IPR
Topic 111 Landmark Copyright Cases
Topic 111 — Landmark Copyright Cases
Indian copyright jurisprudence has been shaped by foundational cases on originality, fair dealing, intermediary liability, and emerging AI issues. R.G. ANAND v. M/S. DELUX FILMS (SC 1978) — foundational case on substantial similarity test for copyright infringement; idea-expression dichotomy. EASTERN BOOK COMPANY v. D.B. MODAK (SC 2008) — modern originality test ("modicum of creativity"); replaced "sweat of the brow" doctrine. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS v. RAMESHWARI PHOTOCOPY SERVICES (Del HC 2016) — landmark fair dealing case for educational purposes; Section 52(1)(i). MYSPACE v. SUPER CASSETTES (Del HC 2016) — foundational intermediary liability framework. UTV v. 1337X.to (Del HC 2019) — pioneer dynamic injunctions case. SHREYA SINGHAL v. UoI (SC 2015) — read down Section 79(3)(b) IT Act. ANI MEDIA v. OPENAI (Del HC 2024) — AI training judgment reserved 2025. STEPHEN THALER v. COPYRIGHT OFFICE (Del HC 2025) — AI authorship 8-week directive. SUPER CASSETTES v. MYSPACE (2011) — earlier framework. BIGTREE ENTERTAINMENT v. SAREGAMA INDIA (Del HC 2019) — music piracy framework. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS v. CIT (SC 2021) — software copyright + tax intersection. The 2012 Copyright Amendment Act introduced internet-related provisions, fair dealing expansions, and statutory licensing. The 2021 Copyright Rules introduced compliance frameworks. The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 2023 strengthened anti-piracy provisions. This topic walks through the foundational, classical, and recent copyright jurisprudence — originality test, infringement framework, fair dealing exceptions, intermediary liability, online enforcement, and AI emerging issues.
1. Foundational Originality Test
📖 Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, AIR 2008 SC 809; (2008) 1 SCC 1 Facts — Eastern Book Company published Supreme Court Cases (SCC); D.B. Modak alleged copyright infringement for verbatim reproduction. Issues — (i) Whether court judgments + EBC editorial work attract copyright? (ii) What is appropriate originality test? Holdings — Supreme Court (12 December 2007): (i) Court judgments per se are NOT copyrightable (public domain). (ii) Editorial work, headnotes, footnotes by EBC ARE copyrightable. (iii) Established "MODICUM OF CREATIVITY" originality test. (iv) Replaced "sweat of the brow" doctrine. (v) Substantial reproduction prohibited. Significance — LANDMARK originality test: · Modicum of creativity required. · Mere effort/labour insufficient. · Aligns with international best practices. · Foundational for software copyright, database rights. · Applied in subsequent Indian cases. |
2. Foundational Infringement Test
📖 R.G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613; (1978) 4 SCC 118 Facts — R.G. Anand wrote play "Hum Hindustani"; Delux Films produced film "New Delhi" allegedly substantially similar. Holdings — Supreme Court: Established TEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY: 1. Idea-expression dichotomy — IDEAS not copyrightable; only EXPRESSION. 2. SCENE-A-FAIRE doctrine — common stock-in-trade scenes not protected. 3. Substantial reproduction of expressive elements required for infringement. 4. Similarity test — would average reasonable spectator/reader perceive substantial similarity? 5. Mere isolated similarities insufficient. Significance — FOUNDATIONAL Indian copyright infringement test. Applied in: · Film/literary works. · Music compositions. · Software code. · Architectural works. · All copyright disputes. |
📖 University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press, [1916] 2 Ch 601 (Indian adoption) Background — UK case adopted as influential precedent in Indian copyright jurisprudence. Holding — "What is worth copying is prima facie worth protecting." Significance — Adopted in Indian context as reference for originality and protection scope. Modified by Eastern Book Company 2008 modicum of creativity test. |
3. Fair Dealing Cases
