---

COPYRIGHTABLE WORKS –

The Copyright Act, 1957 protects certain types of intellectual creations. These creations are called “copyrightable works.”
They must satisfy originality, creativity, and fixation (must be recorded or written somewhere).

---

1. Literary Works – Section 2(o)

Meaning:
Any work expressed in words, numbers, symbols, or codes.

Examples

• Books, novels, poems
• Question papers
• Computer programs
• Tables, compilations
• Online content, blogs
• Legal acts, notes

Key Point

Literary work protects expression, not ideas.

Case Law

✔ R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978)

Court held: Copyright protects expression, not theme/idea.

---

2. Dramatic Works – Section 2(h)

Meaning:
Works meant for performance on stage.

Examples

• Plays
• Screenplays
• Choreography (if written down)
• Drama scripts

Case Law

✔ Academy of General Education v. B. Malini Mallya (2009)

Dramatic work = must be written/recorded; not mere oral ideas.

---

3. Musical Works – Section 2(p)

Meaning:
Musical composition — notes, notation, tune (not singer’s performance).

Examples

• Sheet music
• Musical notations
• Original tune created by a composer

Case Law

✔ Gramophone Company v. Super Cassettes (2010)

Musical work is independent from sound recording.

---

4. Artistic Works – Section 2(c)

Meaning:
Visual art works.

Examples

• Paintings
• Drawings
• Maps
• Diagrams
• Logos
• Photographs
• Sculptures
• Architectural plans

Case Law

✔ Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2009)

Even textile designs can be artistic works if not mass-produced.

---

5. Cinematograph Films – Section 2(f)

Meaning:
Any visual recording + sounds synchronized with it.

Examples

• Movies
• Short films
• Web series
• Video reels
• Documentaries
• Music videos

Case Law

✔ Indian Performing Rights Society v. Eastern India Motion Pictures (1977)

Film producer becomes first owner of the film copyright.

---

6. Sound Recordings – Section 2(xx)

Meaning:
Any recording of sound from which the sound can be reproduced.

Examples

• Audio songs
• Podcasts
• Recorded speeches
• Background music
• Instrumental recordings

Case Law

✔ Gramophone Co. of India v. Super Cassette Industries (1999)

Sound recording is a separate copyright, independent of the underlying music.

---

7. Computer Programs – Section 2(o) (included under literary work)

Meaning:
Software, apps, algorithms written in code form.

Case Law

✔ TCS v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)

Court held software is goods and copyright protects it as literary work.

---

8. Cinematograph, Music & Literary Works Used Together

When different works are combined (example: a movie uses songs and scripts), each work has separate copyright.

Case Law

✔ Eastern Motion Pictures case (1977)

Film producer owns film rights, but composer/lyricist retain underlying rights.

---

9. Requirement for Copyright Protection

Requirement	Meaning
Originality	New expression (not copied)
Fixation	Must be written/recorded somewhere
Creativity	Even minimal creativity is enough

Case Law (Originality)

✔ Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008)

Introduced “modicum of creativity” test.

---

10. Works NOT Protected by Copyright

• Ideas, concepts, themes
• Names or titles alone
• Slogans (if too common)
• Government judgments (bare text)
• Facts, data
• Short phrases
• Mathematical equations

Case Law

✔ R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films — ideas not protected.
✔ Govt. of India v. Naveen Jindal — no copyright in flag design.

---

11. Term of Copyright (Quick Exam Note)

• Literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works: Life of author + 60 years
• Films & sound recordings: 60 years from publication
• Photographs (after amendment): 60 years
• Government works: 60 years from first publication

---

Conclusion

Copyright protects original creative expression across multiple categories like literary, musical, artistic works, films, sound recordings, and software.
Indian courts have consistently interpreted copyright to protect creativity, labour, and skill, while preventing monopolies over simple ideas or facts.

---

TOP IMPORTANT CASE LAWS ON COPYRIGHTABLE WORKS – DETAILED ANALYSIS

---

1. R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978)

Category: Literary & Dramatic Works
Principle: Idea vs Expression Doctrine

Facts:

• R.G. Anand wrote a drama called “Hum Hindustani”.
• A film “New Delhi” had a similar theme.
• He claimed the film copied his drama.

Issue:

Whether copying the idea of a story amounts to copyright infringement?

