And a lovely journey that began in the year 2011 is about to take a turn but the things that

we have gained
from each other can never be summarized in a few words. This ain't a farewell speech or a photo-album
that marks the end of something but instead, brings us hope that we'll remain the same till the very drop
of insanity that is left in us. :)
I started this photo journey with a small Nokia phone when people used to hide from the non-flash camera
which has given some of the most beautiful memories over these years and today is the day when things
are about to get a little nostalgic for all of us. Naming the people or tagging them to express what they
mean in our lives won't help a bit because there are certain things that only hearts can bind in them. On
that note, this is seriously a description big enough to explain some of the memories we captured in the
last year of togetherness in the Faculty of Law, University of Allahabad which has actually given me much
more than I ever though to have deserved.
P.S- There are some people who left us for their heavenly ride in different colleges but they still form an
indelible part of our lives. This is for them. :D

INTRODUCTION
The word copy has a range of meanings: transcript, imitation, reproduction of an original writing
or painting etc. Creators of literary artistic or musical works in ancient times did not worry about
their work being copied. However, the question of copyright came to the fore when the printing
technology made its appearance. The first to be affected adversely by printing were the authors
whose books/works could be copied in large numbers by unauthorised persons, who would reap
the benefits depriving the authors of just rewards of their intellectual work. Later as technology
advanced, several other categories of originators of intellectual works were included under
copyright: literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, cinematograph film, sound recording. Broadly
speaking, copyright is an exclusive right granted by law for a specified period to the creator of a
work of thought against any form of copying by an unauthorised person. Under copyright,
several acts are defined which are prohibited to prevent what would amount to copying. The
things for which copyright subsists emerge from ideas, concepts, thoughts etc. that are common
to all, but these things have been put in a fixed form using ones mental faculty. The first
enactment on copyright in India was the Indian Copyright Act, 1914, which modified the
Copyright Act, 1911 of UK that was applicable at that time to India. To meet the changes brought
by advances in technology of communication and reproduction, as also the emergence of India as
an independent nation with its own aspirations and agenda for development, a complete revision
of the law of copyright was effected in the form of The Copyright Act, 1957. It was amended
from time to time, the last being in 1999. The copyright Act, 1957, as amended in 1999 came
into effect on January 15, 2000. In the following text, we will refer to it as the Act. The object of
copyright law is to encourage authors, composers, artists and designers to create original works
by rewarding them with an exclusive right for a limited period. Such exclusive rights are
permitted for literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, cinematograph film and sound recordings.
Licensing the right to publishers, film producers and music record manufacturers permits the
economic exploitation. The law also aims at preventing anyone from reproducing or exploiting
another persons work without authorisation. Please remember that copyright in a work is not a
single right; it bundles several rights together. For example, copyright in a book is not merely the
right to bring it out in varied editions, but also the right to serialise it in media, to its dramatic
and cinematographic versions, translation, abridgement and adaptation etc. Copyright is also
accompanied with other related rights going beyond reproduction of the work; these rights are
known as Neighbouring Rights. These include the right to works derived from the original work,
the right to public performance and the right to recording and broadcasting. The bundle of rights
that constitutes copyright has two kinds of rights: (a) the economic rights that take care of the
economic interests of the author, and (b) the moral rights, that is, the rights that concern the
status, respect and dignity of the author. The economic rights deal with issues like permission to
publication or reproduction of the work or their adaptation or translation and the right to assign
or license the copyright. The moral rights include the right to claim and be recognised as the
author of your intellectual creation, and have your name mentioned as the author whenever your
work is used; similarly the author has the right to object to the use of the work in a manner or in
a context that would compromise his honour and reputation.