📖 Cambridge University Press v. B.D. Bhandari (Rameshwari Photocopy Services), 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5128 Facts — Publishers (Cambridge, Oxford, Taylor & Francis) sued Rameshwari Photocopy Services + DU for educational photocopying. Holding — Delhi HC: Section 52(1)(i) Copyright Act fair dealing for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES extended: (i) Educational use of substantial portions permitted. (ii) Not limited to verbatim quotation. (iii) Course packs distributed by university institutions covered. (iv) Liberal interpretation of "in the course of instruction". Significance — LANDMARK educational fair dealing case: · Liberal interpretation of educational exception. · Course pack systems protected. · Indian academic ecosystem benefit. · Aligns with public interest in education. · International influence. |
📖 Wiley Eastern Ltd. v. IIM, AIR 1995 Del 53 Facts — Educational institution copying for instructional purposes. Holding — Delhi HC: Educational use within fair dealing framework. Significance — Pre-Cambridge case establishing educational use principles. |
4. Intermediary Liability and Online Cases
📖 Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6382 Facts — Music label sued Myspace for hosting copyrighted music videos uploaded by users. Holding — Delhi HC: (i) Intermediary safe harbour applies if proper diligence + takedown. (ii) Specific knowledge required for liability. (iii) Takedown obligation triggered by valid notice. (iv) Counter-notice mechanism balances rights. Significance — Foundational Indian intermediary liability case for IP. Established framework adopted in subsequent cases. |
📖 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523 Background — Petitioners challenged constitutionality of Sections 66A IT Act and 79 IT Act framework. Holding — Supreme Court: (i) Struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional. (ii) READ DOWN Section 79(3)(b) — "actual knowledge" requires court order or government notification, NOT mere notice from private parties. (iii) Established higher threshold for safe harbour loss. Significance — Foundational Indian intermediary liability case: · Mere private complaint INSUFFICIENT for actual knowledge. · Court order or government notification REQUIRED. · Affects IP enforcement strategies. |
📖 UTV Software Communication Ltd v. 1337X.to, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002 Facts — UTV Software (Disney India subsidiary) sought injunction against pirate sites for copyright infringement. Holding — Delhi HC PIONEERED dynamic injunctions: (i) Initial injunction against specific URL/domain. (ii) Power to extend injunction to mirror sites. (iii) Without need for fresh suit each time. (iv) Court permission to add infringing sites. Significance — WATERSHED dynamic injunction decision. Pioneer of online IP enforcement strategy in India. |
5. Software Copyright Cases
📖 Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Papat, 2005 (30) PTC 245 (Del) Facts — Software piracy case; pirated Microsoft software distribution. Holding — Delhi HC: Software copyright infringement framework; substantial damages awarded. Significance — Foundational software copyright enforcement case. |
📖 Time Inc. v. Lokesh Srivastava, 2005 (30) PTC 3 (Del) Facts — Time Magazine copyright; pirated copies distributed. Holding — Delhi HC: EXEMPLARY DAMAGES for software piracy. Significance — Significant precedent for damages quantum. Applied in subsequent software piracy cases. |
6. Music and Entertainment Copyright Cases
📖 Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 488 Facts — Music broadcasting royalty disputes. Holding — Supreme Court: Section 31 Copyright Act compulsory licensing framework for broadcasting. Significance — Music broadcasting framework. Foundational for radio/TV royalty disputes. |
📖 IPRS v. Aditya Pandey, (2017) 11 SCC 437 Facts — Indian Performing Right Society dispute over music copyright. Holding — Supreme Court: Music composition copyright framework; performing rights. Significance — Music copyright performing rights framework. |
7. Personality Rights and Copyright
📖 Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914 Facts — Anil Kapoor sought protection against misuse of his name, image, likeness — including by generative AI. Holding — Delhi HC: Personality rights protected; copyright + trademark + passing off + Article 21 framework. Significance — Modern AI-era personality protection. Foundation for future AI personality rights. |
8. AI and Copyright Cases
