Copyright Case Brief – Walter v Lane Citation – [1900] AC 539

Facts: Earl of Roseberry gave public speeches on five occasions. Reporters from The Times and
other newspapers attended them. The reporters from The Times had taken down shorthand notes
of the speeches and later the corrected, revised and punctuated their reports for publication in
Times. Reporters were employed under the terms that the copyright in all the materials
composed by them for The Times belonged to the proprietors. D published a book on Earl’s
speeches which substantially included reports published in The Times. Lord Roseberry did not
claim any copyright. The proprietors, being the copyright holder brought an action for breach of
copyright and also sought for injunction, damages and costs.

Procedural History: § The case was reported to the Chancery Division where North J. held that
the reporters have copyright in the report and not the speech and entitled them for injunction
against D. D appealed. § The Court of Appeal (CoA) held that a report is not an actual
composition and there is no copyright and allowed D’s appeal. § P appealed in House of Lords
(HoL), the writing court. The writing court reversed the judgment of CoA and restored North J.’s
decision and granted a perpetual injunction.

Issue: Whether the reporters of the speech could be considered “authors” under the terms of the
Copyright Act?

Holding:P won. It was held that a person who makes notes of a speech delivered in public,
transcribes them, and publishes in a newspaper a verbatim report of the speech, is the “author” of
the report within the meaning of the Copyright Act 1842, is entitled to the copyright in the report
and can assign the copyright.

Rationale: Copyright existed in reports prepared by shorthand writers’ of public speeches as

‘original literary’ works. The speeches were made by the Earl of Rosebery in public when
reporters were present. The reporters made notes in shorthand, transcribed them, corrected,
revised and punctuated them and published them in newspapers as verbatim reports of the
speeches. A speech and a report of a speech are two different things. Lord Roseberry was the
author of his speeches. The shorthand writers were the authors of their reports of his speeches.
They spent effort, skill and time in writing up their reports of speeches that they themselves had
not written. Even though the reporters had intended only to reproduce the speeches as accurately
as they could, the works they prepared remained original works. This is an example of sweat of
the Brow Doctrine.

Rule: The creator of a copyrighted work, even if it is completely unoriginal, is entitled to have
his effort and expense protected, and no one else may use such a work without permission, but
must instead recreate the work by independent research or effort.
Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company

Facts: Rural Telephone Service Company is a certied telephonic service provider operating in Kansas.
Owing to a state regulation it is subjected to print and issue a telephone directory consisting information
about individual subscriber in the white pages and advertisements of subscribers on the yellow pages.
Feist Publication is a publication company which specializes in area-wide telephone directories. Unlike a
typical directory, which covers a specic area, Feist publishes a directory which covers a much larger
geographical area. Rural Inc. is the sole provider of telephone services in that particular area in Kansas, it
obtains the information for the directory quite easily. However, Feist just being a publication house lacks
independent access to any subscriber information therefore approaches individual telephone service
provider companies for information. 10 out of 11 companies shared the information such that Feist
could publish it in their respective directory but Rural Inc. trying to attract the subscribers in its area for
yellow page advertisements did not. Despite being denied the information of the subscribers in that
particular region of Kansas, Feist Publication went ahead and used the white pages listing of Rural’s
directory without their consent but added additional information such as address which was not present
in the Rural’s version. Due to the presence of 4 fictitious listings that Rural had inserted into its directory
to detect copying, Feist was sued by them for copyright infringement.

Rural Inc. sued Feist Publication for copyright infringement in the District Court for the District of Kansas
stating that Feist’s employees were obliged to travel door-to door or conduct a telephone survey to
discover the information which they had copied. District Court granted a summary judgment to Rural,
explaining that “courts have consistently held that telephone directories are copyrightable”. An appeal
was preferred from the judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which afrmed the
decision of the District Court. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari to nally adjudicate upon
the matter

Decision:-The names, towns and telephones numbers copied by Feist were not original to Rural and
therefore were not protected by the copyright in Rural’s combined white and yellow pages directory. As
a constitutional matter, copyright protects only those constituent elements of a work that possess more
than a de minimum quantum of creativity. The alphabetic arrangement of subscriber’s information does
not afford protection from copying as it utterly lacks originality. Therefore, Feist listings cannot
constitute infringement. Telephone directory is a mere compilation of data and therefore cannot be
protected.