Judgment:

Supreme Court held:

• Copyright protects only the expression, not the idea.
• If two works are based on the same idea but expressed differently, there is no infringement.

Importance:

This case is the foundation for deciding whether literary and dramatic works are copied.

---

2. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008)

Category: Literary Work (Law reports, headnotes, editorial work)
Principle: Modicum of Creativity Test

Facts:

• SCC journal claimed copyright over headnotes and case summaries.
• DB Modak copied the same for CD-based law reports.

Issue:

What level of originality is required for copyright?

Judgment:

• India follows “modicum of creativity” (minimal creativity).
• Bare text of judgments is not copyrightable.
• Editors’ headnotes are copyrightable as they involve skill + judgment.

Importance:

Established that originality ≠ labour alone; must have some creativity.

---

3. University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press (1916)

Category: Literary Work (Exam papers)

Facts:

• Question papers were copied without permission.

Judgment:

• Exam papers are literary works.
• Creativity is not required to be “high level”; skill and judgment are enough.

Importance:

Used widely to define literary works even in Indian courts.

---

4. Macmillan v. Cooper (1923)

Category: Literary Work (Edited books)

Facts:

• Editor added notes to classical work.
• Another publisher copied it.

Held:

• Editing, arranging, annotating = original work.

Importance:

Shows that even derivative creative work gets copyright.

---

5. Academy of General Education v. B. Malini Mallya (2009)

Category: Dramatic Works

Facts:

• Dance drama was orally taught but not written down.
• Dispute over copying.

Judgment:

• Dramatic works must be written, recorded, or fixed.
• Oral ideas are not protected.

Importance:

Fixation of dramatic works is mandatory.

---

6. Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) v. Eastern India Motion Pictures (1977)

Category: Cinematograph Film, Literary, Musical works

Facts:

• Producers used songs composed by lyricists and composers in films.
• Question: Who owns copyright? Producer or composer?

Held:

• Producer is first owner of the film but does not own underlying musical/composition rights.
• Underlying works (lyrics, music) remain with original authors unless assigned.

Importance:

Shows separate copyrights in songs, music, and films.

---

7. Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries (1999, 2010)

Category: Sound Recordings

Facts:

• Dispute on whether sound recording is separate from music composition.

Held:

• Sound recording = independent copyright.
• Even if underlying music is copyrighted separately.

Importance:

Defines the independent protection of sound recordings.

---

8. Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2009)

Category: Artistic Works (Designs on fabric)

Facts:

• Fabric designs were copied by another company.
• Question: Artistic work or industrial design?

Held:

• Artistic work is protected when:
  • Not mass produced,
  • Has original artistic quality.

Importance:

Clarifies the line between designs and artistic works.

---

9. Walter v. Lane (1900)

Category: Literary Works (Reports of speeches)

Facts:

• Reporter wrote down speeches in shorthand.
• Another party copied these.

Held:

• Reporter’s transcripts are literary works due to labour + skill.

Importance:

Skill + labour + judgment create literary copyright.

---

10. TCS v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)

Category: Computer Programs (Literary work)

Facts:

• Issue: Is software “goods”?
• Does copyright protect software?

Held:

• Software is goods.
• Computer program is a literary work protected under copyright.

Importance:

Confirms strong protection for software.

---

11. Yashraj Films v. Sri Sai Ganesh Productions (2014)

Category: Cinematograph Films

Facts:

• Film scenes and storyline copied.

Held:

• Copying substantial part = infringement
• Even if not copied scene-by-scene.

Importance:

Defines “substantial similarity” in films.

---

12. Gov’t of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004)

Category: Artistic Work (Indian Flag)

Facts:

• Question: Is the Indian flag a copyrighted artistic work?

Held:

• No copyright in national symbols.

Importance:

Some works are excluded due to public interest.

---

HOW TO USE THESE CASE LAWS IN EXAM? (GUIDE)

When writing an answer on copyrightable works, add case laws like this:

• For Literary works → R.G. Anand, EBC v. Modak
• For Dramatic works → Malini Mallya case
• For Artistic works → Microfibres case
• For Filmmaking → IPRS v. Eastern Motion Pictures
• For Sound recording → Gramophone Co. case
• For Software → TCS case

Using 5–7 case laws in a 14-mark answer guarantees high scoring.

---