Eastern
Book Company & Ors. Vs. D.B. Modak & Anr. [2007] Insc 1260 (12 December 2007)
B.N.
Agrawal & P.P. Naolekar
[with
Civil Appeal No. 6905 of 2004 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 158 of 2006 in
Civil Appeal No. 6472 of 2004] P.P. Naolekar, J.
1. These
appeals by special leave have been preferred against the common judgment of a
Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi involving the analogous question and
are, therefore, decided together by this judgment.
2.
Appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is a registered partnership firm carrying
on the business of publishing law books. Appellant No. 2 EBC Publishing Pvt.
Ltd. is a company incorporated and existing under the Companies Act, 1956. The
said appellants are involved in the printing and publishing of various books
relating to the field of law. One of the well-known publications of appellant
No. 1 Eastern Book Company is the law report Supreme Court Cases
(hereinafter called SCC). The appellant publishes all reportable
judgments along with non-reportable judgments of the Supreme Court of India.
Yet
another category included in SCC is short judgments, orders, practice
directions and record of proceedings. The law report SCC was commenced in the
year 1969 and has been in continuous publication ever since. The name
Supreme Court Cases has been coined by the appellants and they have
been using the same continuously, exclusively and extensively in relation to
the law reports published by them. For the purpose of publishing the judgments,
orders and proceedings of the Supreme Court, the copies of judgments, orders
and proceedings are procured from the office of the Registrar of the Supreme
Court of India.
After
the initial procurement of the judgments, orders and proceedings for
publication, the appellants make copy- editing wherein the judgments, orders
and record of proceedings procured, which is the raw source, are copy- edited
by a team of assistant staff and various inputs are put in the judgments and
orders to make them user friendly by making an addition of cross-references,
standardization or formatting of the text, paragraph numbering, verification
and by putting other inputs. The appellants also prepare the headnotes
comprising of two portions, the short note consisting of catch/lead words
written in bold;
and
the long note, which is comprised of a brief discussion of the facts and the
relevant extracts from the judgments and orders of the Court. Headnotes are
prepared by appellant No. 3-Surendra Malik. As per the said appellant (plaintiff
No. 3 in the suits filed in the Delhi High Court), the preparation of the headnotes
and putting the various inputs in the raw text of the judgments and orders
received from the Supreme Court Registry require considerable amount of skill, labour
and expertise and for the said work a substantial amount of capital expenditure
on the infrastructure, such as office, equipment, computers and for maintaining
extensive library, besides recurring expenditure on both the management of
human resources and infrastructural maintenance, is made by the plaintiff-
appellants. As per the appellants, SCC is a law report which carries case
reports comprising of the appellants version or presentation of those
judgments and orders of the Supreme Court after putting various inputs in the
raw text and it constitutes an `original literary work of the appellants
in which copyright subsists under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thus the appellants alone
have the exclusive right to make printed as well as electronic copies of the
same under Section 14 of the Act. Any scanning or copying or reproduction done
of or from the reports or pages or paragraphs or portions of any volume of SCC
by any other person, is an infringement of the copyright in SCC within the
meaning of Section 51 of the Act.
3. The
defendant-respondent No. 2 Spectrum Business Support Ltd. (in Civil Appeal No.
6472/2004) has brought out a software called Grand Jurix published on
CD-ROMs and the defendant-respondent No. 2 Regent Data Tech Pvt.
Ltd.
(in Civil Appeal No. 6905/2004) has brought out software package called
The Laws published on CD-ROMs.
As per
the appellants, all the modules in the defendant- respondents software
packages have been lifted verbatim from the appellants work; the
respondents have copied the appellants sequencing, selection and
arrangement of the cases coupled with the entire text of copy-edited judgments
as published in the plaintiff-appellants law report SCC, along with and
including the style and formatting, the copy-editing paragraph numbers,
footnote numbers, cross- references, etc.; and such acts of the defendant-
respondents constitute infringement of the plaintiff- appellants exclusive
right to the same.
4. The
plaintiff-appellants herein moved the Court for temporary injunction by filing
applications in Suit No.758/2000 against Spectrum Business Support Ltd. and in
Suit No. 624/2000 against Regent Data Tech Pvt. Ltd. before a learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Delhi. The interim orders of injunction were passed
in the suits from time to time. However, the defendant-respondents filed
application for vacation of the stay order. By a common judgment dated
17.1.2001, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appellants
applications for interim injunction and allowed the respondents
application for vacation of stay. However, before the Single Judge, the
respondents conceded that the appellants have copyright in the headnotes and as
such they undertook not to copy these headnotes in their CD-ROMs.
5.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.1.2001 refusing to grant interim
injunction, the appellants preferred appeals before a Division Bench of the
Delhi High Court and the applications praying for interim relief were also filed
in both the appeals. The applications praying for the interim relief were
disposed of by the Division Bench on 9.3.2001 directing that during the pendency
of the appeals the respondents will be entitled to sell their CD- ROMs with the
text of the judgment of the Supreme Court along with their own headnotes which
should not in any way be a copy of the headnotes and the text of the plaintiff-
appellants.
6. The
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court heard the matters finally and has held
that the appellants are not right in submitting that although the respondents
have a right to publish the raw judgments they could do so only after obtaining
the same from the original source, i.e. after obtaining certified copy of the
judgment. The Division Bench did not agree with the submission of the
appellants that by making certain corrections in the judgments or putting
paragraph numbers or arranging the said judgments in a particular manner while
printing, the appellants can claim that the copy-edited judgments become their
original literary work. If the right of a person like the appellants
who are merely reporting the judgments of the courts is stretched to this
extent, then after a judgment is reported by a particular journal, others would
be barred from doing the same and the very purpose of making these judgments in
public domain, therefore, would be frustrated. The Court has further held that
the appellants are not the author of the Supreme Court judgments and by merely
making certain corrections therein or giving paragraph numbers, the character
of a judgment does not change and it does not become materially different from
the original judgment. Once a person has a right to obtain certified copy of
the judgment from the Registry of the Court and to publish it, it cannot be
said that he has no right to take text of the judgment from the journal where
it is already reported. The act of reproduction of any judgment or order of the
Court, Tribunal or any other judicial authority under Section 52(1)(q) of the
Act, is not an infringement of the copyright. Any person can, therefore,
publish judgments of the Courts. The appellants may have happened to have first
published the judgments, but the same will not mean that they can have a
copyright therein. It is the considered opinion of the Division Bench that no
person can claim copyright in the text of the judgment by merely putting
certain inputs to make it user friendly. The appellants cannot claim copyright
in the judgment of the Court. But it has been held by the Court that reading
the judgment and searching the important portions thereof and collecting
sentences from various places for the purposes of making headnotes would
involve labour and skill; and that there is originality and creativity in
preparation of the headnotes, but not when they are verbatim extracts from the
judgment and, therefore, there would be copyright in the headnotes to the
judgments prepared by the appellants. So far as footnotes and editorial notes
are concerned, it cannot be denied that these are the publishers own
creations and based on publishers own research and thus will have a
copyright of the appellants. The Division Bench modified the judgment of the
Single Judge by directing the respondents that they shall be entitled to sell
their CD-ROMs with the text of the judgments of the Supreme Court along with
there own headnotes, editorial notes, if any, which should not in any way be
copy of the headnotes of the appellants. The respondents shall also not copy
the footnotes and editorial notes appearing in the journal of the appellants.
Thus, the Court has not accepted the case of the appellants that they have a
copyright in the copy-edited judgments of the Supreme Court. Aggrieved by the
decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, the appellants have filed
these appeals by special leave.
7. The
appellants have claimed that the copyright subsists in SCC as a law report as a
whole based cumulatively and compendiously on all the substantial contributions
of skill, labour and capital in the creation of various parts of SCC, i.e., headnotes,
editorial notes, footnotes, the version of the copy-edited text of judgments as
published in the appellants law report SCC, the selection of cases as
published in SCC, the sequence and arrangement of cases as published in SCC and
the index, table of cases, etc. which are published in each volume of SCC, that
give it the SCC volumes and thereby complete SCC set, its character as a work
as a whole. The appellants claim that the copyright subsists in the copy-edited
version. The appellants do not claim copyright in the raw text of the
judgments, certified copies of which are obtained from the Registry. The
appellants do not claim a monopoly in publishing judgments of the Supreme Court
as they are being published by other publishers also without copying from each
other publication. The appellants claim that their copyright is in the
copy-edited version of the text of judgments as published in SCC which is a
creation of the appellants skill, labour and capital and there are
contributions/inputs/ additions of the appellants in creating their version of
the text of judgments as published in SCC. The appellants placed before us the
following contributions, inputs and additions made by them to the text in the
certified copies of the judgments received by them from the Registry. The
appellants assert that originality inheres in the following aspects of its
editorial process which are selected, coordinated and arranged in such a way
that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of the
appellants.
1.
Cross-citations are added to the citations(s) already given in the original
text For example, a. SCC/AIR/LLJ citations added in addition to the SCR
citation given in the text and cross- citations separated by : Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
Corresponding
citations from SCC Page:
R. Chitralakha
and Anr. v. State of Mysore & Ors. 1964 (6) SCR 368 at 388 and Triloki Nath
v. J.& K State 1969 (1) SCR 103 at 105 and K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. Karnataka
1985 Supp. (1) SCR 352 R. Chitralakha v. State of Mysore and Triloki Nath v. State of J & K (II) and K. C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka. (1964) 6 SCR 368, 388: AIR 1964 SC
1823 (1969) 1 SCR 103, 105: AIR 1969 SC 1: (1970) 1 LLJ 629 1985 Supp SCC 714:
1985 Supp 1 SCR 352 b. FCR, IA, Bom LR citations added in addition to the AIR citation given in raw
text and cross- citations separated by : Raw text obtained from
Registry:
SCC
Page:
Corresponding
citations from SCC Page:
Dr
Hori Ram Singh vs. Emperor (AIR 1938 FC 43), Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs.
The King (AIR 1948 PC 82), Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli vs. State of Bombay
(AIR 1955 SC 287) Hori Ram Singh (Dr) v. Emperor, Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka
v. R.,Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay.
AIR
1939 FC 43: 1939 FCR 159 AIR 1948 PC 82: 75 IA 30 AIR 1955 SC 287: 57 Bom LR
632
2. (a)
Names of cases and cross-citations are added where only the citation of the
case is given in the original text.
For
example, Citation alone given in text replaced with full case name: M.P.
Oil Extraction (P) Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Jab LJ cross-citation added
to AIR citation already in raw text, and separated by : Raw text
obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
Corresponding
citation from SCC Page:
The
said decision has been reported in AIR 1982 M.P. 1.
The
said decision has been reported in M.P. Oil Extraction (P) Ltd. v. State of M.P.
AIR
1982 MP 1: 1982 Jab LJ 795 2(b). Citations and cross-citations are added where
only name of the case is given in the original text.
For
example Name of case in text replaced with full case reference and cross-
citations added as per SCC style.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
Corresponding
citation from SCC Page:
Division
Bench of this Court in Kishan Lal Sharma (supra).
Division
Bench of this Court in Kishan Lal Sharma.
Kishan
Lal Sharma v. Prem Kishore, AIR 1983 Raj 100:
1983 Raj
LR 164 d) Among the pensioners also, the above anomaly will prevail as pointed
out in Janaki Prasad.
(d)
Among the pensioners also, the above anomaly will prevail as pointed out in Janaki
Prasad.
Janaki
Prasad Parimoo v. State of J & K, (1973) 1 SCC 420 2(c). Citation inserted
in case-history where only the title and year of the impugned/earlier orders
are given.
For
example, From the Judgment and Order dated June 17, 1980 of Gujarat High Court in Special
Civil Application No. 2711 of 1999: AIR 1981 Guj 15
3. SCC
style of presenting (repeatedly) cited cases For example, Changes have been
made in the name of the cited cases as per SCC style as Rattan Singhs
case (supra);
Mohammads
case (supra) and Range Forest Officers case in the raw
text consecutively changed to Ratan Singh case; Mohammed case
and Range Forest Officer case in SCC.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
In
Rattan Singhs case (supra), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh finding
certain illegalities in the prosecution relating to setting aside In
Mohammads case (supra), the observation of the Kerela High Court that
if a clear illegality or injustice comes to the notice of the High Court
In the third case relied on by Justice M.K. Chawla, namely, Range Forest
Officers case, a vehicle belonging to the respondent was confiscated.