THE INDIAN LAW

Only original works are entitled for protection under the Act. Copyright is not concerned with
literary quality, or artistic merit or originality of thought in the work. Ideas are not protected by
copyright; only the material form of their expression is protected provided sufficient labour, skill
and judgment has been exercised. Two authors writing independently on the same theme would
produce two independent works and copyright in each work would belong to the respective
author. Subject Matter of Copyright The copyright shall subsist in the following classes of work:
Original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works; Cinematograph films Sound
recording Literary work includes computer programmes and compilations including databases.
Dramatic work includes any piece for recitation, choreographic work or entertainment in a dumb
show, scenic arrangement or acting, the form of which is fixed in writing or otherwise. Musical
work includes graphical notation of music; it does not include any work or action intended to be
sung, spoken or performed with the music. Artistic work means a painting, a sculpture, a drawing
(including a diagram, map, chart, plan); an engraving; a photograph; a work of architecture
having an artistic character or design, including its model; any other work of craftsmanship.
Cinematograph film means any work of visual recording on any medium produced through a
process from which a moving image may be produced by any means and includes a sound
recording accompanying such visual recording. Sound recording means recording of sounds on
any medium, from which the original sound may be reproduced regardless of the medium of
record or of the method used to reproduce the sounds. Meaning of Copyright The copyright
means exclusive right to do or authorise to do the following acts: In the case of literary, dramatic
or musical work: to reproduce the work in any material form, this includes storing it by
electronic means; to perform the work in public or communicate it to the public; to make any
cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of that work; to make any translation or
adaptation of the work or to do any of the above acts in respect to any translation or adaptation of
the work. In the case of computer programmes: any of the acts specified above; to sell or
commercially rent any copy of the computer programme. In the case of artistic work: to
reproduce the work in any material form, including depiction in 3-D of a 2-D work or in 2-D of a
3-D work; to communicate the work to the public; to include the work in any cinematograph
film; to make an adaptation of the work and/or to do any of the work mentioned above in
respect of the adaptation. In the case of cinematograph film: to make a copy of the film,
including a photograph of any images forming part of the film; to sell or hire any copy of the
film; to communicate the film to the public. In the case of sound recording: to make any
sound recording embodying it; to sell or give on hire or offer for sale any copy of the sound
recording; to communicate the sound recording to the public. Thus, Copyright in a work is not
a single right, but it bundles several rights together, including a negative right. Broadly, these
rights can be grouped as follows: the right of publication; the neighbouring (related) rights;
the right to prevent anybody from altering the content of the work that may damage the authors
reputation; and the right of authorship or the right of paternity.
Even after a copyright is assigned wholly to another person, the author of the work retains the
right to the claim for authorship of the work and the right to restrain or claim damages in respect

of any distortion, mutilation, modification that are prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the
author. The author has the right to prosecute anybody who publishes the work without the
authors consent. The artist who performs the drama or music has no right and there is no
copyright in the performance as such, even though the dramatic work and music and lyrics can
be copyrighted. Criteria for Entitlement for a Copyright In order to be entitled for a copyright in
a work in India, its author must fulfil certain other qualifications besides the originality of the
work in respect of form of expression. These require that the work be published in India, or if it
is first published outside India, the author, at the time of publication, be a citizen of India, or if
the work is published posthumously, the author at the time of death be a citizen of India. In the
case of unpublished work the author must be a citizen of India, or domiciled in India, at the time
of making the work. However, this does not apply to works of architecture. The above mentioned
requirements do not apply to works of foreign authors or of foreign organisations. However, the
Central Government may extend the copyright protection under the Act to such works subject to
certain conditions on the basis of reciprocal arrangement with foreign countries in respect of
grant of copyright to Indian authors in those countries similar to those granted to their own
nationals.

WHO IS AUTHOR OR OWNER OF COPYRIGHT?

The author of the work shall be the owner of the copyright. The author means: in the case of
literary and dramatic work, the author of the work; in relation to music, the composer; in the
case of a photograph, the person taking the photograph; in relation to a film or sound recording,
the producer; in the case of computer generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, the
person who created the work. But if the author is in the employment of a proprietor of a
newspaper, periodicals etc. under a service contract or makes a work for publication in a
newspaper etc, then the employer will be the first owner only for the purpose of its
publication/reproduction unless a specific provision to the contrary is specified in the Contract.
For other purposes the author will be the first owner. In the case of any photograph taken or
painting or portrait drawn, or a cinematograph film, or an engraving made for a consideration at
the instance of any person such person will be the first owner, of the copyright.
It is important to remember that an author may create a work when he is working under a
contract or when he is not under any contractual obligation to anybody. In the case of contract, it
could be in form of a contract of service or a contract for service. In a contract of service, the
employer directs and controls the time, and the way; the employee would work and deliver the
work. In the contract for service, a person is hired to do a certain work but left free to decide on
the course of action and the way to work in order to deliver the work. The crucial consideration
is to decide if the person employed as part of the business for a work, which is integral to the
business, or whether the work under the contract is not integral part of the business but merely
accessory to business. If the employment and the work are integral to the business, the contract is
of service; if not, it is for service. In contract of service, the employer is the first owner of the
copyright; in a contract for service, the copyright vests in the creator of the work. Thus an
architect commissioned to prepare the plan for a companys buildings is an independent
contractor and has the copyright in the plans created. There is no copyright in idea even if it is
original. But if the same idea is dictated to another person who makes a dramatic or artistic work
based on that idea the work could be copyrighted and the creator of such work is the owner of
the copyright. But if a shorthand writer takes down what is dictated by a person, the person who
dictates the content is the author and owner of the copyright. You already know that the first
requirement for a copyright to subsist in a work is the originality of expression and form and not
the novelty of the idea. Also, literary or artistic merit is not at all a consideration for determining
whether a work is entitled for copyright protection. We now consider a few situations which will
enable you to appreciate better, what entitles a work for copyright. An abridgement of an
original work is a product of considerable investment of knowledge, skill and labour and
presents the work in a much more precise and concise way. Thus the abridgement itself qualifies
to be an original work and is a subject matter of copyright. Similarly, a translation of a literary
work is itself an original literary work entitled to copyright protection, if the translator has
invested sufficient labour and skill in it. However, if the original work is protected by copyright,
publication of abridgement or translation would require the permission of the author owning the
copyright, otherwise it will constitute infringement of the copyright. The case of books on
history is slightly different. The facts of history carry no copyrights, but their presentation can.
Also, while other literary books may be for enjoyment alone, even if fictional, a work on history