📖 Ani Media (P) Ltd. v. Open AI Inc. & Anr., CS(COMM) 1028/2024 (Del HC) Background — ANI sued OpenAI for using copyrighted news content to train ChatGPT. Status — Judgment reserved 2025. Issues — Multiple intersections: · Copyright: AI training as infringement. · Privacy: Training data contains personal data. · Free speech: Section 52 fair dealing. · Cross-border jurisdiction. Significance — Pending decision will shape AI copyright framework in India. |
📖 Stephen Thaler v. Copyright Office, 2025 (Del HC) Background — Thaler's claim of AI authorship for "DABUS" creations rejected globally (US, UK). Holding — Delhi HC (2025): 8-week directive on AI authorship reconsideration. Significance — AI inventorship/authorship requires human element under Indian framework. Following US/UK rejection. |
📖 "Raghav" Painting Case, 2021 (subsequent reversal) Background — In 2020, Indian Copyright Office initially registered "Raghav" — claimed AI-generated artwork — listing AI co-author. Reversal — 2021 reversal: Copyright Office revised position; AI cannot be co-author. Significance — Indian framework requires human authorship. Aligns with Stephen Thaler 2025. |
9. Tax + Copyright Intersection
📖 Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence v. CIT, AIR 2021 SC 1394; (2022) 3 SCC 321 Background — Software royalty taxation under DTAAs. Issue — Whether software payments constitute "royalty". Holding — Supreme Court: Standard software payments NOT royalty under DTAAs. "Use of copyright" vs "use of copyrighted article" distinction. Significance — LANDMARK royalty taxation. Affected IT industry. |
10. Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 2023
✅ Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 2023 — Anti-Piracy Reforms Major 2023 amendment addressing film piracy: Key provisions: · Anti-camcording — direct prohibition with criminal sanctions. · Anti-piracy distribution — internet distribution targeted. · Civil and criminal coordination. · Industry coordination. · Stricter penal provisions. Strategic significance: · Targets one of most damaging IP crimes. · Coordination with police and film industry. · Online piracy enforcement strengthened. · Strict penalties for repeat offenders. Applied in coordination with Copyright Act Sections 63, 63A, 63B, 65A. |
11. Copyright Cases Categories Summary
Category | Foundational Cases |
|---|---|
Originality test | Eastern Book Company v. Modak (2008) — modicum of creativity. |
Substantial similarity | R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) — idea-expression dichotomy. |
Fair dealing — educational | Cambridge University Press v. Rameshwari (Del HC 2016). |
Intermediary liability | Myspace v. Super Cassettes (2016); Shreya Singhal (2015). |
Online enforcement | UTV v. 1337X.to (2019) — dynamic injunctions. |
Software copyright | Microsoft v. Yogesh (2005); Time Inc. v. Lokesh (2005) exemplary damages. |
Music broadcasting | Super Cassettes v. Music Broadcast (2012); IPRS v. Aditya Pandey (2017). |
Personality rights + AI | Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life (2023). |
AI training copyright | ANI v. OpenAI (2024 pending); Stephen Thaler 2025. |
Software royalty tax | Engineering Analysis (2021). |
AI co-authorship | "Raghav" 2020-2021 reversal; Stephen Thaler 2025. |
Anti-piracy | Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 2023. |
12. Memory Aid — Quick Recall
✅ Quick Recall — Copyright Cases Tags R.G. Anand v. Delux Films 1978 (AIR 1978 SC 1613) — substantial similarity test; idea-expression dichotomy. Eastern Book Co. v. Modak 2008 (AIR 2008 SC 809; (2008) 1 SCC 1) — modicum of creativity test. Cambridge UP v. Rameshwari 2016 (Del HC) — fair dealing for educational use. Myspace v. Super Cassettes 2016 — intermediary liability framework. UTV v. 1337X.to 2019 — pioneer dynamic injunctions. Shreya Singhal 2015 — Section 79(3)(b) read down. ANI v. OpenAI 2024 (pending) — AI training copyright. Stephen Thaler 2025 — AI authorship rejected. "Raghav" 2020-2021 reversal — AI co-authorship rejected. Engineering Analysis 2021 — software not royalty under DTAAs. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life 2023 — personality rights against AI. Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 2023 — anti-piracy. |
🎯 EXAM POINTERS — TOPIC 111
|