140.
In Ratan Singh case the High Court of Madhya Pradesh finding certain
illegalities in the prosecution relating to setting aside 141. In Mohammed
case, the observations of the Kerela High Court that if a clear illegality
or injustice comes to the notice of the High Court 142. In the third case relied
on by Justice M.K. Chawla, namely, Range Forest Officer case a vehicle
belonging to the respondent was confiscated.
* The
changes have been underlined.
4.
Precise references to quoted matter are provided For example, a. The exact page
and paragraph number as in the original case source is inserted.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
In Balaji
it is stated:
It
seems fairly clear that the backward classes of citizens for whom special
provision After referring to the provisions of Articles 338(3), 340 (1), 341
and 342, the Court proceeded to hold as follows:
It
would thus be seen that this provision contemplates that some Backward Classes
may by the Presidential order be included In Balaji it is stated: (SCR p. 458)
It seems fairly clear that the backward classes of citizens for whom
special provision After referring to the provisions of Articles 338(3), 340(1),
341 and 342, the Court proceeded to hold as follows: (SCR p.458) It would
thus be seen that this provision contemplates that some Backward Classes may by
the Presidential order be included It may be appropriate to quote the relevant
holding from the judgment:
When
Art. 15(4) refers to the special provision for the advancement of certain
classes or scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, it must not be ignored that
the provision which is authorised to be made It may be appropriate to quote the
relevant holding from the judgment: (SCR pp.467, 470) When Article 15(4)
refers to the special provision for the advancement of certain classes or
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it must not be ignored that the
provision which is authorised to be made The Privy Council observed:
It
may be well to add that their Lordships judgment does not imply that every sum
paid under mistake is recoverable The Privy Council observed:
(IA
p.302, para 17) It may be well to add that their Lordships judgment
does not imply that every sum paid under mistake is recoverable * The changes
have been highlighted b. The exact page and paragraph number as in the original
treatises/reference material is inserted.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
is
very instructive, Supposing, for instance, reservations were made for a
community or a collection of communities, the total of which is very
instructive: (CAD, Vol. 7, pp. 701-02) Supposing, for instance,
reservations were made for a community or a collection of communities, the
total of which is a community which is backward in the opinion of the
Government. is a community which is backward in the opinion of the
Government. (CAD, Vol. 7, pp. 702) * The changes have been highlighted.
5.
Margin headings are added to quoted extracts from statutes/rules etc. when
missing.
For
example, Section number and Margin Heading of the Section have been supplied.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page: deals with sovereignty over, and limits of, territorial waters and says:
(1)
The sovereignty of India extends and has always extended to
the territorial waters of India
(hereinafter referred to as the territorial waters) and to the seabed and
subsoil underlying, and the air space over such waters. deals with sovereignty
over, and limits of, territorial waters and says:
3.
Sovereignty over, and limits of, territorial waters.-(1) The sovereignty of
India extends and has always extended to the territorial waters of India
(hereinafter referred to as the territorial waters) and to the seabed and
subsoil underlying, and the air space over such waters.
It
says:
(1)
All lands, minerals and other things of value underlying the ocean within the
territorial waters, or the continental shelf, or the exclusive economic zone,
of India shall vest in the Union and be held for the purpose of the Union.
It
says:
297.
Things of value within territorial waters or continental shelf and resources of
the exclusive economic zone to vest in the Union.- (1) All lands, minerals and
other things of value underlying the ocean within the territorial waters, or
the continental shelf, or the exclusive economic zone, of India shall vest in
the Union and be held for the purpose of the Union.
That
article reads as under:
19(1)
All citizens shall have the right That Article reads as under:
19.
Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.- (1) All
citizens shall have the right
6.
Number of the section/rule/article/paragraph is added to the extract quoted in
the original text For example, The sub-section numbers have been added to the
text.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
The
said provision reads as under:
Where
a landlord has acquired his interest in the premises by transfer, no suit for
the recovery of possession of the premises on any of the grounds mentioned in
clause (f) or clause (ff) of The said provision reads as under:
13.
(3-A) where a landlord has acquired his interest in the premises by transfer,
no suit for the recovery of possession of the premises on any of the grounds
mentioned in clause (f) or clause (ff) of The said sub-section reads as under:
If,
in the course of any trial under this Act of any offence, it is found that the
accused person has committed any other offence under this Act or any rule made thereunder
or under any other law, The said sub-section reads as under:
12.
(2) If, in the course of any trial under this Act of any offence, it is found
that the accused person has committed any other offence under this Act or any
rule made thereunder or under any other law, For convenience, we reproduce the
sub-section here:
Any
person who is a member of a terrorists gang or a terrorists organization, which
is For convenience, we reproduce the sub-section here:
3.
(5) Any person who is a member of a terrorists gang or a terrorists
organization, which is Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of TADA reads thus:
whoever
harbours or conceals, or attempts to harbour or conceal, any terrorist shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years
but Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of TADA reads thus:
3. (4) Whoever harbours or conceals, or attempts to harbour or conceal, any
terrorist shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than five years but Section 2 (1) (i) of the TADA which reads thus:-
Words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the
code shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Code
Indian Penal Code by the following words in clause y of Section 2 of the Code:
words
and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Indian Penal
Code Section 2 (1) (i) of TADA which reads thus:
2.
(1) (i) words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in
the Code shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Code
Indian Penal Code by the following words in clause y of Section 2 of
the Code:
2. (y) words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the
Indian Penal Code
7.
Phrases like concurring, partly concurring, partly
dissenting, dissenting, supplementing, majority
expressing no opinion etc. are added to the original text.
For
example, Words like partly dissenting and partly concurring
have been added as per the application of Editors judgement regarding the
opinions expressed by the Judges.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
D.P. Wadhwa
J I agree that the appeal be dismissed. However, I D. P. WADHWA, J.- (partly
concurring) I agree that the appeal be dismissed.
However,
I S.C. AGRAWAL J.
Special
leave granted.
AGRAWAL,
J. (partly dissenting) Special leave granted.
KOSHAL,
J.
On a
perusal of the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Krishna Iyer, J., I
agree respectfully with findings (2) to (11), (13) and (14) enumerated by him Koshal,
J. (partly dissenting) On a perusal of the judgment prepared by my learned
brother, Krishna Iyer, J., I agree respectfully with findings (2) to (11), (13)
and (14) enumerated by him
8.
Judges on whose behalf opinion given: Expression such as for himself and Pathak,
C.J., or Fazal Ali and Rangnath Mishra, JJ. etc. are added to
the original text.
For example,
A uniform style has been mentioned by SCC to take care of the fact that which
judges have signed the Judgment.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
RANGANATH
MISRA, J.
We
have had the benefit of reading the judgment passed The Judgments of the Court
were delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. (for himself and Pathak, C.J.) (concurring)
RANGANATHAN, J.
The
seeds of the present controversy were sown as early as in 1946.
The
Judgments of the Court were delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. (for himself and Ramaswami,
J.) - The seeds of the present controversy were sown as early as in 1946.
9.
Existing paragraphs in the original text are broken up and separate paragraph
numbers are given.
For
example, Existing paragraph broken up into two paragraphs and separate
paragraph number added on application of editorial judgment.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
but
the risk involved in sacrificing efficiency of administration must always be
borne in mind when any State sets about making a provision for reservation of
appointments of posts. We see no justification to multiply the
risk, which would be the consequence of holding that reservation can be
provided even in the matter of promotion.
but
the risk involved in sacrificing efficiency of administration must always be
borne in mind when any State sets about making a provision for reservation of
appointments or posts. (SCR p.606) 828. We see no justification to
multiply the risk, which would be the consequence of holding that
reservation can be provided even in the matter of promotion.
weaker
segments of We, the people of India. No
other understanding can reconcile the claim of a radical present and hangover
of the unjust past. A similar view was expressed in Vasant Kumar by Chinnappa
Reddy, J. The learned Judge said the mere securing of high marks at an
examination may not necessarily mark out a good administrator.
weaker
segments of We, the people of India. No other understanding can reconcile the claim of a radical
present and hangover of the unjust past. 833. A similar view was expressed
in Vasanth Kumar by Chinnappa Reddy, J. The learned Judge said (SCC p.
739, para
36) [T]he mere securing of high marks at an examination may not
necessarily mark out a good administrator.
MATTER
ADDED UPON VERIFICATION
10.
Internal referenceing: Use of paragaraph numbering for internal referencing
within a judgment.
For
example, Internal paragraph numbering has been added after uniform paragraph
numbering have been provided to the multiple judgments. Para 86, 85, 89, 90, 91 and 92 have been changed
respectively to Paras 790-793, 794 and 797, 798, 799, 800 and 801 to 803.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
(d)
Creamy layer can be, and must be excluded. (Para 86) (e) It is not correct to say that the backward
class, social, educational and economic backwardness are closely inter-twined
in the Indian context. (Para 85) (f) The adequacy of
representation of a particular class in the services under the State is a
matter within the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government.
The
judicial scrutiny in that behalf is the same as in other matters within the
subjective satisfaction of an authority. (Para
89) (4) (a) A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only and
exclusively with reference to economic criteria. (Para 90) (b) It is, of course, permissible for the
Government or other authority to identify a backward class of citizens on the
basis of occupation-cum-income, without reference to caste, if it is so
advised. (Para 91) (5) There is no constitutional
bar to classify the backward classes of citizens into backward and more
backward categories.
(Para 92) (d) Creamy layer can be, and must be
excluded.(Paras 790-793) (e) It is not necessary for a class to be designated
as a backward class that it is situated similarly to the Scheduled Castes/
Scheduled Tribes. (Paras 794 and 797) (f) The adequacy of representation of a
particular class in the services under the State is a matter within the
subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government.
The
judicial scrutiny in that behalf is the same as in other matters within the
subjective satisfaction of an authority. (Para
798) (4) (a) A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only and
exclusively with reference to economic criteria. (Para 799) (b) It is, of course, permissible for the
Government or other authority to identify a backward class of citizens on the
basis of occupation- cum-income, without reference to caste, if it is so
advised. (Para 800) (5) There is no constitutional
bar to classify the backward classes of citizens into backward and more
backward categories. (Para 801 to 803)
11.
Verification of first word of quoted extract and emphasis supplied on
verification.
For
example, Raw text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
The
Rajasthan High Court in CIT v Rangnath Bangur opined:
.that
once a reassessment proceeding is initiated, the original order of assessment
is set aside or ceases to be operative. The finality of such an assessment
order is wiped out and a fresh order of assessment would take the place of and
completely substitute the initial order of assessment. It is, therefore, clear
that when The Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Rangnath Bangur opined: (p.498)
[T]hat once a reassessment proceeding is initiated, the original order of
assessment is set aside or ceases to be operative. The finality of such an
assessment order is wiped out and a fresh order of assessment would take the
place of and completely substitute the initial order of assessment. It is,
therefore, clear that when and said:
reassessment
proceedings cannot be contained only to such income which has escaped
assessment, but the entire assessment and said: (p. 503) [R]eassessment
proceedings cannot be confined only to such income which has escaped
assessment, but the entire assessment Five Judges:
the
Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and it is wholly unnecessary to
provide in any law made by the legislature that anything done in disregard of
the Constitution is prohibited. Such a prohibition is to be read in every
enactment.
[T]he
Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and it is wholly unnecessary to
provide in any law made by the legislature that anything done in disregard of
the Constitution is prohibited. Such a prohibition is to be read in every
enactment. (emphasis supplied)
12.
Ellipsis is added to indicate breaks in quoted extract.
For
example, Raw text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
, he
has said that the word caste appearing after scheduled
is really a misnomer and has been used only for the purpose of identifying this
165), he has said that the word caste appearing after
scheduled is really a misnomer and has been used only for the purpose
of identifying this Gajendragadkar, J observed:
Though
castes in relation to Hindus may be a relevant factor to consider in
determining the social backwardness of groups or classes of citizens, it cannot
be the sole or the dominant test in that behalf. Gajendragadkar, J.
observed:
though
castes in relation to Hindus may be a relevant factor to consider in
determining the social backwardness of groups or classes of citizens, it cannot
be made the sole or the dominant test in that behalf. manner as may be
prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods which are produced or
manufactured in India as, and at the rates, set forth in the Schedule to the
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
manner
as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods which are produced
or manufactured in India as, and at the rates, set forth in the Schedule to
the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
13.