propagates information and it is expected that information contained there, or its thesis and
conclusions would be used by others. Therefore, the knowledge presented in a historical work
can be extracted. Such extraction can itself be the subject matter of a copyright. A lecture, if it is
reduced to writing before delivery, carries copyright. A lecture delivered extempore will not
carry copyright but still be protected invoking breach of confidence. This fact holds because of
the understanding that the audience is admitted for listening the lecture but not to publish it.
Letters private, business or government whether handwritten or dictated, carry copyrights.
Dictionaries, directories, catalogues, even tambola ticket books are all subject matters of
copyright as they are original works requiring investment of thought, skill and labour. A single
word cannot be copyrighted. The logic is two-fold. First, it is not a creation of skill or labour;
second, an exclusive right over a word would take it away from use.

RIGHTS OF BROADCASTERS AND PERFORMERS

Every broadcasting organisation has a special right to reproduce its broadcasts within 25 years
from the first day of the year following the year in which the first broadcast is made. During this
period anybody doing the following acts without authorisation of the owner shall be deemed to
be infringing the broadcast reproduction right: re-broadcasting the broadcast; broadcasting it
to the public on payment of any charges; making any reproduction of such sound recording or
visual recording where the initial recording was done without licence; selling or hiring to the
public such recordings. Every performer who engages in any performance shall be entitled to a
special right known as performers right. The performers right shall subsist until 50 years from
the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the performance is made. During
this period the following acts if performed without the permission of the performer shall be
considered as infringement: making a sound recording or visual recording of the performance;
reproducing the sound recording or visual recording of the performance; broadcasting the
performance or sound recording in disregard of the broadcasters reproduction right;
communicating the performance to the public otherwise than by broadcast. Broadcast
reproduction right and performers right are not infringed by making of a recording for private
use or solely for purposes of bona fide teaching or research; fair use of excerpts of a
performance or a broadcast in reporting current events or for bona fide review, teaching or
research; by acts not regarded as infringement of general copyright discussed in sec 7.7.

