Copyright Act 1957

SR No.: 269633
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Total Pages: 29
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 4 MB

Page 19

S. 52] COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957, Comments Infringement of copyright.--Taking into account the entire get-up, the combination of colours where it is noted that the essential features of plaintiff's containers have been absolutely copied and the entire scheme of the containers is also the same though there is a phonetic difference between the numerals "1001" and "9001" the plaintiff is entitled prima facie to the relief of permanent injunction for the infringement of his copyright. Tests.-On a careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and the case-law on the subject the following propositions emerge : 1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject-matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea . by the author of the copyrighted work. 2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common similarities are bound to occur. In order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy. . 3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original. 4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of valuation of copyright arises. 5. Where, however, apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright.comes into existence. 6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence. 7. Where, however, the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by a film producer or a director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader perspective, wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film is by and large a copy of the original play. violation of the copyright may be said to be proved. 52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright.-- (1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely : (a) a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purposes of (i) research or private study ; (ii) criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work ; (6) a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purpose of reporting current events (i) in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical; or 1. Messrs. Anglo-Dutch Paint, Colour and 2. R. G. Anand v. Mestss. De hix Films, Varnish Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Mesrss India Tra- A. I. R. 1978 S, C. 1613 at p. 1627, ding House, A.I.R. 1977 Delhi 41 at pp. 44, 45.