Matter inadvertently missed in quoted extracts is supplied.
For
example, Incorporation of matter missing in quotations from cases.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
Where
there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of
the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary to see if the
statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination
of the right Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the
remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment
becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter
case Mr Justice M.K. Chawla holding that parties have no locus standi. Mr
Justice M.K. Chawla holding that Mr. H.S. Chowdhary and other intervening
parties have no locus standi.
38.
State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people. (1)
The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and
protecting as effectively as it may a social, economic and political, shall
inform all the institutions of the national life.
38. State to
secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people.- (1) The
State The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing
and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice,
social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the
national life.
The
inputs of efficiency include a sense of belonging and of accountability (not
pejoratively used) if its composition takes in also the weaker segments of we,
the people of India.
The
inputs of efficiency include a sense of belonging and of accountability which
springs in the bosom of the bureaucracy (not pejoratively used) if its
composition takes in also the weaker segments of We, the people of India.
It
is no doubt true that the Act was amended by U.P. Act 26 of 1975 which came
into force on August
18, 1975 taking away
the power of the Director to make an appointment under Section 16 F (4) of the
Act in the case of minority institutions. The amending Act did not, however,
provide proceedings under Section 16 F of the Act.
It
is no doubt true that the Act was amended by U.P. Act 26 of 1975 which came
into force on August 18, 1975 taking away the power of the Director to make an
appointment under Section 16-F(4) of the Act in the case of minority
institutions. The amending Act did not, however, provide expressly that the
amendment in question would apply to pending proceedings under Section 16-F of
the Act.
* The
changes have been underlined.
14.
Incomplete/incorrect case names or citations are completed/corrected.
For
example, Corrections in the case names.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
In R
v. Greater London Council 1976 (3) ALL ER 184, one Albert Raymond Blackburn
73. In
R v. Greater London Council, ex parte Blackburn, one Albert Raymond Blackburn Ray, C.J. in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradeep Tandon and Ors. 1975 (2)
SCR 761 at 766 has gone to the extent of saying that:
47.
Ray, CJ in State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon has gone to the
extent of saying that:
(SCC
pp. 273-74, para 15) Reference may be made to
(1) Hindustan Zinc V. A.P. State Electricity Board 1991 (3) SCC 299;
(2) Sitaram
Sugars V. Union of India and Others 1990 (3) SCC 223;
(3)
D.C.M. v. S. Paramjit Singh 1990 (4) SCC 723;
(4)
Minerva Talkies V. State of Karnataka and
Others 1988 Suppl SCC 176;
(5)
State of Karnataka V. Ranganath Reddy 1978 (1) SCR 641;
(6) Kerala State Electricity Board V. S.N. Govind Prabhu 1986 (4) SCC;
(7) Prag
Ice Company V. Union of India and Others 1978 (2) SCC 458;
(8) Sarawaswati
Industries Syndicate Ltd. V. Union of India 1975 (1) SCR 956;
(9) Murti
Match Works V. Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Others 1974 (3) SCR 121;
(10)
T. Govindraja Mudaliar V. State of Tamil Nadu and Others 1973 (3) SCR 222; and
(11) Narender
Kumar V. Union of India and Others 1969 (2) SCR 375.
Reference
may be made to :
(1)
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board;
(2) Shri
Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India;
(3) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. S. Paramjit
Singh;
(4)
Minerva Talkies v. State of Karnataka;
(5)
State of Karnataka v. Ranganath Reddy;
(6) Kerela State Electricity Board v. S.N.Govinda Prabhu and Bros.;
(7) Prag
Ice and Oil Mills v. Union of India;
(8) Saraswati
Industries Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India;
(9)
Murthy Match Works v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise;
(10)
T. Govindaraja Mudaliar v. State of T.N.
and (11) Narender Kumar v. Union of India.
* The
changes have been underlined.
15.
Other corrections For example, a. Clauses numbered in terms of answers to
questions framed by learned Judge have been renumbered correctly in terms of
questions framed, as (3)(e) actually has been found to be answer to (3) (c) and
vice-versa.
a1.
Similarly, clause has been changed to sub- clause.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
(c) It
is not necessary for a class to be designated as a backward class that it is
situated similarly to the Schedule Castes/Tribes.
(Paras
87 and 88) (d) Creamy layer can be, and must be excluded. (Para. 86) (e) It is not correct to say that the backward
class of citizen contemplated in Article 16 (4) is the same as the socially and
educationally backward classes referred to in Article 15(4). It is much wider.
The accent in Article 16(4) is on social backwardness. Of course, social,
educational and economic backwardness are closely inter-twined in the Indian
context.
(c) It
is not correct to say that the backward class of citizen contemplated in
Article 16 (4) is the same as the socially and educationally backward classes
referred to in Article 15(4). It is much wider. The accent in Article 16(4) is
on social backwardness. Of course, social, educational and economic
backwardness are closely inter-twined in the Indian context. (Paras 786- 789)
(d) Creamy Layer can be, and must be excluded. (790- 793) (e) It is
not necessary for a class to be designated as a backward class that it is
situated similarly to the Schedule Castes/ Schedule Tribes. (Paras 794 and 797)
that no better formula could be produced than the one that is embodied in
clause (3) of Article 10 of the Constitution; they will find that the view of
those who believe and hold that there shall be that no better formula could be
produced than the one that is embodied in sub- clause (3) of Article 10 of the
Constitution; they will find that the view of those who believe and hold that
there shall be
16.
Text has been changed as per corrigenda issued, which have been issued upon SCC
Editors request and suggestions.
For
example, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Corrigendum This Courts order dated
October 25, 1996 in CA 14553/96 @ SLP ) No. 5570/93 in the matter of Smt. Indira
Sohan Lal ----------------------------------------------------------- Page No.
Line No. For Read 1 bottom line and deducted deducted 2 7-8 from bottom
developed to bring developed to on par with levelled bring them on land and
huge levelled land and a huge 3 12-13 from bottom compelling material,
compelling nor the High Court material and refused to advert High Courts
to refusal to advert to it,
---------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER
ADDITIONS/INSERTIONS MADE TO THE RAW TEXT
17.
Compressing/simplification of information relating to case history.
For
example Raw text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
CIVIL
APPEAL NOS. 999-1005 OF 1997 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NOS. 18380- 86 OF 1996]
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1006-1316 OF 1997 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NOS.
20293/96,
20662/96, 21726/96, 21824- 26/96, 22224-502/96, 22771/96, 23196- 97/96,
23199/96, 23700-703/96, 23744/96,23747-48/96, 23761/96, 23763/96, 23766/96,
23775-76/96, 24285/96,24315/96,24320-22/96, 24325- 26/96, 24328-29/96 &
24224/96 WITH
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1 IN CIVIL APPEALS [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C)NOS.
24224/96,24285/96,24315/96,24320-
22/96, 24325-26/96 & 24328-29/96.
Civil
Appeals Nos. 999 to 1316 of 1997 with I.A. No. 1 in C.As. arising out of SLPs.
(C) Nos. 24224, 24285, 24315, 24320-22, 24325-26 and 24328-29 of 1996,
decided on February 20,
1997.
passed
by Madhya Pradesh High Court respectively in Misc. Petitions No. 1371 of 1992
M.P. No. 1980 of 1992 and M.P. No. 2315 of 1992. All the said Misc. Petitions
were filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
passed
by Madhya Pradesh High Court respectively in Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 1371,
1980 and 2315 of 1992. All the said miscellaneous petitions were filed before
the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution * The
changes have been underlined.
(SCC
HAS UNIQUE STYLE)
18.
There are certain norms followed at SCC for giving case names.
For
example, Raw text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
Budh Prakash
Jai Prakash v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur [1952 A.L.J. 332] Budh Prakash Jai Prakash v. STO Indian Aluminium
Cables Limited vs. State of Haryana Indian
Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. State of Haryana Trilok Nath Tiku & Another v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and
Others Triloki Nath Tiku v. State of J
& K (I) R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore & Ors. 1964 (6) SCR
368 at 388 and Triloki Nath v. J & K State 1969 (1) SCR 103 at 105 and K.C. Vasanth
Kumar v. Karnataka 1985 Supp. (1) SCR 352 R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and Triloki Nath v. State of J
& K (II) and K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka Minor P. Rajendran V. State of Madras & Ors. 1968 (2) SCR 786
at 790 P. Rajendran v. State of Madras State of Andhra Pradesh V. P. Sagar 1968
(3) SCR 595 State of A.P. v. P. Sagar K.S. Venkataraman and Bharat Kala Bhandar
Ltd. v. M.C. Dhamangaon K.S. Venkataramanan and Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. v.
Municipal Committee
19.
Words like Section, Sec., Rule etc. are omitted, and
only the number of the Section/Rule is given at the beginning of the quoted
extract.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
Sec
2 (h). terrorist act has the meaning assigned to it in sub-section
(1) of Section 3, and the expression terrorist shall be construed
accordingly; 2 (h) terrorist act has the meaning assigned
to it in sub-section (1) of Section 3, and the expression terrorist
shall be construed accordingly; Rule 11. No refund of duties or charges
erroneously paid, unless claimed within three months -- No duties or charges
which have been paid or have been adjusted in an account current maintained
with the Collector 11. No refund of duties or charges erroneously paid,
unless claimed within three months.-- No duties or charges which have been paid
or have been adjusted in an account current maintained with the Collector
RULE 233B. Procedure to be followed to cases where duty is paid under
protest.-- (1) Where an assessee desires to pay duty under protest he shall
deliver to the proper officer a letter to this 233-B. Procedure to be
followed in cases where duty is paid under protest. (1) Where an assessee
desires to pay duty under protest he shall deliver to the proper officer a
letter to this
20.
Margin heading and the first clause/sub-section or initial matter of
section/rule etc. is made to run-on, instead of being let to start
from a fresh line.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
Liability
of person to whom money is paid or thing delivered by mistake or under
coercion-- 72. A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by
mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.
72.
Liability of person to whom money is paid or thing delivered, by mistake or
under coercion.-- A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered,
by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.
Sec
424. Refund of automobile accessories tax.
(a) No
refund shall be made of any amount paid by or collected from any manufacturer,
producer, or importer in respect 424. Refund of automobile accessories
tax. (a) No refund shall be made of any amount paid by or collected from any
manufacturer, producer, or importer in respect Section 3, which is the charging
Section, reads:- 3. Duties specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise
Tariff Act, 1985 to be levied.
(1)
There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties
175. Section 3, which is the charging section, reads:
3.
Duties specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to be
levied. - (1) There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be
prescribed duties
21.
Compressing of unquoted referends and use of *** for such parts.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC Page:
six
months, the words five years were substituted.
Explanation (ii)relevant date- means, (a)
in the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has not been levied or
paid or has been short- levied or short-paid (c) in any other case, the date on
which the duty is to be paid under this Act or the rules made thereunder;
six
months, the words five years were substituted.
Explanation.--
(1)-(2) * * * (3) (i) * * * (ii) relevant date means, -- (a) in the
case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has not been levied or paid or
has been short-levied or short-paid (c) in any other case, the date on which
the duty is to be paid under this Act or the rules made thereunder,
(i)..
(ii)..
(iii)
where the landlord of any building is (1) a serving or retired Indian Soldier
as defined in the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 (IV of 1925) and such
building was let out at any time before his retirement, or (2) and such
landlord needs such building for occupation by himself or the members of his
family for residential purposes, (i)-(ii) * * * (iii) where the landlord of any
building is- (1) a serving or retired Indian Soldier as defined in the Indian
Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 (IV of 1925), and such building was let out at
any time before his retirement, or (2) * * * and such landlord needs such
building for occupation by himself or the members of his family for residential
purposes,
22.
Series of dots in the raw texts (i.e., ..) are replaced with ellipsis (i.e., ).
