Section 14 of Copyright Act, 1957 –
Definition (Easy Language):
Section 14 gives the owner of a copyrighted work exclusive rights to control how their work is used. Copyright is not just the right to copy; it’s a bundle of rights to reproduce, perform, adapt, or distribute the work.
🔹 Rights under Section 14
1️⃣ Literary, Dramatic, Musical Works (including computer programs)
The owner can:
- Reproduce the work (copy in any form, including digital).
- Issue copies to the public.
- Perform the work in public.
- Translate or adapt the work.
- For computer programs: Sell, rent, or license the program.
2️⃣ Artistic Works
The owner can:
- Reproduce the work (painting, sculpture, drawing).
- Communicate to the public.
- Include in cinematograph films.
- Adapt the work.
3️⃣ Cinematograph Films
- Make copies or store digitally.
- Sell or give on hire copies.
- Communicate or perform the film publicly.
4️⃣ Sound Recordings
- Make other sound recordings from the original.
- Sell or give on hire.
- Communicate or perform publicly.
⚖️ Important Case Laws & Analysis
1️⃣ R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978 SC)
- Facts: Playwriter claimed a film copied his play.
- Ruling: Copyright protects expression, not ideas.
- Significance: Section 14 safeguards how a work is expressed, not the theme or idea.
2️⃣ Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008 SC)
- Facts: Law reports with creative headnotes were copied.
- Ruling: Original headnotes protected; judgments are public property.
- Significance: Highlights originality requirement in literary works under Section 14.
3️⃣ Indian Performing Rights Society v. Eastern India Motion Pictures (1977 SC)
- Facts: Songs used in films without consent.
- Ruling: Producers hold copyright in film version; composers retain music rights.
- Significance: Shows separate rights for musical vs cinematograph works.
4️⃣ Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd. (1989 Del HC)
- Facts: Biography using public letters/speeches.
- Ruling: Protected if author shows skill, labour, judgment.
- Significance: Originality can exist even with pre-existing sources.
5️⃣ Tips Industries v. Wynk Music (2019 Bom HC)
- Facts: Songs streamed without license.
- Ruling: Streaming without authorization is infringement.
- Significance: Section 14 includes digital communication to public rights.
6️⃣ Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company (2003 Del HC)
- Facts: Technical brochures/designs allegedly copied.
- Ruling: Original brochures and drawings are protected.
- Significance: Section 14 protects visual/industrial works with creativity.
7️⃣ Govind v. D.K. Anand (1999 Del HC)
- Facts: Musical plagiarism claim.
- Ruling: Substantial copying must be proven; minor similarities not infringement.
- Significance: Section 14 protects substantial expression, not generic ideas.
8️⃣ University of Delhi v. Kamal Singh (2006 Del HC)
- Facts: Student photocopied study material.
- Ruling: Non-commercial educational use may fall under fair dealing, commercial copying is infringement.
- Significance: Highlights limitations/exceptions to Section 14 rights.
Key Points
- Copyright = Exclusive Rights (not just copy).
- Expression vs Idea: Only expression is protected (R.G. Anand).
- Originality Requirement: Skill, labour, judgment matter (Najma Heptulla, EBC v. Modak).
- Different Works, Different Rights: Literary, artistic, musical, films, sound recordings.
- Digital Rights Included: Streaming, online sharing protected (Tips Industries).
- Exceptions: Fair dealing for education/research.
- Infringement Standard: Substantial copying, not mere similarity (Govind v. Anand).
Sure! Here’s a detailed, exam-friendly analysis of key case laws related to Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, focusing on facts, issues, rulings, and significance in simple language for LLB exams.
1️⃣ R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978 SC)
- Facts: Playwright R.G. Anand alleged that a film copied his play.
- Issue: Does copyright protect ideas or only the expression of ideas?
- Ruling: Copyright protects only the expression, not the ideas, concepts, or themes.
- Significance: Section 14 safeguards the original expression of works. This case is a classic example for expression vs idea distinction.
2️⃣ Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008 SC)
- Facts: EBC published law reports with creative headnotes and editorial content; Modak reproduced them.
- Issue: Are headnotes and editorial annotations copyrightable?
- Ruling: Original headnotes and editing are copyrightable; judgments themselves are public domain.
- Significance: Clarifies the originality requirement under Section 14 and shows that compilations with skill and labour are protected.
3️⃣ Indian Performing Rights Society v. Eastern India Motion Pictures (1977 SC)
- Facts: Film producers used songs without composers’ permission.
- Issue: Who owns copyright in songs used in films?
- Ruling: Producers can hold copyright in the film version of songs with consent; composers retain rights in the underlying musical composition.
- Significance: Highlights distinct rights for musical works and cinematograph films under Section 14.
4️⃣ Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd. (1989 Del HC)
- Facts: Biography of Maulana Azad included public speeches and letters.
- Issue: Can a biography using public sources be copyrighted?
- Ruling: Protected if the author applies skill, labour, and judgment in selection and presentation.
- Significance: Demonstrates that originality can exist even when based on pre-existing works.
5️⃣ Tips Industries v. Wynk Music (2019 Bom HC)
- Facts: Wynk Music streamed songs without a license from Tips Industries.
- Issue: Does online streaming violate copyright?
- Ruling: Streaming without authorization infringes Section 14 rights.
- Significance: Section 14 covers digital rights and communication to the public, showing its modern applicability.
6️⃣ Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company (2003 Del HC)
- Facts: Technical brochures and design drawings were allegedly copied by TVS Motor.
- Issue: Are industrial designs and brochures protected under copyright?
- Ruling: Original brochures and drawings are copyrightable under Section 14.
- Significance: Extends Section 14 protection to visual and industrial works with originality.
7️⃣ Govind v. D.K. Anand (1999 Del HC)
- Facts: Musical composition allegedly plagiarized.
- Issue: Is similarity sufficient for copyright infringement?
- Ruling: Only substantial copying constitutes infringement; minor or coincidental similarities do not.
- Significance: Sets standard for infringement under Section 14, protecting substantial expression.
8️⃣ University of Delhi v. Kamal Singh (2006 Del HC)
- Facts: Student photocopied study material for academic use.
- Issue: Is reproduction for educational purposes infringement?
- Ruling: Non-commercial educational use may fall under fair dealing; commercial copying is infringement.
- Significance: Clarifies limitations and exceptions to Section 14 rights.
Comments
Post a Comment