Ratio: For a piece of work to get protection under copyrights law, the following conditions must be met
– a) the collection and assembly of pre-existing materials, facts, or data; b) the selection, coordination,
or arrangement of those materials, and c) the creation, by virtue of the particular selection,
coordination, or arrangement, as an “original” work of authorship.
University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press

A resolution by the University of London stated that the copyright of all the examination papers
set by the examiners employed by the University vested with the University. Examiners were
appointed for the purpose of setting the examination papers for matriculation examinations. They
were free, subject to a syllabus and having regard to the knowledge expected from students, to
choose their own questions. The University entered into an agreement with the University of
London Press Limited to assign the copyright and all rights to publish the matriculation
examination papers to the later for a consideration. Later, the University Tutorial Press Limited
issued a publication which included sixteen out of forty-two matriculation papers. The papers
were not copied from the publication of the University of London Press Limited, but were taken
from copies of the examination papers supplied by students. In addition to the question papers,
the publication also contained answers to the questions in some of the papers and also made
some criticism on the way the papers were set. The plaintiff, University of London Press, sued
University Tutorial Press for infringement of copyright.

The plaintiff contended that the term “literary work” as used in the Act has a very broad
meaning covering work which are expressed in print or writing, irrespective of whether the
quality or style is high and includes maps, charts, plans, tables, and compilations. Therefore the
examination papers will also fall under the category of “literary work”. The defendant contended
that questions were of common type and were not unique or distinct enough to claim copyright.

The Court held that the Copyright Act does not require that expression be in an original or novel
form. It does, however, require that the work not be copied from another work. It must originate
from the author. The question papers are original within the meaning of copyright laws as they
were originated from the authors . The court held that merely because similar questions have
been asked by other examiners, the plaintiff shall not be denied copyright.
Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak

the Supreme Court discarded the ‘Sweat of the Brow’ doctrine and shifted to a ‘Modicum of
creativity’approach as followed in the US. The dispute is relating to copyrightability of
judgements. The facts of the case is that SCC, the Supreme Court Case reporter, was aggrieved
by other parties infringing their copyright and launching software containing the judgements
edited by SCC along with other additions made by the editors of SCC like cross references, head
notes, the short notes comprising of lead words and the long note which comprises of a brief
description of the facts and relevant extract from the judgments of the court and standardisation
and formatting of text, etc. The notion of “flavour of minimum requirement of creativity” was
introduced in this case. It was held that to establish copyright, the creativity standard applied is
not that something must be novel or non-obvious, but some amount of creativity in the work to
claim a copyright is required. The Court held that these inputs made by the editors of SCC can be
given copyright protection because such tasks require the use of legal knowledge, skill and
judgement of the editor. Thus, this exercise and creation thereof has a flavour of minimum
amount of creativity and enjoy the copyright protection.
Accordingly, the Court granted copyright protection to the additions and contributions made by
the editors of SCC. At the same the Court also held that the orders and judgments of the Courts
are in public domain and everybody has a right to use and publish them and therefore no
copyright can be claimed on the same.

In subsequent cases, the Indian courts followed this approach and completely rejected the plea to
protect mere works of compilation under copyright. Copyright is conferred on those works which
has originated from author and which is not merely a copy of the original work. This does not
push the standard of originality expected to a considerably high level, but brings in a subtle
balance between ensuring reward for the efforts of an author while also maintaining a reasonable
standard in the materials protected under law.
– R.G. Anand v. Delux Films

Facts: The Plaintiff (P) wrote a script for a play of the name “Hum Hindustani” in 1953 and it
was enacted in New Delhi theatres in that year. The play was based on the concept of
Provincialism, and was well received so P started considering the possibility of lming it. The
Defendant (D) approached P in 1954 after an eminent scriptwriter told him about the play when
D was considering making a movie on the topic of Provincialism. On hearing the script D told P
that he would inform P of his decision upon return to Mumbai. In 1955 D announced the
production of a movie called “New Delhi”, after watching the movie, one of the artists in the
play told P that it was similar to the play. P wrote to D about his concerns that the movie was a
copy of the play, and D told P that the movie was on the topic of Provincialism but it was not
based on the play as the play in itself wasn’t enough for a movie and the characters and story
treatment, etc. was very different from the play. P read newspaper comments about the movie
and then later watched the movie himself and felt that the movie was entirely based on the play.
He found that the movie had one character with the same name as in his play. P therefore led a
suit of the infringement of his copyrights.

Procedural history: The Delhi High Court held that the similarities between the movie and the
play were insignicant and although both the copyrightable subject matters were based on
provincialism, the stories and portrayal in the movie were completely different from the play.
Dissatised with the holding, P appealed to the Supreme Court.

Holding: 1. The Supreme Court held that the movie although based on the same concept, wasn’t
a copy of the play. Therefore, there was no copyright infringement by D. 2. The court also held
that the name “Subramaniam” which appeared in both the movie and the play wasn’t
copyrightable; therefore the use of the name wouldn’t result in copyright infringement.