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
so to
say into the administration.that no better formula could be produced than the
one that is embodied in clause (3) of Article 10 of the Constitution; they will
find that the view of those who believe and hold that there shall be equality
of opportunity has been embodied in sub-clause (1) of Article
10. It
is a generic principle Supposing for instance, we are to concede in full the
demand of those communities who have not been so far employed in the public
services to the fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall be
completely destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed,
namely, that there shall be in an equality of opportunity.I am sure they will
agree that unless you use some such qualifying so to say into the
administration that no better formula could be produced than the one that is
embodied in sub-clause (3) of Article 10 of the Constitution; they will find
that the view of those who believe and hold that there shall be equality of
opportunity, has been embodied in sub-clause (1) of Article 10. It is a generic
principle.
Supposing
for instance, we are to concede in full the demand of those communities who
have not been so far employed in the public services to the fullest extent,
what would really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first
proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be in an
equality of opportunity. I am sure they will agree that unless you use some
such qualifying
23.
Removal of abbreviations: sec., R. and cl. are substituted respectively with
Section, Rule or clause.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
Having
regard to the object and language of s. 34 of the I.T. Act, 1922, s. 147 of the
I.T. Act, 1961, and s. 8 of the Surtax Act, 1964, the reopening of an
assessment can only be for the benefit of the Revenue subject to one exception,
Having regard to the object and language of Section 34 of the I.T. Act,
1922, Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and Section 8 of the Surtax Act, 1964,
the reopening of an assessment can only be for the benefit of the Revenue
subject to one exception, it would not be in accordance either with cl.
(1) of
Art. 15 or cl. (2) of Art. 29 to require the consideration of the castes of
persons to be borne in mind for determining what are socially and educationally
backward classes. It is true that cl. (4) of Art. 15 contains a non-obstante
clause with the result it would not be in accordance either with clause
(1) of Article 15 or clause (2) of Article 29 to require the consideration of
the castes of persons to be borne in mind for determining what are socially and
educationally backward classes. It is true that clause (4) of Article 15
contains a non-obstante clause with the result * The changes have been
underlined.
24.
Hyphenation has been added after the section/rule numbers, which have
alphabets, suffixed to them.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
SCOPE
OF SECTIONS 11B, 11D, 12A, 12B, 12C AND 12D OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944
Sections
11B and 11D in Chapter II and Sections 12A, 12B, 12C and 12D in Chapter II-A
are now to be considered:- 11B. Claim for refund of duty (1) Any person
claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of
such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise before the Scope of
Sections 11-B, 11- D, 12-A, 12-B, 12-C and 12-D of The Central Excises and Salt
Act, 1944 Sections 11-B and 11-D in Chapter II and Sections 12-A, 12-B, 12-C
and 12-D in Chapter II-A are now to be considered:
11B.
Claim for refund of duty.- (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise
may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of
Central Excise before the * The changes have been underlined.
25.
Indentation For example SCC style of presentation of quoted extracts in
separate indented paragraphs applied to raw text.
Raw
text obtained from Registry SCC Page As Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Vasanth Kumar
has rightly observed, Always one hears the word efficiency as if
it is sacrosanct and the sanctorum has to be fiercely guarded.
Efficiency is not a mantra which is whispered by the Guru in the Sishyas
ear. 57. As Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Vasanth Kumar has rightly observed: (SCC
p.739, para 36) Always one hears the word efficiency as if it is
sacrosanct and the sanctorum has to be fiercely guarded.
Efficiency
is not a mantra which is whispered by the Guru in the Sishyas ear.
26. Removal of full stops or removal of word No..
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
The
appellant says that each of these R.S.Os. maintains an office, a stock yard and
other necessary paraphernalia for receiving, stocking, repairing and delivering
motor vehicles to their customers. The appellant says that almost seventy
percent of its sales are to parties other than State Transport Undertakings S.T.Us.
The sales to S.T.Us., are in the region of thirty percent of its production.
The R.S.Os., the appellant says, contact the local purchasers and the S.T.Us.,
book the order and also deliver the vehicles to them pursuant to sales effected
by them. The appellant always keeps the R.S.Os. well stocked having regard to
their requirements.
By way
of illustration, it is stated, the R.S.O. at Hyderabad The appellant says that each of these RSOs maintains an
office, a stock yard and other necessary paraphernalia for receiving, stocking,
repairing and delivering motor vehicles to their customers. The appellant says
almost seventy per cent of its sales are parties other than State Transport
Undertakings (STUs). The sales to STUs are in the region of thirty per cent of
its production.
The RSOs,
the appellant says, contact the local purchasers and the STUs book the orders
and also deliver the vehicles to them pursuant to sales effected by them. The
appellant always keeps the RSOs well stocked having regard to their
requirements. By way of illustration, it is stated, the RSO at Hyderabad All
the three special leave petitions namely S.L.P.
(Civil)
No. 19279 of 1995, S.L.P. (Civil ) No. 20137 of 1995 and S.L.P. (Civil ) No.
19796 of 1995 are directed against common judgment dated 9.5.1995
2. All
the three special leave petititions namely SLP (Civil) No. 19729 of 1995, SLP
(Civil ) No. 20137 of 1995 and SLP (Civil ) No. 19796 of 1995 are directed
against common judgment dated 9-5-1995 * The changes have been underlined.
27.
Giving full forms of abbreviations to enhance readability and clarity.
Raw
text obtained from Registry:
SCC
Page:
from
legal consequences and therefore, they are also guilty of the offence u/s 201
IPC.
from
legal consequences and therefore, they are also guilty of the offence under
Section 201 IPC. * The changes have been underlined.
In
addition to the above, capitalization and italicization is made wherever
necessary in the raw text; and punctuation, articles, spellings and compound
words are also checked and corrected, if required, in the original text.
8. The
copyright protection finds its justification in fair play. When a person
produces something with his skill and labour, it normally belongs to him and
the other person would not be permitted to make a profit out of the skill and labour
of the original author and it is for this reason the Copyright Act, 1957 gives
to the authors certain exclusive rights in relation to the certain work
referred in the Act. The object of the Act is to protect the author of the
copyright work from an unlawful reproduction or exploitation of his work by
others. Copyright is a right to stop others from exploiting the work without
the consent or assent of the owner of the copyright. A copyright law presents a
balance between the interests and rights of the author and that of the public
in protecting the public domain, or to claim the copyright and protect it under
the copyright statute. One of the key requirements is that of originality which
contributes, and has a direct nexus, in maintaining the interests of the author
as well as that of public in protecting the matters in public domain. It is a
well-accepted principle of copyright law that there is no copyright in the
facts per se, as the facts are not created nor have they originated with the
author of any work which embodies these facts. The issue of copyright is
closely connected to that of commercial viability, and commercial consequences
and implications.
9. The
development of copyright law in India is closely associated with the British copyright law. Statute of Anne,
the first Copyright Act in England, was
passed in 17th century which provided that the author of any book already
printed will have the sole right of printing such book for a term mentioned
therein. Thereafter, came the Act of 1814, and then the Act of 1842 which
repealed the two earlier Acts of 1709 and 1814. The Copyright Act of 1911 in England had codified and consolidated the
various earlier Copyright Acts on different works. Then came the Copyright Act
of 1956. In India, the first Copyright Act was passed
in 1914. This was nothing but a copy of the Copyright Act of 1911 of United
Kingdom with suitable modifications to make it applicable to the then British
India. The Copyright Act of 1957, which is the current statute, has followed
and adopted the principles and provisions contained in the U.K. Act of 1956
along with introduction of many new provisions. Then came the Copyright
(Amendment) Act, 1983 which made a number of amendments to the Act of 1957 and
the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984 which was mainly introduced with the object
to discourage and prevent the widespread piracy prevailing in video films and
records. Thereafter, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 has effected many
major amendments in the Copyright Act of 1957.
10. In
the present case, the questions which require determination by the Court are :
(1)
What shall be the standard of originality in the copy-edited judgments of the
Supreme Court which is a derivative work and what would be required in a
derivative work to treat it the original work of an author and thereby giving a
protected right under the Copyright Act, 1957 to the author of the derivative
work ? and
(2)
Whether the entire version of the copy-edited text of the judgments published
in the appellants law report SCC would be entitled for a copyright as an
original literary work, the copy-edited judgments having been claimed as a
result of inextricable and inseparable admixture of the copy-editing inputs and
the raw text, taken together, as a result of insertion of all SCC copy-editing
inputs into the raw text, or whether the appellants would be entitled to the
copyright in some of the inputs which have been put in the raw text ?
11.
Copyright is purely a creation of the statute under the 1957 Act. What rights
the author has in his work by virtue of his creation, are defined in Sections
14 and 17 of the Act. These are exclusive rights, but subject to the other
provisions of the Act. In the first place, the work should qualify under the
provisions of Section 13, for the subsistence of copyright. Although the rights
have been referred to as exclusive rights, there are various exceptions to them
which are listed in Section 52.
12. We
are mainly concerned for the purpose of these appeals with Sections 2 [clauses
(k), (o), (y)], 13(1), 14(1)(a), 17, proviso (d) and 52(1)(q)(iv) of the
Copyright Act, 1957. The relevant provisions of these Sections are as under:
2.
Interpretation.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - xxx xxx xxx
(k) "Government work" means a work which is made or published by or
under the direction or control of –
(i) the
Government or any department of the Government;
(ii) any
Legislature in India;
(iii)
any Court, Tribunal or other judicial authority in India; xxx xxx xxx
(o) "literary work" includes computer programmes, tables and
compilations including computer databases; xxx xxx xxx (y)
"work" means any of the following works, namely:-
(i) a
literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work;
(ii) a
cinematograph film;
(iii) a
sound recording; 13. Works in which copyright subsists. –
(1)
Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act,
copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works,
that is to say, -
(a) original
literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
(b) cinematograph
films; and
(c) sound
recording, (2) Copyright shall not subsist in any work specified in sub-section
(1), other than a work to which the provisions of section 40 or section 41,
apply, unless –
(i) in
the case of a published work, the work is first published in India, or where
the work is first published outside India, the author is at the date of such
publication, or in a case where the author was dead at that date, was at the
time of his death, a citizen of India;
(ii)
in the case of an unpublished work other than a work of architecture, the
author is at the date of the making of the work a citizen of India or domiciled
in India; and (iii) in the case of a work of architecture, the work is located
in India.
Explanation.- In the case of a work of joint
authorship, the conditions conferring copyright specified in this sub-section
shall be satisfied by all the authors of the work.
(3)
Copyright shall not subsist –
(a) in
any cinematograph film if a substantial part of the film is an infringement of
the copyright in any other work;
(b) in
any sound recording made in respect of a literary, dramatic or musical work, if
in making the sound recording, copyright in such work has been infringed.
xxx xxx
xxx 14. Meaning of copyright. (1) For the purposes of this Act,
"copyright" means the exclusive right, subject to the provisions of
this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect
of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely:-
(a) in
the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer programme,
-
(i) to
reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any
medium by electronic means;
(ii) to
issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;
(iii) to
perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public;
(iv) to
make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work;
(v) to
make any translation of the work;
(vi) to
make any adaptation of the work;
(vii)
to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the
acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (vi);
xxx xxx
xxx 17. First owner of copyright.- Subject to the provisions of this
Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:
Provided
that - xxx xxx xxx (d) in the case of a Government work, Government shall, in
the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the
copyright therein;
xxx xxx
xxx 52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright.- (1) The
following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:
- (a) .
xxx xxx
xxx (q) the reproduction or publication of - (i) xxx xxx xxx (iv) any judgment
or order of a Court, Tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the
reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the
Court, the Tribunal or other judicial authority, as the case may be;
xxx xxx
xxx
13.
Subject to the provisions of Section 13 and the other provisions of the Act,
there shall be a copyright throughout India in original literary work,
dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recording,
subject to the exceptions provided in sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 13.
For copyright protection, all literary works have to be original as per Section
13 of the Act. Broadly speaking, there would be two classes of literary works :
(a) primary
or prior works:
These
are the literary works not based on existing subject- matter and, therefore,
would be called primary or prior works; and
(b) secondary
or derivative works: These are literary works based on existing subject-matter.
