dramatic, Musical and Artistic Works

(Examples: books, plays, paintings, music notations)
The copyright owner has the right to:

  • Reproduce the work (make copies).
  • Issue copies to the public (publish/distribute).
  • Perform or communicate the work in public (e.g., theatre, TV, online).
  • Translate the work into another language.
  • Adapt the work (convert into another form, e.g., novel into film).

2. Computer Programs (treated as literary works)

  • Same rights as above.
  • Additional right: To sell, rent, or give on commercial rental (important to prevent software piracy).

3. Cinematograph Films

(Examples: movies, documentaries, short films)
The copyright owner has the right to:

  • Make copies of the film (including screenshots).
  • Sell or rent the film.
  • Communicate the film to the public (cinema halls, OTT platforms, TV).

4. Sound Recordings

(Examples: songs, audiobooks, podcasts)
The copyright owner has the right to:

  • Make copies of the recording.
  • Sell or rent copies.
  • Communicate the recording to the public (radio, streaming, public performance).

What Copyright Does Not Protect

  • Copyright does not protect ideas, themes, facts, methods, or procedures.
  • Only the expression of an idea (in a fixed form) is protected.

⚖️ Important Case Laws

  1. R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978, SC)

    • A play and a film had the same theme of communal harmony.
    • Court said ideas are free; only expression is protected.

  2. Indian Performing Right Society v. Eastern India Motion Pictures (1977, SC)

    • Music composers retain their rights even after music is used in films.
    • Film producers don’t get unlimited rights over songs.

  3. Phoolan Devi v. Shekhar Kapoor (1995, Delhi HC)

    • Screening of Bandit Queen was stopped as it violated Phoolan Devi’s dignity.
    • Showed importance of moral rights linked with copyright.

  4. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Entertainment Network (2008, SC)

    • Radio stations must get licenses to broadcast music.
    • Reinforced that public communication rights belong to copyright owners.


Case Key Facts Principle


R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films Play copied into film Copyright protects expression, not ideas

EBC v. D.B. Modak Reproduction of law report headnotes Original editorial content protected

IPRS v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Songs in films Separate rights for musical and film works

Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Biography from public sources Originality in selection/presentation

Tips Industries v. Wynk Music Unauthorized online streaming Communication to public included in Section 14

Bajaj Auto v. TVS Motor Technical brochures copied Industrial designs with originality protected

Govind v. D.K. Anand Musical plagiarism claim Substantial copying required for infringement

University of Delhi v. Kamal Singh Student photocopying material Fair dealing exception recognized




---


If you want, I can also create a visually organized “LLB exam ready” version of Section 14 case laws with bullet points, short case summaries, and key principles so you can write in 1–2 minutes in the exam.


Do you want me to do that?


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

UPSI Syllabus 2025 & Exam pattern 2025

UP SI 2025 Exam Pattern Subject Questions Marks General Hindi 40 100 Law/Constitution & General Knowledge 40 100 Numerical & Mental Ability Test 40 100 Mental Aptitude/Intelligence/Reasoning 40 100 Total 160 400 Exam Mode : Online (CBT) Duration : 2 hours (120 minutes) Negative Marking : No Qualifying Marks : Minimum 35% in each subject and 50% overall Subject-Wise Syllabus 1. General Hindi समास, संधि, वाक्यांश के लिए एक शब्द पर्यायवाची, विलोम शब्द मुहावरे और लोकोक्तियाँ रस, अलंकार, छंद वाक्य संशोधन, वर्तनी अपठित गद्यांश (Comprehension) हिंदी साहित्य के प्रमुख लेखक और रचनाएँ 2. Law, Constitution & General Knowledge A. General Knowledge भारत का इतिहास और स्वतंत्रता संग्राम भूगोल (भारत और विश्व) विज्ञान और तकनीक करेंट अफेयर्स पुरस्कार, किताबें और लेखक महत्वपूर्ण राष्ट्रीय/अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संगठन खेलकूद, राजनीति, अर्थव्यवस्था B. Indian Constitution & Law संविधान की विशेषताएँ मौलिक अधिकार और कर्तव...
Post a Comment
Read more

Arrest under BNSS 2023: Grounds, Sections, and Case Laws

Bare act provision  Arrest by private person [section 40] Section 40 lays down the circumstances  when a private person can arrest and procedure on such arrest Circumstances in which a private person can arrest: Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested who in the presence of private person. i) commits a non - bailable and           cognizable offence. ii) Any proclaimed offender. 2: Arrest by magistrate section 41 The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023), enacted to replace the colonial-era Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), brings a renewed focus on balancing citizen rights and policing powers . Arrest, being a powerful tool in the hands of law enforcement, is rightly placed under scrutiny in BNSS 2023. Let’s break down what "arrest" means under this new law, the grounds under which it can occur, and the protective safeguards embedded within. What is Arrest Arrest is the legal restraint of a person’s libe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Smith v Hughes (1959): A Landmark Case on Interpreting the Law

Smith v Hughes (1959): Introduction The case of Smith v Hughes (1959) is one of the most iconic examples in English law that demonstrates the Mischief Rule of statutory interpretation. At first glance, it may seem like a simple case involving a street solicitor (a prostitute), but it ended up clarifying how judges should interpret the true purpose of a law. Facts of the Case Mrs. Smith, the defendant, was a prostitute. However, unlike many others, she wasn’t soliciting from the street. Instead, she operated from inside her apartment in London. She would call out or attract clients through her window or by tapping on the glass, facing the public street below. She was charged under Section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959 , which says: “It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution.” Now here's the twist: Smith argued she wasn’t in the street , so she claimed the law didn’t apply to her ...
Post a Comment
Read more