Rationale: The similarities and coincidences as observed by the court were insignicant and were
not sufcient to raise an inference of colourable imitation. The play relied heavily on the idea of
provincialism; it did not touch the other aspects of “caste” and “sati” that the movie had
explored. The Supreme Court also observed that the three aspects in the lm were completely
integral to the movie and could not be divorced from each other without affecting the beauty and
the continuity of the script. The story in the movie also went beyond the plot represented in the
play. The dissimilarities in the between the movie and the play were so material that it was not
possible to say that P’s copyright had been infringed.
Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Ltd (1937) 3 All ER 503

Facts of the Case

This case concerned a series of articles published in the News of the World newspaper about the then-famous
jockey Stephen Donoghue and his experiences in the world of horse racing. Mr Donoghue was interviewed
about his adventures, which were subsequently used by a professional journalist S. T. Felstead. The series of
articles published were called “Steve Donoghue’s Racing Secrets, Enthralling Stories of the Sport of Kings”,
and all articles were approved by Mr Donoghue prior to publishing. Mr Felstead wanted to further use the
material which was published in these articles by writing a new piece titled “My Racing Secrets. By Steve
Donoghue” to be published in the newspaper Guides and Ideas, which used condensed parts from the older
articles, effectively creating a new work. Mr Donoghue did not consent to the publication of new works, yet
when the piece was published in the newspaper, Mr. Donoghue took action to prevent any further publications
of such articles.

Observations and Decision

Plaintiff is neither author nor co-author because there is no copyright in an idea, or in ideas. A person may
have a brilliant idea for a story, or for a picture, or for a play, and one which appears to him to be original; but
if he communicates that idea to an author or an artist or a playwright, the production which is the result of the
communication of the idea to the author or the artist or the playwright is the copyright of the person who has
clothed the idea in a form, whether by means of a picture, a play, or a book, and the owner of the idea has no
rights in that product.”
Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Ltd

This case concerned a series of articles published in the News of the World newspaper about the
then-famous jockey Stephen Donoghue and his experiences in the world of horse racing. Mr.
Donoghue was interviewed about his adventures, which were subsequently used by a
professional journalist S. T. Felstead. The series of articles published were called "Steve
Donoghue’s Racing Secrets, Enthralling Stories of the Sport of Kings", and all articles were
approved by Mr. Donoghue prior to publishing. Mr. Felstead wanted to further use the material
which was published in these articles by writing a new piece titled "My Racing Secrets. By Steve
Donoghue" to be published in the newspaper Guides and Ideas, which used condensed parts from
the older articles, effectively creating a new work. Mr. Donoghue did not consent to the
publication of new works, yet when the piece was published in the newspaper, Mr. Donoghue
took action to prevent any further publications of such articles.

he question for the court was whether Mr. Donoghue could be seen as the author or co-author of
the published articles in the News of the World under the then in-force Copyright Act 1911.
Justice Farwell summarized the position of the law well as exposition to this question:

"...there is no copyright in an idea, or in ideas. A person may have a brilliant idea for a story, or
for a picture, or for a play, and one which appears to him to be original; but if he communicates
that idea to an author or an artist or a playwright, the production which is the result of the
communication of the idea to the author or the artist or the playwright is the copyright of the
person who has clothed the idea in a form, whether by means of a picture, a play, or a book, and
the owner of the idea has no rights in that product."

What is important in the court's assessment is not the idea or ideas themselves, but their
expression in a particular form. In the case at hand Mr. Donoghue essentially provided Mr.
Felstead the ideas for his articles; ideas which were then conveyed through Mr. Felstead's
expression. The language used in the articles was accepted to being that of Mr. Felstead's and not
Mr. Donoghue's, even though some of the articles contained dialogue arguably taken verbatim
from Mr. Donoghue's recollections.
Najma Heptulla v.Orient longmanLtd.

the question before the Court was whether a person who gives form to the narration will become
the joint author of the book India Wins freedom’. Even though the work was composed by
Humayun Kabir (close associate of Maulana Azad) the material for the book was supplied by the
Azad with a clear understanding that kabir will describe those thoughts and conversations and
write the same in English language and Kabir’s function was only to record Azad’s findings and
not to let his views colour the narrative . The preface itself shows it is the Azad who decided as
to which 30 pages of the book were not to be publish and which of his views should be contain in
his book and read every word of manuscript and made alterations additions, omissions and
correction.