Since such works are based on existing subject-matter, they are called
derivative work or secondary work. Work is defined in Section 2(y) which would
be a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work; a cinematograph film; and a
sound recording. Under Section 2(o), literary work would include computer programmes,
tables and compilations including computer databases. For the purposes of the
Act, Section 14(1) enumerates what shall be a copyright which is an exclusive
right, subject to the provisions of the Act, to do or authorize the doing of
the acts provided in clauses (i) to (vii) in respect of a work or any
substantial part thereof in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work,
not being a computer programme. Section 2(k) defines the `government work
which would be a work which is made or published by or under the direction or
control of, amongst others, any Court, Tribunal or other judicial authority in
India. By virtue of this definition, the judgments delivered by the Supreme
Court would be a government work. Under Section 17(d), the Government shall, in
the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the
copyright in a government work. In the absence of any agreement to the
contrary, the government shall be the first owner of the copyright in the
judgments of the Supreme Court, the same being a government work under Section
2(k). Section 52(1) expressly provides that certain acts enumerated therein
shall not constitute an infringement of copyright and sub-clause (iv) of clause
(q) excludes the reproduction or publication of any judgment or order of a
Court, Tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or
publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the Court, the Tribunal
or other judicial authority from copyright. The judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court would be in the public domain and
its reproduction or publication would not infringe the copyright. The reproduction
or publication of the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court by any number of
persons would not be infringement of a copyright of the first owner thereof,
namely, the Government, unless it is prohibited. The question, therefore, is
whether by introducing certain inputs in a judgment delivered by a court it
becomes original copy-edited judgment and the person or authority or
company who did so could claim to have embodied the originality in the said
judgment and the judgment takes the colour of original judgment having a
copyright therein of its publisher.
14. In
many cases, a work is derived from an existing work. Whether in such a
derivative work, a new copyright work is created, will depend on various
factors, and would one of them be only skill, capital and labour expended upon
it to qualify for copyright protection in a derivative literary work created
from the pre-existing material in the public domain, and the required exercise
of independent skill, labour and capital in its creation by the author would
qualify him for the copyright protection in the derivative work. Or would it be
the creativity in a derivative work in which the final position will depend
upon the amount and value of the corrections and improvements, the independent skill
& labour, and the creativity in the end-product is such as to create a new
copyright work to make the creator of the derivative work the author of it; and
if not, there will be no new copyright work and then the original author will
remain the author of the original work and the creator of the derivative work
will have been the author of the alterations or the inputs put therein, for
their nature will not have been such as to attract the protection under the law
of copyright.
15. It
is submitted by Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the
appellants that Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Act does not bar the recognization
of copyright in the copy-edited version of the text of judgments of the courts
as published in law reports. The Government is the first owner of copyright in
the judgments of the courts as per Section 2(k) read with Section 17 and
Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Act provides that any person wanting to reproduce
or publish judgments would not infringe the copyright of the Government, but
Section 52(1)(q)(iv) does not imply that in case a person has expended
independent skill, labour and capital on the judgments of the courts to create
and publish his version of the judgments, any other person is free to copy that
persons version of the judgments, substantially or in its entirely.
Copyright subsists in the copy-edited version of the text of judgments of the
courts as published in law reports, which have been created by the application
of skill, labour and capital which is not trivial or negligible. The inputs put
in the copy-edited judgments in SCC, is a derivative literary work created from
pre- existing material of the judgments of the court which is in public domain.
The exercise of independent skill, labour and capital in its creation by the
author of such work, and the derivative literary work created by the
expenditure of the independent skill, labour and capital of the appellants
gives them copyright in such creations. It is not necessary that work created
should have a literary merit. The courts can only evaluate whether the skill, labour
and capital actually employed, required in creating the work, is not trivial or
negligible. It is further urged by the learned senior counsel that in deciding
whether a derivative work qualifies for copyright protection, it must be
considered as a whole, and it is not correct to dissect the work into fragments
and consider the copyrightability of each such fragment piecemeal and
individually apart from the whole. He submits that the respondents if wish to
reproduce or publish a work already in public domain is obliged to go to the
public domain/common source of such work rather than misappropriating the
effort and investment of the appellants by copying the version of such work
which was created by them by independent expenditure of skill, labour and
capital. To buttress his submissions, the learned senior counsel placed
reliance on various foreign judgments and judgments of the Indian High Courts
which are considered hereinafter.
16.
Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. Willim Hill (Football) Ltd., [1964] 1 WLR 273 (HL),
is a case where the concept of originality was considered on the basis of
skill, judgment and/or labour in the context of compilation. Since 1951 the
respondents, who were well- known bookmakers, had sent their customers each
week fixed odds football betting coupons arranged in a certain general form. In
1959 the appellants, who were also bookmakers, started sending out coupons
closely resembling the respondents coupons. A coupon was a sheet of paper
on which were printed several lists of forthcoming matches.
Beside
each list were columns of squares on which the punter could indicate his
forecast of the result of each match. Some of the lists included all the
matches to be played; others included only a selection of them. The bets varied
in character. A great variety of bets was offered and the odds offered differed
widely from 5-2 to 20,000-1.
The respondents
coupon contained 16 lists, each with an appropriate name. The appellants
coupon, which contained 15 lists, closely resembled the respondents. The
lists offered by the appellants were almost identical with those offered by the
respondents in their corresponding lists.
The
respondents brought action claiming copyright in the coupons. The House of
Lords was called upon to determine whether or to what extent copyright attached
to these coupons. The respondents said that a coupon must be regarded as a
single work and that as such it was protected by copyright. The appellants
sought to dissect the coupon.
It was
contended by the respondents that there had been a breach of copyright by the
appellants, since the respondents compilation, which must be regarded as a
single work, was original and protected by copyright and the part taken by the
appellants from the respondents work was substantial. It did not follow
that because the fragments of the compilation, taken separately, would not be
copyright, the whole could not be copyright. It was submitted by the appellants
that the derivative work of the respondents not being original, no copyright
can be claimed and the inputs put, if considered separately, are of
insignificant value and thus the respondents could not claim copyright.
The
word `original does not mean that the work must be the expression of
original or inventive thought. Copyright Acts are not concerned with the
originality of ideas, but with the expression of thought, and in the case of
literary work, with the expression of thought in print or writing.
The
originality which is required relates to the expression of the thought. But the
Act does not require that the expression must be in an original or novel form,
but that the work must not be copied from another work - that it should
originate from the author; and as regards compilation, originality is a matter
of degree depending on the amount of skill, judgment or labour that has been
involved in making the compilation. The words literary work cover
work which is expressed in print or writing irrespective of the question whether
the quality or style is high. The commonplace matter put together or arranged
without the exercise of more than negligible work, labour and skill in making
the selection will not be entitled to copyright. The word original
does not demand original or inventive thought, but only that the work should
not be copied but should originate from the author. In deciding, therefore,
whether a work in the nature of a compilation is original, it is wrong to
consider individual parts of it apart from the whole. For many compilations
have nothing original in their parts, yet the sum total of the compilation may
be original. In such cases the courts have looked to see whether the
compilation of the unoriginal material called for work or skill or expense. If
it did, it is entitled to be considered original and to be protected against
those who wish to steal the fruits of the work or skill or expense by copying
it without taking the trouble to compile it themselves. In each case, it is a
question of degree whether the labour or skill or ingenuity or expense involved
in the compilation is sufficient to warrant a claim to originality in a
compilation.
17.
While considering the question whether the copyright protection is available to
the work created as a whole or the fragment of the work would be considered
piecemeal and individually apart from the whole, the House of Lords said as
under:
.
One test may be whether the part which he has taken is novel or striking, or is
merely a commonplace arrangement of ordinary words or well-known data. So it
may sometimes be a convenient short cut to ask whether the part taken could by
itself be the subject of copyright. But, in my view, that is only a short cut,
and the more correct approach is first to determine whether the plaintiffs
work as a whole is `original and protected by copyright, and then to
inquire whether the part taken by the defendant is substantial.
A
wrong result can easily be reached if one begins by dissecting the
plaintiffs work and asking, could section A be the subject of copyright if
it stood by itself, could section B be protected if it stood by itself, and so
on. To my mind, it does not follow that, because the fragments taken separately
would not be copyright, therefore, the whole cannot be.
18. In
the case of Walter and Another v. Lane, [1900] AC 539 (HL), the Earl of Rosebery
on five occasions in 1896 and 1898 delivered to the public audience speeches on
subjects of public interest. The Reporter of `The Times took down the
speeches in shorthand, wrote out their notes, corrected, revised and punctuated
them and the reports were published in `The Times, the speeches being given
verbatim as delivered by Lord Rosebery. The reporters were employed under the
terms that the copyright in all reports and articles composed by `The Time
magazine should belong to the proprietors. In the year 1899, the respondent
published a book called Appreciations and Addresses:
Lord Rosebery,
which contained the reports of the above speeches of Lord Rosebery and it was
admitted that these reports were taken from the reports in `The Times.
Lord Rosebery made no claim. The appellants brought an action against the
respondent claiming a declaration that a copyright of the articles and reports
was vested in the proprietors of `The Times. The issue involved in the
case was whether a person who makes notes of a speech delivered in public,
transcribes them and publishes in the newspaper a verbatim report of the
speech, is the author of the report within the meaning of the Copyright Act,
1842, and is entitled to the copyright in the report. The House of Lords held
that each reporter is entitled to report and each undoubtedly would have a
copyright in his own published report. It was of course open to any other
reporter to compose his own report of Lord Roseberys speech, and to any
other newspaper and book to publish that report; but it is a sound principle
that a man shall not avail himself of anothers skill, labour and expense
by copying the written product thereof; and copyright has nothing to do with
the originality or the literary merits of the author or composer. It may exist
in the information given by a street dictionary. If a person chooses to compose
and write a volume devoid of the faintest spark of literary or any other merit,
there is no legal reason why he should not, if he desires, become the first
publisher of it and register his copyright, worthless and insignificant as it
would be.
19. In
the case of Designers Guild Ltd. v. Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd., [2000] 1
WLR 2416 (HL), the plaintiff brought proceedings claiming that the defendant
had infringed the plaintiffs copyright by copying one of its fabric
designs, i.e. for the fabric design Ixia. The infringement of which the
plaintiff complained was that for the purpose of creating its own design
Marguerite by the defendant. The defendant had copied a substantial part of
Ixia. There were mainly two main issues at the trial.
First,
what, if anything had the designer of Marguerite copied from Ixia. Secondly, did
what had been copied amount to the whole or a substantial part of
Ixia? It was said by the House of Lords that the law of copyright rests on a
very clear principle that anyone who by his or her own skill and labour creates
an original work of whatever character shall enjoy an exclusive right to copy
that work.
No one
else may for a season reap what the copyright owner had sown.
20. University of London Press Limited v. University Tutorial Press Limited, [1916] 2 Ch
601, is perhaps the most cited judgment regarding originality. Originality was
held to be not required to be noval form but the work should not be copied from
other work, that is, it should be original. The judgment was based on the
following facts:
Certain
persons were appointed as examiners for matriculation examination of the University of London on a condition that any copyright in the examination papers
should belong to the University. The University assigned the copyright to the
plaintiff company. After the examination, the defendant company brought out a
publication containing a number of the examination papers, including three
which had been set by two examiners appointed by the University. The plaintiff
company brought a case of copyright infringement against the defendant company.
It was argued that since the setting of the papers entailed the exercise of
brainwork, memory, and trained judgment, and even the selection of passages
from other authors work involved careful consideration, discretion and
choice they constituted original literary work. On the other and, the
defendants claimed that what they had done was fair dealing for the purposes of
private study which was permissible under the law. The court agreed that the
material under consideration was a literary work. The words literary
work cover work which is expressed in print or writing, irrespective of
the question whether the quality or style is high. The word `literary
seems to be used in a sense somewhat similar to the use of the word
literature in political or electioneering literature and refers to
written or printed matter. With respect to the originality issue, the Court
held that the term original under the Act does not imply original or
novel form of ideas or inventive thought, but the work must not be copied from
another work - that it should originate from the author.
21. In
Kelly v. Morris, (1866) LR 1 Eq. 697, School of thought propounded is that, at
least in respect of compilations, only time and expenses are necessary which is
industrious collection.
The
plaintiff was the owner and publisher of the first directory. The defendant
came out with another directory.
