Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    Copyright Case

    Uploaded by

    Chetan Dasgupta
    (1) The case RG Anand v. Delux Films dealt with an alleged copyright infringement of the play "Ham Hindustani" by the film "New Delhi". (2) The Supreme Court clarified that copyright only protects the expression of ideas, not ideas themselves. For infringement to occur, the similarities must be fundamental rather than merely incidental. (3) In this case, the Court ruled that the film was not a "substantial or material copy" of the play, with at most only sharing the same central theme or idea, which is not protected. The expressions of the idea in each work were different.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Copyright Case

    Uploaded by

    Chetan Dasgupta
    47 views7 pages
    (1) The case RG Anand v. Delux Films dealt with an alleged copyright infringement of the play "Ham Hindustani" by the film "New Delhi". (2) The Supreme Court clarified that copyright only protects the expression of ideas, not ideas themselves. For infringement to occur, the similarities must be fundamental rather than merely incidental. (3) In this case, the Court ruled that the film was not a "substantial or material copy" of the play, with at most only sharing the same central theme or idea, which is not protected. The expressions of the idea in each work were different.

    Original Description:

    copyright case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) The case RG Anand v. Delux Films dealt with an alleged copyright infringement of the play "Ham Hindustani" by the film "New Delhi". (2) The Supreme Court clarified that copyright only protects the expression of ideas, not ideas themselves. For infringement to occur, the similarities must be fundamental rather than merely incidental. (3) In this case, the Court ruled that the film was not a "substantial or material copy" of the play, with at most only sharing the same central theme or idea, which is not protected. The expressions of the idea in each work were different.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    47 views7 pages

    Copyright Case

    Uploaded by

    Chetan Dasgupta
    (1) The case RG Anand v. Delux Films dealt with an alleged copyright infringement of the play "Ham Hindustani" by the film "New Delhi". (2) The Supreme Court clarified that copyright only protects the expression of ideas, not ideas themselves. For infringement to occur, the similarities must be fundamental rather than merely incidental. (3) In this case, the Court ruled that the film was not a "substantial or material copy" of the play, with at most only sharing the same central theme or idea, which is not protected. The expressions of the idea in each work were different.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 7

    Infringement of Copyright

    When (Copy)right becomes wrong


    Statutory Definition
     Copyright Act 1957, s. 51

     Infringement: exercising rights of the


    copyright owner

     Making, distributing, exhibiting and


    importing infringing copies of the work
    RG Anand v. Delux Films (AIR 1978 SC
    1613)
    It is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of
    India in the area of copyright law. The case deals
    with a copyright infringement suit against the movie
    New Delhi made by Mohan Sehgal in 1954. The
    plaintiff R.G. Anand contended that it was modeled
    on the plot of a play Ham Hindustani written and
    produced by him. The judgment is remarkable for
    clarifying the concepts of idea-expression
    dichotomy and copyright infringement under the
    Indian copyright law.
    Important aspects of the decision:
    (1) No copyright in an idea. Violation of
    copyright confined to form, manner
    and arrangement, as well as expression
    of idea by the author

    (2) Where same idea developed in


    different manner, similarities happen.
    Court to rule on whether similarities are
    merely substantial or fundamental
    Important aspects of the decision:
    (3) Where there are only incidental
    similarities, there is no copyright
    infringement

    (4) Copyright infringement = piracy


    it must be clearly proven
    The decision
    After applying the principles enunciated above the
    court ruled that it cannot be said that the film is a
    “Substantial or material copy of the play written by
    the plaintiff.”(Para 67) The judges were of the
    opinion that no prudent person after seeing both
    the works will get the impression that there is a
    copy. At most, the central theme is same but that is
    an idea not protected by copyright.
    Criminal Remedies
     Copyright Act 1957, s.64 empowers the
    Police (any officer not below the rank of
    sub-inspector) to seize infringing copies
    without warrant
     Police Raids (Power of search, seizure &
    arrest without a warrant)
     Fines (min. 50,000-200,000 INR)
     Imprisonment (6 months to 3 years)

    You might also like