Court concluded that the work India Wins Freedom was the product of the active and close
intellectual collaboration between Mulana Azad and Humayun Kabir in pursuance of pre-
concerted joint design between the two that Azad would contribute the material for the book, and
kabir will write the same in English. Such a work could neither be regarded as sole creation of
either one of them, but as the work of Joint Authorship.. However no specific criteria was laid
down by the court to determine what amount to active and close intellectual collaboration to
determine join authorship. It raises an interesting question whether a person who has not himself
put pen to paper but someone else has done that effectively writing what the first person had
created can become a joint author. Or mere recording a narration makes him a joint
author. However, after this case no such issue has come before the judiciary.
Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India

Facts: Mr. Amar Nath Sehgal is the world-renowned sculpturist and has been conferred with
several awards for his beautiful creations and contribution to the Indian heritage. In the year
1957, the Government of India commissioned Mr. Sehgal for the creating bronze mural for the
most prominent International Convention Hall in the Capital of the Country. The Bronze
sculpture of about 140ft. span and 40ft. sweep took ve years to complete and was placed on the
wall of the Lobby in the Convention hall. This embellishment on a national architecture became
a part of the Indian art heritage. In the year 1979 when government pulled down the sculpture
from the walls of ‘Vigyan Bhawan’ and dumped it in the storeroom. When Mr. Sehgal came to
know of this ill treatment, he made representations to the government authorities for restoration
of the mural. Unfortunately, all his pleas fell on deaf ears. Aggrieved by the apathy of the
government ofcials, Mr. Seghal led a petition in the Delhi High Court for recognition and
enforcement of his rights on the mural.

Analysis: The work of art or any work which have some kind of creativity involved also have
some kind of sentiments or the sense of ownership attached to it. These moral values should
always be respected. Special rights u/s 57 of the Copyright Act are very important laws, which
give the rights to the author or any person who makes anything to claim the damages against any
kind of distortion, mutilation or modication without the consent of the author. This is the
landmark case in which the moral rights were considered. The judgment states that these rights
are independent of the author’s copyright. They exist even after the assignment of the copyright,
either wholly or partially. Secondly, The court stated that the defendants moved the mural
without the prior permission of the author and in addition to it the mural was also damaged from
the corners. The mural was moved away from the public view, which clearly shows that it was
prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation.

Judgment: The Court held that the mural whatever be its form today is too precious to be reduced
to scrap and languish in the warehouse of the Government of India. It is only Mr. Sehgal who has
the right to recreate his work and therefore has the right to receive the broken down mural. He
also has the right to be compensated for the loss of reputation, honor and mental injury due to the
offending acts of UOI”. The Court passed mandatory injunction against the UOI directing it to
return the mural to Mr. Sehgal within two weeks from the date of judgment. Court passed a
declaration transferring all the rights over the mural from UOI to Mr. Sehgal and an absolute
right to recreate the mural and sell the same. The Court also granted damages to the tune of Rs.5
lacs and cost of suit to Mr. Sehgal against UOI.

Conclusion: The Court favored the plaintiff and stated that the defendants are liable to pay the
damages and also to return the mural to its author. The Court also stated that prior permission
should always be taken before taking any such action.
Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma

In 1952, playwright Thoppil Bhasi wrote the play Ningalenne Communistakki . Since then the
drama has been staged over 10,000 times and has garnered widespread appreciation. Thoppil was
an active member of the Communist Part of India and through his play he aimed to garner
support for his party as well as to organize the people belonging to the allegedly lower strata of
the society in a struggle against oppression, exploitation and poverty in order to bring about a
revolution which would result in the victory of the workers. This drama was instrumental in
the political victory of the Communist Party of India in Kerala in 1957. All the rights in the play
were first vested in Thoppil Bhasi and after his demise, the same were transferred to his legal
heirs, who are also the plaintiffs of the present suit. In 1995, Defendant no. 1 wrote a drama
called "Ningal Are Communistakki" (hereinafter referred to as the counter-drama). This drama
was styled as a counter-drama to the drama written by Thoppil Bhasi and was published in the
Malayalam edition of India Today

Main arguments of the plaintiffs/respondents

The plaintiffs/respondents alleged that the counter-drama created by Defendant no. 1 contained
substantial portions of the drama as well as a reproduction of the characters and dialogues with
some mere comments here and there. It was contested by the plaintiff that this was done in order
to take "undue advantage of the creative talents and labour of Thoppil Bhasi" which was in
violation of the Copyright Act.

JUDGEMENT

After doing a scene by scene analysis of the counter drama and the drama, the Court reached the
conclusion that the scenes and characters were not borrowed from the latter for the purpose of
reproduction of the drama in any substantial manner. Moreover, the Court noted that the purpose
was not to misappropriate the theme, form of presentation, theme, character, dialogues and the
techniques adopted in writing the drama. The aim was not to imitate the drama or to produce
anything similar. The real objective of the counter-drama was to criticize the ideology depicted
in the drama and to show how the drama had been unsuccessful in achieving the targets it had
purported to have aimed for. This would constitute fair dealing.