The
plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant to restrain the
publication of the defendants directory on the allegations that the defendant
was guilty of appropriating the information contained in the plaintiffs
directory and obtained the benefit of many years of incessant labour and
expense. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that there had been no
unfair or improper use of the plaintiffs work. Information which was given
in the plaintiffs directory was entitled to be used and adopted as long as
he did not servilely copy it. The defendant had bestowed his independent time, labour
and expense on the matter and thus had in no way infringed the copyright of the
plaintiff. Granting injunction, the Court held that in the case of a directory
when there are certain common objects of information which must, if described
correctly, be described in the same words, a subsequent compiler is bound to
set about doing for himself that which the first compiler has done. In case of
a road- book, he must count the milestones for himself. In the case of a map of
a newly discovered island he must go through the whole process of triangulation
just as if he had never seen any former map, and, generally he is not entitled
to take one word of the information previously published without independently
working out the matter for himself, so as to arrive at the same result from the
same common sources of information, and the only use that he can legitimately
make of a previous publication is to verify his own calculations and results
when obtained. The compiler of a directory or guidebook, containing information
derived from sources common to all, which must of necessity be identical in all
cases if correctly given, is not entitled to spare himself the labour and
expense of original inquiry by adopting and re-publishing the information
contained in previous works on the same subject.
22. In
the case of Parry v. Moring and Gollancz, Cop Cas (1901-1904) 49, the
plaintiff, after obtaining permission from the representatives of the owner of
certain letters, updated, chronologically arranged and translated them into
modern English for their inclusion in his book.
Later,
the defendant published, as one of the series, an edition of the letters
prepared by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, brought an action against
the defendant alleging infringement of his copyright. The plaintiff maintained
his copyright in his version of the text apart from the copyright in the text.
It was held that there is copyright in the work of editing the text of a
non-copyright work. The editor of a non-copyright work is not entitled to take
the text from the edition of a rival editor and use it as a copy for the
purpose of his own work.
23. In
Gopal Das v. Jagannath Prasad and Another, AIR 1938 All. 266, the plaintiffs
were the printers and publishers of the books. The book titled Sachitra Bara
Kok Shastra was printed for the first time in 1928 and had run into four
editions since. The defendants printed and published another book titled Asli
Sachitra Kok Shastra in 1930. The plaintiffs case was that the book
published by the defendants was a colorable imitation of their book and an
infringement of plaintiffs copyright. It was held by the Court that the
plaintiffs compiled their book with considerable labour from various sources
and digested and arranged the matter taken by them from other authors. The
defendant instead of taking the pains of searching into all the common sources
and obtaining his subject matter from them, obtained the subject matter from
the plaintiffs book and availed himself of the labour of the plaintiffs
and adopted their arrangement and subject matter and, thus, such a use of
plaintiffs book could not be regarded as legitimate. It was held that a
person whose work is protected by copyright, if he has collected the material
with considerable labour, compiled from various sources of work in itself not original,
but which he has digested and arranged, the defendant could not be permitted to
compile his work of like description, instead of taking the pains of searching
into all the common sources and obtaining the subject-matter from them and to
adopt his arrangement with a slight degree of colourable variation thereby
saving pains and labour which the plaintiff has employed. The act of the
defendant would be illegitimate use. The Court held that no one is entitled to
avail himself of the previous labour of another for the purpose of conveying to
the public the same information, although he may append additional information
to that already published.
24. In
V. Govindan v. E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone and Another, AIR 1955 Madras 391, the respondents had published
an English-English Tamil Dictionary in 1932. The appellants were the publishers
of similar Dictionary in 1947. An action was brought regarding the publication
and sale of the dictionary by the appellants which was alleged to be
constituting an infringement of the respondents copyright. The lower court
went through both the books minutely and found, page after page, word
after word, slavishly copied, including the errors, and found the sequence, the
meanings, the arrangement and everything else practically the same, except for
some deliberate differences introduced here and there to cover up the
piracy. The High Court referred to Copinger and James on Law of Copyright
wherein the law has been neatly summarized that : In the case of
compilations such as dictionaries, gazetteers, grammars, maps, arithmetics,
almanacs, encyclopaedias and guide books, new publications dealing with similar
subject-matter must of necessity resemble existing publications, and the defence
of common source is frequently made where the new publication is
alleged to constitute an infringement of an earlier one. The Court held
that in law books and in books as mentioned above there is very little amount
of originality but the same is protected by law and no man is entitled to
steal or appropriate for himself the result of anothers brain, skill or labour
even in such works. The Court further clarified that where there is a
common source, the person relying on it must prove that he actually
went to the common source from where he borrowed, employing his own skill, labour
and brains and that he did not merely copy.
25. In
C. Cunniah & Co. v Balraj & Co., AIR 1961 Madras 111, the appellant firm was
carrying on the business in pictures, picture frames, etc. One Sri T.M. Subramaniam
drew a picture of Lord Balasubramanya and gave it the title of Mayurapriya and
a copyright was assigned to the appellant. It came to the knowledge of the
appellant firm that the respondent firm was printing and selling copies of a
close and colourable imitation of the appellants picture under the style
of Bala Murugan. The case of the defence was that their picture was an
independent production and that the appellant had not acquired copyright in the
picture and the subject dealt with in that picture was a common subject, in
which no copyright could be acquired by anyone. The Court held that in order to
obtain copyright production for literary, domestic, musical and artistic works,
the subject dealt with need not to be original, nor the ideas expressed be
something novel. What is required is the expenditure of original skill or labour
in execution and not originality of thought.
26. In
Agarwala Publishing House v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education
and Another, AIR 1967 All. 91, a writ petition was filed by a publisher firm
challenging an amendment of the Regulations of the Board declaring that
copyright of the question papers set at all examinations conducted by the Board
shall vest in the Board and forbidding the publication of such question papers
without the Boards permission. The question involved in the case was
whether the question papers are `original literary work and come within
the purview of Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was urged that no
copyright can exist in examination papers because they are not original
literary work. It was held that the original literary works
referred to in Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, are not confined to the
works of literature as commonly understood. It would include all works expressed
in writing, whether they have any literary merits or not.
This
is clear from the definition given in Section 2(o) of the Act which states that
literary work includes tables and compilations. The Court further held that the
word original used in Section 13 does not imply any originality of
ideas but merely means that the work in question should not be copied from some
other work but should originate in the author, being the product of his labour
and skill.
27. In
the case of Gangavishnu Shrikisondas v. Moreshvar Bapuji Hegishte and Others,
ILR 13 Bom 358, the plaintiff, a book seller, in 1984 brought out a new and
annotated edition of a certain well-known Sanskrit work on religious
observances entitled Vrtraj, having for that purpose obtained the
assistance of the pandits, who re-cast and re-arranged the work, introduced
various passages from other old Sanskrit books on the same subject and added
footnotes. Later on, the defendant printed and published an edition of the same
work, the text of which is identical with that of the plaintiffs work,
which moreover contained the same additional pages and the same footnotes, at
the same places, with many slight differences. The foundation of both
plaintiffs and defendants books is an old Sanskrit work on Hindu
ceremonial, which could have been published by anyone. The copyright claimed by
the plaintiff was on the additions and alterations to the original text, which
the parties admit to be material and valuable, and in which the copyright is
claimed of its prior publication. The defendants argued that there was nothing
really original in the plaintiffs book and, therefore, he was not entitled
to copyright in the book.
It was
held by the Court that a new arrangement of old matters will give a right to
the protection afforded by the law of copyright. If anyone by pains and labour
collects and reduces it as a systematic compilation in the form of a book it is
original in the sense that that entitles the plaintiff to the copyright. The
plaintiff worked for such a new arrangement of old matters as to be an original
work and was entitled to the protection; and that as the defendants had not
gone to independent sources of the material but had pirated the plaintiffs
work, they were restrained by injunction.
28. In
Rai Toys Industries and Others v. Munir Printing Press, 1982 PTC 85, the
plaintiff had published a Tambola ticket book containing 1500 different tickets
in 1929. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had brought out another
ticket book which the plaintiffs claimed to have written in 1929 and registered
as copyright. The ticket book brought out by the defendants was alleged to
contain 600 different tickets and the same had been copied identically from the
books of the plaintiff. On this basis, a suit for injunction and rendition of
account was filed by the plaintiff. The question before the court was whether
the ticket-books in the form of tables constitute literary work; and whether
copyright has been violated or not? It was held by the High Court that
preparation of tickets and placing them in tables required a good deal of skill
and labour and would thus satisfy the test of being original literary work. It
was recognized that the arrangement of numbers is individual work of a person
who prepares it; it bears his individuality and long hours of labour. It is not
information which could be picked up by all and sundry. The preparation of
tickets is an individualized contribution and the compilation eminently
satisfies the test of being an original literary work. Hence it was held to be
a clear case of copyright violation when the defendant decided to pick and
choose 600 tables on the sly and publish them as his individual work.
29. In
Macmillan and Another v. Suresh Chandra Deb, ILR 17 Cal 952, the plaintiffs
were proprietors of the copyright of a selection of songs and poems composed by
various authors, which was published in 1861. In 1889, the defendants published
a book containing same selection of poems and songs as was contained in
plaintiffs book, the arrangement, however, being different. The plaintiffs
claimed copyright in the selection made by them. The defendants, on the other
hand, contended that there could be no copyright in such selection. The Court
held that in the case of works not original in the proper sense of the term,
but composed of, or compiled or prepared from material which are open to all,
the fact that one man has produced such a work does not take away from any one
else the right to produce another work of the same kind, and in doing so to use
all the materials open to him. But, as the law is concisely stated by Hall,
V.C., in Hogg v Scott, L.R. 18 Eq. 444, , the true principle in all these
cases is, that the defendant is not at liberty to use or avail himself of the labour
which the plaintiff has been at for the purpose of producing his work, that is,
in fact, merely to take away the result of another mans labour, or, in
other words, his property. It is enough to say that this principle has
been applied to maps, to road books, to guide books, to compilations on
scientific and other subjects.
This
principle seems to be clearly applicable to the case of a selection of a poem.
It was held that for such a selection as the plaintiff had made obviously
required extensive reading, careful studying and comparison and the exercise of
taste and judgment to make a selection for himself. But, if one spares himself
this trouble and adopts some other persons selection, he offends against
the principle. The Court was of the opinion that the selection of poems made by
the plaintiff and embodied in the Golden Treasury was the subject of copyright
and that the defendants book had infringed that right.
30.
These decisions are the authority on the proposition that the work that has
been originated from an author and is more than a mere copy of the original work,
would be sufficient to generate copyright. This approach is consistent with the
sweat of the brow standards of originality. The creation of the work
which has resulted from little bit of skill, labour and capital are sufficient
for a copyright in derivative work of an author.
Decisions
propounded a theory that an author deserves to have his or her efforts in
producing a work, rewarded. The work of an author need not be in an original
form or novel form, but it should not be copied from anothers work, that
is, it should originate from the author. The originality requirement in
derivative work is that it should originate from the author by application of
substantial degree of skill, industry or experience. Precondition to copyright
is that work must be produced independently and not copied from another person.
Where a compilation is produced from the original work, the compilation is more
than simply a re-arranged copyright of original, which is often referred to as
skill, judgment and or labour or capital. The copyright has nothing to do with
originality or literary merit. Copyrighted material is that what is created by
the author by his skill, labour and investment of capital, maybe it is
derivative work. The courts have only to evaluate whether derivative work is
not the end-product of skill, labour and capital which is trivial or negligible
but substantial. The courts need not go into evaluation of literary merit of
derivative work or creativity aspect of the same.
31.
Mr. P N Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents in C.A. No.
6472/2004 has submitted that the judgment of the court is a government work as
defined under Section 2(k)(iii) and on account of Section 17 (d), the
Government in the absence of any agreement to the contrary be the first owner
of the copyright therein.
