ABSTRACT
This paper explores the fundamental aspects of copyright infringement as outlined in the Copyright Act, 1957, and highlights the importance of fair dealing as an exception to copyright protection. Copyright laws secure the rights of creators over their literary, musical, and artistic works, fostering creativity and societal advancement by preventing unauthorized use. However, strict enforcement of these laws could impede progress, making exceptions like fair dealing essential to strike a balance between protecting creators' rights and allowing public use for purposes such as research, criticism, and reporting. The paper reviews the legal framework surrounding copyright infringement, discusses significant cases such as R.G. Anand v. M/S. Delux Films & Ors., and examines how international agreements like TRIPS have influenced Indian copyright law. Additionally, it considers the CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada recognized fair dealing as a user’s right, calling for a broad interpretation.
INTRODUCTION
The rights of the creators of literary or artistic work, musical work, and artistic work are protected by the copyright. It rewards the creators by protecting their creations. The social and economic development of a society is dependent upon creativity. So, it encourages the creator to create more by protecting their creation. So, no one can use the creation of others without his or her consent, if he or she does so then it would amount to the infringement of copyright under section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
But every provision has some exceptions and the same is with copyright. If it prohibits others from using the prior creation rigidly, then it will hamper the development of society. So, copyright protection is not rigid it has exceptions also which are discussed in section 52 of the Copyright Act, of 1957. “Fair use doctrine is one of the exceptions discussed in section 52 of the copyright act.
WHAT IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
When any person uses the creation of another person or uses his exclusive rights without his permission then it is called infringement of copyright.
Section 14 of the Copyright Act, of 1957 grants copyright owners exclusive rights over their work. For literary, dramatic, or musical works (excluding computer programs), these rights include reproducing the work, distributing copies, public performance, translation, and adaptation. For cinematographic works, the owner has the exclusive right to reproduce the film, communicate it to the public, sell or commercially rent it, or offer it for sale or rental. In the case of sound recordings, the owner has the exclusive right to create other recordings from it or to sell the record. Any unauthorized use of these rights by others constitutes copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Act. Infringement is a punishable offense under Section 63, with penalties ranging from a minimum of six months imprisonment (up to three years) and fines starting at fifty thousand rupees (up to two lakh rupees). Penalties increase for repeat offenses.
In the Delhi High Court, Asia News International (ANI) has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Netflix series' creators, "IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack." According to ANI, the series uses footage from the news agency that was obtained without the required authorization or licensing and features terrorists, General Pervez Musharraf, and former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
R.G Anand v. M/S. Delux Films & Ors.
In 1953, playwright R.G. Anand wrote a play titled "Hum Hindustani," which gained significant popularity. Subsequently, film director Mohan Sehgal approached R.G. Anand, expressing interest in adapting the play into a film. Anand provided Sehgal with a copy of the play, but after receiving it, Sehgal did not maintain contact. Instead, he later announced the release of a film titled New Delhi. Believing that the movie was based on his play, R.G. Anand filed a copyright infringement suit in the Delhi trial court. The court ruled that there was no violation of copyright. Dissatisfied, Anand took the case to the Delhi High Court, which upheld the lower court's decision. Eventually, he appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
The Court ruled that R.G. Anand's play qualifies as a dramatic work under Section 1(2)(d). The District Judge had correctly determined that emotions, like mere ideas, cannot be exclusively claimed, as they are considered common property and not subject to ownership.
According to the Supreme Court, "...a concept, idea, theme, subject matter, or historical or legendary facts that are common property, cannot be the subject of a specific person's copyright. Any individual is always free to select an idea to work on, develop it in his way, and express it in a way that sets it apart from other ideas. When two authors write about the same subject, similarities are inevitable because both authors' central ideas are the same. However, coincidences or similarities alone do not automatically imply plagiarism or piracy."
So, it is clear from this case that an idea cannot be protected under the copyright act. This was the first case of idea-expression dichotomy.
WHICH ACT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT
Section 13 of the TRIPS mandates the member country to lay down certain limitations on the general concept of copyright. It says "Members shall restrict restrictions or exceptions to exclusive rights to specific unique situations that do not interfere with a regular use of the work and do not unreasonably jeopardize the right holder's legitimate interests."
As India is a member of TRIPS, it accepted the provision of TRIPS. Section 52 of the Copyright Act, of 1957 gives an exception to Copyright infringement. Especially fair dealing is the most important part of this section. Any work that is fairly dealt with and is not a computer program does not violate copyright if it is used for any of the following purposes: Private or personal use, which includes research; Criticism or review, whether of that work or any other work; Reporting on current affairs and events, including coverage of a speech given in public.
The following activities are excluded from being considered copyright infringement:
- Use for private purposes or research.
- Use for criticism or review.
- Reporting current events in any print publication.
- Use in copyrighted films, broadcasts, or through any photographic means.
- Reproduction of court cases or reports from judicial proceedings.
- Publishing or reprinting musical, literary, dramatic, or artistic works in documents created by legislative secretariats.
- Reproduction of literary, musical, or dramatic works in certified copies made or provided under current laws.
- Publication within collections primarily made up of non-copyrighted material aimed at educational institutions.
- Sound production, whether or not registered for copyright, or with the permission of the copyright owner.
In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada heard CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada [CCH], its first case on fair dealing. The Court unanimously ruled that fair dealing is a user’s right, equally important to copyright law as the rights of copyright holders, and should therefore be interpreted broadly and liberally.
CONCLUSION
Copyright law is designed to safeguard creators and encourage innovation by granting them exclusive rights to their works. However, these rights are not without limitations. Exceptions like fair dealing are vital in ensuring that the public interest and societal development are not restricted. In cases such as R.G. Anand and CCH Canadian Ltd., courts have emphasized that ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, and fair use provisions are key to striking a balance between protecting creators' rights and enabling access to information. Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is consistent with international agreements like TRIPS, allowing for limited use of copyrighted works for purposes such as private research, criticism, reporting, and education, helping to cultivate a more inclusive and progressive society.
REFERENCES
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ic-814-kandahar-hijack-netflix-ani-copyright-infringement-268999
- R.G Anand v. M/S. Delux Films & Ors., 1978 AIR 1613, 1979 SCR (1) 218, AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 1613, 1978 4 SCC 118
- https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1184954/exception-to-infringement-of-copyright-section-52-of-the-copyright-act-1957
- https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/FAIR-DEALINGS-AND-FAIR-USE-CRITICALLY-ANALYSING-THE-COPYRIGHT-EXEMPTION-DOCTRINES-IN-PLACE-IN-INDIA-AND-THE-UNITED-STATES
- CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada [CCH] [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13