2007 (12) TMI 466 - SC - Indian Laws

What shall be the standard of originality in the copy-edited judgments of the Supreme Court which is a derivative work and what would be required in a derivative work to treat it the original work of an author and thereby giving a protected right under the Copyright Act 1957 to the author of the derivative work ? Whether the entire version of the copy-edited text of the judgments published in the appellants law report SCC would be entitled for a copyright as an original literary work the copy-edited judgments having been claimed as a result of inextricable and inseparable admixture of the copy-editing inputs and the raw text taken together as a result of insertion of all SCC copy-editing inputs into the raw text or whether the appellants would be entitled to the copyright in some of the inputs which have been put in the raw text ?

Issues Involved:
1. Copyright subsistence in copy-edited judgments.
2. Originality requirement for derivative works.
3. Infringement of copyright by reproducing judgments.
4. Protection of public domain works under the Copyright Act.
5. Copyright protection for editorial contributions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Copyright Subsistence in Copy-Edited Judgments:
The appellants, publishers of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), claimed copyright in their version of judgments, asserting that their copy-edited judgments, which include various editorial inputs, constitute an "original literary work" under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957. They argued that the skill, labour, and capital invested in creating these versions entitle them to exclusive rights under Section 14 of the Act. The respondents, however, contended that the judgments of the Supreme Court are public domain works and that their reproduction does not infringe any copyright.

2. Originality Requirement for Derivative Works:
The Court examined the standard of originality required for derivative works, emphasizing that copyright protection requires not just skill and labour but also a minimal degree of creativity. The Court referenced various cases, including *Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. Willim Hill (Football) Ltd.* and *Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc.*, to illustrate that originality in copyright law means the work must not be copied and should originate from the author, involving some creativity, even if minimal.

3. Infringement of Copyright by Reproducing Judgments:
The respondents were accused of copying the appellants' version of judgments, including their editorial inputs, in their software packages. The Court held that while the judgments themselves are public domain works, the specific editorial contributions made by the appellants, such as headnotes, footnotes, and editorial notes, are protected by copyright. The respondents conceded not to copy these headnotes in their CD-ROMs.

4. Protection of Public Domain Works under the Copyright Act:
Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957, was discussed, which excludes the reproduction of any judgment or order of a court from constituting an infringement of copyright. The Court clarified that while the raw text of judgments is in the public domain, the appellants' editorial contributions, which involve skill and judgment, are protected. The Court emphasized that the purpose of placing judgments in the public domain is to ensure accessibility and transparency, and granting copyright in the raw text would defeat this purpose.

5. Copyright Protection for Editorial Contributions:
The Court recognized that certain editorial contributions by the appellants, such as paragraph numbering, internal referencing, and indicating dissenting or concurring opinions, involve significant skill and judgment. These contributions were deemed to possess the requisite originality and creativity to warrant copyright protection. The Court granted the appellants copyright in these specific inputs, prohibiting the respondents from using them without permission.

Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed, with the Court granting additional relief to the appellants by extending the interim relief already provided by the High Court. The respondents were prohibited from using the appellants' specific editorial contributions in their reproductions of the judgments. The Court emphasized the need for a balance between protecting the author's rights and ensuring public access to judicial pronouncements.

← Previous Next →