Section
52(1)(q)(iv) provides that the publication of any judgment or order of a court,
tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction of publication of
such judgment or order is prohibited, would not constitute an infringement of
the copyright. Therefore, publication of the judgments of the apex court by the
respondents would not tantamount to infringement of the copyright of the
appellants. It is further urged that the judgments published in the Supreme
Court Cases is nothing but merely a derivative work based upon the judgments of
the court, which lacks originality as it does not depict independent creation
even a modicum of creativity. The inputs put by the appellants is nothing but
expressing an idea which can be expressed in a limited way and as such there
cannot be a copyright. Filling the blanks or gaps by providing names of the
parties or citations of the judgments, both of which are well known and
unchangeable parts of that idea, are not original work. These are not creative
at all to warrant copyright protection, either singly or in combination. The
additions made in the reported judgment by the editors of the Supreme Court
Cases are only the well known extensions of the reported decision. These
extensions lack even the minimal degree of authors creativity or
originality or intellectual labour. These additions do not create additional
knowledge, the protection of which is the very basis of the copyright
protection.
32. It
is submitted by Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents in
C.A. No. 6905/2004, that in the present case, the journals of the appellants,
including SCC, are printed and published on the basis of pre- existing
judgments. Journals are, therefore, a derivative work. There is a distinction
between a `law report as understood in England and a `law journal as printed in India. The appellants journal `SCC is not a law report
in the strict sense, inasmuch as the appellants journal reproduces the
judgments of the court verbatim along with inputs. However, a law report known
in the traditional English sense is when a law reporter present in the court
would record in his own words and language the arguments of the counsel on both
sides, give a summary of the facts and incorporate into the said report his
transcript of the speech of the Judge. Thus, the appellants work could
only be a law journal and not a law report. The judgments were specifically
made a part of the exception to copyright infringement and thus find place in
Section 52(1)(q) of the Act. The underlying purpose is that it is in public
interest to place judgments in public domain. The work for which the copyright
protection is claimed is a derivative work. For claiming protection of
copyright in a derivative work, under the Indian law originality is a
pre-condition and originality means only that the work was independently
created by the author as opposed to copied from other works, and that it
possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. There is a distinction
between creation and discovery. The first person to find a particular fact has
not created the fact, he or she has merely discovered its existence. Reporting
of the judgments of the Supreme Court with certain inputs could only be said to
be a discovery of facts already in existence. Though for the purposes of
creativity neither novelty nor invention is requisite for copyright protection,
but at least some minimal creativity is a must. To create a copyright by
alterations of the text, these must be extensive and substantial practically
making a new version. The English decisions relied upon by the appellants would
not apply to the facts of the present case as all the said authorities are
under the old 1842 Act in U.K. wherein
the word `original was conspicuously missing in the statute. It is further
urged that the copy-editing inputs of the appellants are only discoveries/facts
and there are limited ways/unique of expressing the various copy-editing inputs
and thus no copyright can subsist in such limited/unique expressions.
The
facts which are discovered could be expressed in limited ways and as such ways
adopted cannot give copyright protection to the inputs or the judgments as a
whole. It is urged that recognizing the copyright in the copy-edited version of
the law reports would amount to giving the appellants a monopoly in the
judgments of the courts which is against the intendment of Section 52(1)(q)(iv)
and would defeat the purpose of putting judgments in the public domain. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that for a derivative
work, the originality test as applied in United States Supreme Court should be
made applicable whereby the author of a derivative work would satisfy that the
work has been produced from his exercise of skill and judgment. The exercise of
skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it
could be characterized a purely mechanical exercise. The work should be
independently created by the author as opposed to copied from the other works
and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.
The
case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is considered
hereinafter.
33. In
Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc., 18 USPQ 2d. 1275,
Rural Telephone Service Co. publishes a typical telephone directory consisting
of white pages and yellow pages. The white pages list in alphabetical order the
names of rural subscribers together with their towns and telephone numbers. The
yellow pages list Rurals business subscribers alphabetically by category
and feature classified advertisements of various sizes. To obtain white pages
listings for its area-wide directory, Feist Publications Inc. approached
different telephone companies operating in North West Kansas and offered to pay
for the right to use their white pages listings. Of them, only Rural refused.
Unable to license Rurals white pages listings, Feist used them without
Rurals consent. Rural sued for copyright infringement in the District
Court taking the position that Feist, in compiling its own directory, could not
use the information contained in Rurals white pages. Rural asserted that Feists
employees were obliged to travel door to door or conduct a telephone survey to
discover the same information for themselves. Feist responded that such efforts
were economically impractical and, in any event, unnecessary because the
information copied was beyond the scope of copyright protection. The United
States Supreme Court held that the sine qua non of copyright is originality. To
qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author.
Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was
independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works),
and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. The requisite
level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The
vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some
creative spark, no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be.
Originality
does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely
resembles other works so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result
of copying. The Court further held that no one claim originality as to the
facts. This is because facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship.
The distinction is one between creation and discovery: the first person to find
and report a particular fact has not created the fact; he or she has merely
discovered its existence. Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess
the requisite originality. The compilation author typically chooses which facts
to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data
so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection
and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and
entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original. Thus, if the
compilation author clothes facts with an original collocation of words, he or
she may be able to claim a copyright in this written expression. The Court goes
on to hold that the primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labour
of authors, but to promote the progress of science and useful arts. To this
end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression but
encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a
work.
Only
the compilers selection and arrangement may be protected; however, the raw
facts may be copied at will.
The
Court rejected the doctrine of the sweat of the brow as this doctrine
had numerous flaws, the most glaring being that it extended copyright
protection in a compilation beyond selection and arrangement the
compilers original contributions to the facts themselves. A subsequent
compiler was not entitled to take one word of information previously published,
but rather had to independently work out the matter for himself, so as to
arrive at the same result from the same common sources of information.
Sweat of the brow courts thereby eschewed the most fundamental axiom
of copyright law that no one may copyright facts or ideas. The sweat of
the brow doctrine flouted basic copyright principles and it creates a
monopoly in public domain materials without the necessary justification of
protecting and encouraging the creation of writings by authors.
34.
The judgment in Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d
674 (2nd Cir. 1998), is of United States
Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, which directly covers the reports of the
judgments of the courts.
The
facts involved in the case are that the West Publishing Co. and West Publishing
Corp. (West) obtain the text of judicial opinions directly from
courts. It alters these texts into
(i)
independently composed features, such as syllabus, headnotes which summarize
the specific points of law recited in each opinion and key numbers which
categorize points of law into different legal topics and sub-topics and
(ii)
additions of certain factual information to the text of the opinions, including
parallel or alternative citations to cases, attorney information, and data on
subsequent procedural history. West publishes the case reports in different
series of case reporters collectively known as National Reporter
System. Two series of case reporters at issue in that case were the
Supreme Court Reporter and the Federal Reporter. HyperLaw publishes and markets
CD-ROMs which are compilations of the Supreme Court and the United States Court
of Appeals that cover approximately the same ground. HyperLaw intends to expand
its CD-ROM product taking the material from the West publications. HyperLaw
intervened and sought a judgment declaring that the individual West case
reports that are left after redaction of the first category of alterations do
not contain copyrightable material. It was held by the Court that for copyright
protection, the material does not require novelty or invention, but minimal
creativity is required. All of Wests alterations to judicial opinions
involve the addition and arrangement of facts, or the rearrangement of data
already included in the opinions, and, therefore, any creativity in these
elements of Wests case reports lies in Wests selection and
arrangement of this information. Wests choices on selection and
arrangement can reasonably be viewed as obvious, typical and lacking even
minimal creativity. Copyright protection is unavailable for both derivative
works and compilations alike unless, when analysed as a whole, they display
sufficient originality so as to amount to an original work of authorship.
Originality requires only that the author makes the selection or arrangement
independently and that it displays some material with minimal level of
creativity.
While
a copy of something in the public domain will not, if it be merely a copy,
support a copyright, a distinguishable variation will. To support a copyright
there must be at least some substantial variation, not merely a trivial
variation such as might occur in the translation to a different medium.
Creativity in selection and arrangement, therefore, is a function of
(i) the
total number of options available,
(ii) external
factors that limit the viability of certain options and render others
non-creative, and
(iii) prior
uses that render certain selections `garden variety.
35. In
the case of Key Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprises,
Inc., 945 F.2d.509, Key Publication published an Annual Classified Business
Directory for New York
Citys
Chinese-American community.
In
1990, Galore Publication published the Galore Directory, a classified directory
for the New York Chinese American community. Key brought a suit against Galore
Directory charging that Galore Directory infringed Keys copyright in the
1989-90 Key Directory. The United States Court of Appeal held that individual
components of compilation are generally within the public domain and thus
available for public. There are three requirements for a compilation to qualify
for copyright protection :
(1) the
collection and assembly of pre-existing data;
(2) selection,
co- ordination or arrangement of the data; and
(3) the
resulting work that comes into being is original, by virtue of the selection,
coordination or arrangement of the data contained in the work. For originality,
the work is not required to contain novelty. The doctrine of sweat of the
brow, rewarded compilers for their efforts in collecting facts with a de
facto copyright to those facts and this doctrine would prevent, preclude the
author absolutely from saving time and effort by referring to and relying upon
prior published material. It extended copyright protection in compilation
beyond selection and arrangement - the compilers original contribution to
the facts themselves drawn on sweat of the brow is a copyright
protection to the facts discovered by the compiler. The court discarded
sweat of the brow notion of copyright law.
36. In
Macmillan and Company v. K. and J. Cooper, 1924 Privy Council 75, action was
brought by McMillan and Company to restrain the respondent-firm who was
carrying on the trade and business of publishers of educational books, from
printing, distributing or otherwise disposing of copies of the book published
by the appellants. The ground on which the relief was claimed was that the
appellants had a copyright in the book entitled Plutarchs Life of
Alexander, Sir Thomas Norths Translation and that the respondent published
subsequently a book entitled Plutarchs Life of Alexander the Great,
Norths Translation, as it had infringed the copyright to which the
appellants were entitled in the earlier compilation.
The
Court noted the contents of the book of the appellants as also that of the
respondent. As per the Court, the text of the appellants book consisted of
a number of detached passages, selected from Sir Thomas Norths
translation, words being in some instances introduced to knit the passages
together so that the text should as far as possible, present the form of an
unbroken narrative. The passages so selected were, in the original translation,
by no means contiguous. Considerable printed matter in many instances separated
the one from the other. The opinion of the Privy Council was that for the work
done by the appellants, great knowledge, sound judgment, literary skill or
taste in the inputs brought to bear upon the translation was not required, as
the passages of the translation which had been selected are reprinted in their
original form, not condensed, expanded, modified or reshaped to any extent
whatever. The Court observed that the Norths translation of Plutarchs
Life of Alexander does not and never did, as the law stands, never can enjoy
the protection of copyright; and the questions which arise for decision must be
dealt with upon that assumption. The Court said that in all cases where the
reprint with the text of it consisted merely of a reprint of passages selected
from the work of any author, would never have a copyright. There may be cases
where selecting and reprinting the passages would require the appreciation upon
what has been laid down or established in the book and labour, accurate
scientific knowledge, sound judgment, touching the purpose for which the
selection is made, and literary skill would all be needed to effect the object
in view. In such a case, the copyright might well be acquired for the print of
the selected passages. The Court said that it is the product of the labour,
skill and capital of one man which must not be appropriated by another, not the
elements, the raw material, upon which the labour and skill and capital of the
first have been expended. To secure copyright for this product, it is necessary
that the labour, skill and capital expended should be sufficient to impart to
the product some quality or character which the raw material did not possess
and which differentiates the product from the raw material.
The
Court approved the principles enunciated in the case of University of London
Press, Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press, Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch. 601, dealing with
the meaning of the words `original literary work that the original does
not mean expression of original or inventive thought. The Copyright Act is not
concerned with the original ideas, but with the expression of thought. The
originality which is required relates to expression of thought and the Act does
not require that the expression must be in original or novel form. The work
must not be copied from another work that it should originate from the author.
37.
The Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society
of Upper Canada, 2004 (1) SCR 339 (Canada) has noticed the competing views on
the meaning of `original in copyright law wherein some courts have held
that a work which has originated from an author and is more than a mere copy of
a work, is sufficient to give copyright. This approach is held to be consistent
with the `sweat of the brow or `industriousness standard of
originality on the premise that an author deserves to have his or her efforts
in producing a work rewarded. Whereas the other courts have held that a work
must be creative to be original and thus protected by the copyright Act, which
approach is consistent with a natural rights theory of property law; however,
it is less absolute in that only those works that are the product of creativity
will be rewarded with copyright protection and it was suggested in those
decisions that the creativity approach to originality helps ensure that
copyright protection is extended to the expression of ideas as opposed to the
underlying ideas or facts. The Court has also noticed that those cases which
had adopted the sweat of the brow approach to originality should not be
interpreted as concluding that labour, in and of itself, would be a ground for
finding of originality.
