Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr.

Relevant Acts and provisions

Copyright Act, 1957

Section 13(1)(a)Section 52(1)(q)

Provisions considered: Sections 13(1)(a) and 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act, 1957, on originality in copy-edited judgments.

Brief facts

Eastern Book Company published a law report reproducing judgments obtained from the Supreme Court registry after adding headnotes, editorial input, cross-references, paragraph numbering and a distinct paragraphing style. The respondents brought out competing CD-ROM software which copied the appellants' copy-edited text, including their paragraph numbering and editorial arrangement. The appellants sued for copyright infringement; the Delhi High Court granted only partial interim relief, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.

Issues before the Court

1. Does copyright subsist in the copy-edited version of a judicial judgment, which is itself in the public domain?
2. What is the standard of originality required, and is the sweat of the brow or the modicum of creativity test applicable in India?

Court's findings

The Court held that raw judicial judgments are in the public domain and no one can claim copyright in the text of the judgment itself. However, the inputs of the copy-editor, such as cross-referencing, standardised paragraph numbering, verification of citations and formatting, may attract copyright if they involve a degree of skill, labour and judgment beyond mechanical reproduction.

The Court rejected the pure sweat of the brow doctrine, which grants copyright merely for labour and expense, as setting too low a threshold. It equally declined to adopt the strict modicum of creativity standard, as being too stringent for the Indian statute. Instead it adopted an intermediate skill and judgment standard, requiring the exercise of independent skill, labour and capital sufficient to give the work some flavour of creativity, though not novelty or inventiveness.

Applying this standard, the Court held that the appellants' headnotes, editorial notes and long summaries were entitled to copyright protection, but that mere paragraph numbering, sequencing and copy-editing inputs applied to the raw judgment text lacked sufficient creativity and could not be monopolised.

Decision

Appeals partly allowed; copyright upheld only in the appellants' headnotes and editorial inputs, not in mere copy-edited paragraph numbering of judgments.

Keywords

Copyright Infringement Literary Work Originality Public Domain Skill And Judgment