The judgment delivered in 1996 by the Delhi High Court in Raja Pocket Books (Plaintiff)
v. Radha Pocket Books (Defendant) has dealt with copyright protection for characters.
The plaintiff in this case sought temporary injunction against the defendant to prevent circulation
of any kind of promotional material in any manner under the name Nagesh, which, according
to the plaintiff, infringed its copyright in its character Nagraj. The plaintiff further alleged that
the defendants release of its (defendants) comic series called Nagesh amounted to
misrepresentation because the character closely resembled the plaintiffs i.e. the character was
Nagraj-like.
The plaintiff submitted to the Court that in its eponymous comic series, Nagraj was the central
character and was dressed in green which was an allusion to his serpentine skin and wore a belt
which was designed like a snake. The whole series, according to the plaintiff, revolved around
the exploits of this character which entitled the plaintiff to copyright in the series as well as the
character, its get up and appearance. The title character, in the comics is brought to life by a
herpetologist (ahemSnake expert), has Voldemort-esque powers in that he has power over
snakes which are released from his body (I request the readers to bear with these pedantic details;
its a childrens comics after all) and at the behest of a noble hermit, he decides to put his powers
to good use.
The defendants title character Nagesh too is depicted in almost the same fashion with a slight
alteration in the storyline. Nagesh is created when a herpetologist brings a dead person back to
life using errra snake pearl. This character too uses his powers against crime on the advice of a
sage. He too dresses in a green coloured body stocking. Does the character of the defendant
Nagesh infringe the plaintiffs copyright in Nagraj, if at all there exists one?
Lets analyse this in the light of the observations made by the US Court in the Star Wars case.
InStar Wars, the Court held that for characters to be bestowed with copyright protection, they are
expected to bring an element of distinctiveness through their traits i.e. hypothetically speaking, if
characters of a run-of-the-mill love story are to qualify for copyright protection, they must
distinguish themselves significantly from most characters used in this genre or though belonging
to an existing genre, the very features possessed by the character must distinguish the storyline.
This is true of most superhero comics because the traits of Superman are different from that of
Spiderman and so and so forth. So if one were to introduce a character who is an alien, who can
fly and is susceptible to weakness in the presence of a piece of rock from his home planet,
chances are that the character infringes Superman.
The other possibility could be that the particular circumstances in which an old theme is set
could distinguish the movie from the rest in its genre and yet the characters of the story could be
ordinary individuals with no characteristic features; but in such a case, I believe, the characters
are not copyrightable in themselves. Of course, this possibility is not relevant to this case. So the
character of the plaintiff Nagraj appears to be copyrightable owing to his distinctive features.
Further, going by the standard of a customer of reasonable intelligence, it would appear that both
the characters are substantially similar in content and appearance. This means that the one which
was created prior in time is infringed by the later one.

The defendant attempted to support the use of his character by casting aspersions on the priority
of the plaintiffs creation but this was rebuffed effectively by the Court on the basis of the
evidence submitted by the plaintiff. As for the similarity in appearance, the defendant sought to
counter the plaintiffs allegation of misrepresentation by saying that the use of the colour green
to represent snakes or snake-like beings was common to the trade and the plaintiff cannot usurp
this practice to himself. Such arguments are common to trademarks or trade dress cases; for
instance, if red and white colours represent the teeth and gums, then the use of these colours on a
toothpaste tube may not be considered distinctive enough for grant of rights for exclusive use.
But can this argument hold water in this case?
True, the colour green has, over a period of time, come to represent envy, jealousy or
cunningness or snake-like qualities, but the fact that it was being used in this case for a character
who had power over snakes and which use was original given the context, qualified the use for
copyright protection. If theres an iceman, one would probably expect him to be in white, but the
use of this colour combined with the fact of its use to depict a character with unique
characteristics vests the creator with copyright in the depiction. A popular example would be the
Onida (which in Japanese means the devil) advertisement where the devil is shown. If this were
to be used by some other television manufacturer, probably he would infringe the copyright of
Onida despite the fact that Onida has no copyright in the devils portrayal as such. This means
that practices which are common to the trade may not be copyrightable in themselves, but their
novel use in certain instances may be copyrightable. Therefore, the use of the colour green to
depict a superhero with the powers of a snake prevents others from identical/similar use.
Now, lets look at what the Delhi High Court had to say on all the above discussed issues. The
Courts analysis was based on the interpretation of s.51 of the Copyright Act
in R.G.Anand v. Delux Films. The Court observed that grant of copyright is confined to form,
manner, arrangement and expression of the author and that in cases where different authors take
inspiration from the same source, similarities are bound to creep in, which need not amount to
infringement of the first authors copyright. In these cases, the Court noted, it becomes
imperative for the Court to look for similarities in the modes of expression, which if found
substantial at once, leads one to conclude that the later work infringes the former in time.
The Court then got down to comparing the various elements of the characters in question and the
storylines as well. It is probably safe to conclude that even when one discusses the vestation of
copyright in characters, a discussion of the storyline or the context is unavoidable for it is the
storyline which helps in fleshing out the salient features better. The Court first noted the striking
similarity, phonetic and semantic, in the names of the characters Nagraj and Nagesh which
in effect meant the same. Then theres the fact of their visual portrayal and not just word
portraits being nearly the same. Lastly, both characters had almost the same powers and were
created in more or less the same way making it difficult to conclude that there was no intention
on the part of the defendant to misrepresent or atleast take advantage of the plaintiffs character.
Taking advantage of the popularity of a theme or a fad is one thing and aping the very form or
presentation is quite another. The Court pointed out that the changes, if any either in the

appearance or portrayal of the character or the sequence of narration, were but inconsequential
(cosmetic, if i may) and hence found prima facie infringement of the plaintiffs character.