The
question for consideration of the copyright has arisen on the following fact
foundation. The appellant, Law Society of Upper Canada, has maintained and
operated the Great Library at Osgoode Hall in Toranto, a reference and research
library. The Great Library provides a request- based photocopy service for Law
Society members, the judiciary and other authorized researchers. Under the
custom photocopy service, legal materials are reproduced and delivered to the
requesters. The Law Society also maintains self-service photocopiers in the
Great Library for use by its patrons. The respondents, CCH Canadian Ltd.,
Thomson Canada Ltd. and Canada Law Book Inc. publish law reports and other
legal materials. The law book publishers commenced copyright infringement
action against the Law Society claiming ownership of copyright in 11 specific
works on the ground that the Law Society had infringed copyright when the Great
Library reproduced a copy of each of the works. The publishers further sought
permanent injunction prohibiting the Law Society from reproducing these 11
works as well as any other works that they published. The Law Society denied
liability and submitted that the copyright is not infringed when a single copy
of a reported decision, case summary, statute, regulation or a limited
selection of text from a treatise is made by the Great Library staff or one of
its patrons on a self-service photocopier for the purpose of research. The
Court was called upon to decide the question as to what shall be the
originality in the work of compilation. On consideration of various cases, it
was held that to be original under the Copyright Act the work must originate
from an author, not be copied from another work, and must be the product of an
authors exercise of skill and judgment. The exercise of skill and judgment
required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized
as a purely mechanical exercise. Creative works by definition are original and
are protected by copyright, but creativity is not required in order to render a
work original. The original work should be the product of an exercise of skill
and judgment and it is a workable yet fair standard. The sweat of the brow
approach to originality is too low a standard which shifts the balance of
copyright protection too far in favour of the owners right, and fails to
allow copyright to protect the publics interest in maximizing the
production and dissemination of intellectual works. On the other hand, the
creativity standard of originality is too high. A creative standard implies
that something must be novel or non-obvious - concepts more properly associated
with patent law than copyright law. By way of contrast, a standard requiring
the exercise of skill and judgment in the production of a work avoids these
difficulties and provides a workable and appropriate standard for copyright
protection that is consistent with the policy of the objectives of the Copyright
Act. Thus, the Canadian Supreme Court is of the view that to claim copyright in
a compilation, the author must produce a material with exercise of his skill
and judgment which may not be creativity in the sense that it is not novel or
non- obvious, but at the same time it is not the product of merely labour and
capital.
38. It
is the admitted position that the reports in the Supreme Court Cases (SCC) of
the judgments of the Supreme Court is a derivative work in public domain. By
virtue of Section 52(1) of the Act, it is expressly provided that certain acts
enumerated therein shall not constitute an infringement of copyright.
Sub-clause (iv) of clause (q) of Section 52(1) excludes the reproduction or
publication of any judgment or order of a Court, Tribunal or other judicial
authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is
prohibited by the Court, the Tribunal or other judicial authority from
copyright. The judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court would be in the public domain and its reproduction or
publication would not infringe the copyright. That being the position, the
copy-edited judgments would not satisfy the copyright merely by establishing
amount of skill, labour and capital put in the inputs of the copy-edited
judgments and the original or innovative thoughts for the creativity are
completely excluded. Accordingly, original or innovative thoughts are necessary
to establish copyright in the authors work. The principle where there is
common source the person relying on it must prove that he actually went to the
common source from where he borrowed the material, employing his own skill, labour
and brain and he did not copy, would not apply to the judgments of the courts
because there is no copyright in the judgments of the court, unless so made by
the court itself. To secure a copyright for the judgments delivered by the
court, it is necessary that the labour, skill and capital invested should be
sufficient to communicate or impart to the judgment printed in SCC some quality
or character which the original judgment does not possess and which
differentiates the original judgment from the printed one. The Copyright Act is
not concerned with the original idea but with the expression of thought.
Copyright
has nothing to do with originality or literary merit. Copyrighted material is
that what is created by the author by his own skill, labour and investment of
capital, maybe it is a derivative work which gives a flavour of creativity. The
copyright work which comes into being should be original in the sense that by
virtue of selection, co-ordination or arrangement of pre-existing data
contained in the work, a work somewhat different in character is produced by
the author. On the face of the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, we
think that the principle laid down by the Canadian Court would be applicable in copyright of the judgments of the Apex Court.
We
make it clear that the decision of ours would be confined to the judgments of
the courts which are in the public domain as by virtue of Section 52 of the Act
there is no copyright in the original text of the judgments. To claim copyright
in a compilation, the author must produce the material with exercise of his
skill and judgment which may not be creativity in the sense that it is novel or
non- obvious, but at the same time it is not a product of merely labour and
capital. The derivative work produced by the author must have some
distinguishable features and flavour to raw text of the judgments delivered by
the court. The trivial variation or inputs put in the judgment would not
satisfy the test of copyright of an author.
39. On
this touchstone, we shall take into consideration the inputs put by the
appellants in their journal `SCC. The appellants have added in the copy-
edited version the cross-citations to the citation(s) already given in the
original text; added names of cases and cross-citations where only the citation
of the case is given; added citation and cross-citations where only name of the
case is given; inserted citation in case history where only the title and year
of the impugned/earlier order is given; presented in their own style the cases
when they are cited repeated in the judgment; provided precise references to
the quoted matter in the judgment by giving exact page and paragraph number as
in the original case source/treatise/reference material; added margin headings
to quoted extracts from statutes/rules, etc., when they are missing from the
original text of the judgment; added the number of the
Section/Rule/Article/paragraph to the extract quoted in the original text;
added the names of Judges on whose behalf opinion given by giving expressions
such as for himself and Pathak, C.J. etc.; done verification of first
word of the quoted extract and supplied emphasis on such verification; added
ellipsis to indicate breaks in quoted extract; provided and supplied
the matter inadvertently missed in quoted extracts in the original text of the
judgment; completed/corrected the incomplete/incorrect case names or citations;
renumbered correctly the clauses/sub-clauses in terms of the questions framed
which were numbered in terms of answers to questions framed by learned Judge;
changed the text as per corrigenda issued, which has been issued upon SCC
Editors request and suggestions; done compressing/simplification of
information relating to the case history; followed certain norms at SCC for
giving case names; omitted the words like Section, Sec.,
Rule, etc. and given only the number of the Section/rule at the
beginning of the quoted extract; made margin heading and the first
clause/sub-section or initial matter of section/rule etc. to run-on instead of
being let to start from a fresh line; done compressing of unquoted referends
and use of *** for parts; replaced the series of dots in the raw text with
ellipsis; removed abbreviations such as sec., R., cl. and substituted them with
full word, i.e. Section, Rule, clause; added hyphenation after the section/rule
numbers which have alphabets suffixed to them;
applied
indentation of quoted extracts; removed full stops or word No. ; and
given full forms of abbreviations to enhance readability and clarity. In
addition to the above, capitalization and italicization is also made wherever
necessary in the raw text; and punctuation, articles, spellings and compound
words are also checked and corrected, if required, in the original text.
40.
The aforesaid inputs put by the appellants in the judgments would have had a
copyright had we accepted the principle that any one who by his or her own
skill and labour creates an original work of whatever character, shall enjoy an
exclusive right to copy that work and no one else would be permitted to reap
the crop what the copyright owner had sown. No doubt the appellants have
collected the material and improved the readability of the judgment by putting
inputs in the original text of the judgment by considerable labour and arranged
it in their own style, but that does not give the flavour of minimum
requirement of creativity. The exercise of the skill and judgment required to
produce the work is trivial and is on account of the labour and the capital
invested and could be characterized as purely a work which has been brought
about by putting some amount of labour by the appellants.
Although
for establishing a copyright, the creativity standard applies is not that
something must be novel or non-obvious, but some amount of creativity in the
work to claim a copyright is required. It does require a minimal degree of
creativity. Arrangement of the facts or data or the case law is already
included in the judgment of the court. Therefore, creativity of SCC would only
be addition of certain facts or material already published, case law published
in another law report and its own arrangement and presentation of the judgment
of the court in its own style to make it more user- friendly. The selection and
arrangement can be viewed as typical and at best result of the labour, skill
and investment of capital lacking even minimal creativity. It does not as a
whole display sufficient originality so as to amount to an original work of the
author. To support copyright, there must be some substantive variation and not
merely a trivial variation, not the variation of the type where limited
ways/unique of expression available and an author selects one of them which can
be said to be a garden variety. Novelty or invention or innovative idea is not
the requirement for protection of copyright but it does require minimal degree
of creativity. In our view, the aforesaid inputs put by the appellants in the
copy-edited judgments do not touch the standard of creativity required for the
copyright.
41.
However, the inputs put in the original text by the appellants in
(i) segregating
the existing paragraphs in the original text by breaking them into separate
paragraphs;
(ii) adding
internal paragraph numbering within a judgment after providing uniform
paragraph numbering to the multiple judgments; and
(iii)
indicating in the judgment the Judges who have dissented or concurred by
introducing the phrases like concurring, `partly concurring,
`partly dissenting, `dissenting, `supplementing, `majority
expressing no opinion, etc., have to be viewed in a different light. The
task of paragraph numbering and internal referencing requires skill and
judgment in great measure. The editor who inserts para numbering must know how
legal argumentation and legal discourse is conducted and how a judgment of a
court of law must read. Often legal arguments or conclusions are either clubbed
into one paragraph in the original judgment or parts of the same argument are
given in separate paragraphs. It requires judgment and the capacity for
discernment for determining whether to carve out a separate paragraph from an
existing paragraph in the original judgment or to club together separate
paragraphs in the original judgment of the court. Setting of paragraphs by the
appellants of their own in the judgment entailed the exercise of the brain work,
reading and understanding of subject of disputes, different issues involved,
statutory provisions applicable and interpretation of the same and then
dividing them in different paragraphs so that chain of thoughts and process of
statement of facts and the application of law relevant to the topic discussed
is not disturbed, would require full understanding of the entire subject of the
judgment. Making paragraphs in a judgment could not be called a mechanical
process. It requires careful consideration, discernment and choice and thus it
can be called as a work of an author. Creation of paragraphs would obviously
require extensive reading, careful study of subject and the exercise of
judgment to make paragraph which has dealt with particular aspect of the case,
and separating intermixing of a different subject. Creation of paragraphs by
separating them from the passage would require knowledge, sound judgment and
legal skill. In our opinion, this exercise and creation thereof has a flavour
of minimum amount of creativity. The said principle would also apply when the
editor has put an input whereby different Judges opinion has been shown to
have been dissenting or partly dissenting or concurring, etc. It also requires
reading of the whole judgment and understanding the questions involved and
thereafter finding out whether the Judges have disagreed or have the dissenting
opinion or they are partially disagreeing and partially agreeing to the view on
a particular law point or even on facts. In these inputs put in by the
appellants in the judgments reported in SCC, the appellants have a copyright
and nobody is permitted to utilize the same.
42.
For the reasons stated in the aforesaid discussion, the appeals are partly
allowed. The High Court has already granted interim relief to the plaintiff-
appellants by directing that though the respondent- defendants shall be
entitled to sell their CD-ROMS with the text of the judgments of the Supreme
Court along with their own head notes, editorial notes, if any, they should not
in any way copy the head notes of the plaintiff-appellants; and that the
defendant-respondents shall also not copy the footnotes and editorial notes
appearing in the journal of the plaintiff-appellants. It is further directed by
us that the defendant-respondents shall not use the paragraphs made by the
appellants in their copy-edited version for internal references and their
editors judgment regarding the opinions expressed by the Judges by using
phrases like `concurring, `partly dissenting, etc. on the basis of
reported judgments in SCC. The judgment of the High Court is modified to the
extent that in addition to the interim relief already granted by the High
Court, we have granted the above-mentioned additional relief to the appellants.
43. In
view of the decision rendered by us in the civil appeals, we do not think it
necessary to pass any order on the contempt petition. The contempt petition
stands disposed of accordingly.
44.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
