EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. versus D.B. MODAK & ANR.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 182 · Decided: 12-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. 
v. 
r-
D.B. MODAK & ANR. 
' 
DECEMBER 12, 2007 
B 
(B.N. AGRAWAL AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.) 
Indian Copyright Act, 1957,' Ss.2 (k), 13, 17 and 52: 
..,,_ 
Copyright in Law Report- Publishing of copy edited version 
c ofjudgments, order and proceedings of Supreme Court by appellant 
- Copying by respondents - Claim of copyright in the publication/ 
published work - Held: Originaliiy in work is a requirement of 
copyright - It is a right to stop others from exploiting the work of 
owner without his consent - There is no copyright in the facts per 
D se -All literary works have to be original/primary work for claiming 
such protection - However, derivative/secondary work would qualifY 
for claiming such protection provided skill, labour and capital 
involved in its creation and creativity in the end product is such as 
to create a new work so as to make the creator of derivative work 
E author of it - The Courts have only to evaluate as to whether the 
derivative work involved substantial amount of skill labour and 
capital and need not to evaluate the creative aspect of the same -
Law Report of Supreme Court Judgments is derivative work -
Reproduction of judgments in public domain do not infringe the 
F copyright - Innovative thoughts are necessary to establish copyright 
in the judgments - Copy-edited judgments would not satisfY the 
claim of copyright merely by establishing the amount of skill, labour 
and capital put in the inputs of the copy edited judgments excluding 
innovative thoughts for creativity - But it should be such and 
G sufficient to import to the judgments printed, some quality which 
original judgment does not possess and which differentiate the 
original judgment from the one printed in the Report - Though 
appellants improved the readability of judgment of the copy-edited 
.. 
H 
iudgment by doing considerable labour etc. but that does not meet 
182 
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 
183 
D.B. MOD AK & ANR. 
the minimum requirement of creativity required for claiming A 
copyright in it - However, creation of paragraph and classification 
of opinion of judges would require extensive reading and careful 
study of the subject- It also requires considerable knowledge, sound 
iudgment and legal skill - Hence, appellants have copyright in it -
Respondents are directed not to use the paragraphs and B 
classification of Judges' opinion as in the Report. 
Copyright Act - Object and scope of - Dtscussed. 
Principles: 
Principle of copyright - Applicability of 
Supreme Court Judgments - Owner of for the purpose of 
copyright - Held: Government is the first owner of the copyright 
in the judgment. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Copyright Protection' - Meaning of in the context of 
Copyright Protection Act, 1957. 
Literary works - Classification of 
'Original work' and 'derivative work' -Meaning of 
Appellant is the publisher of a law report publishing therein 
c 
D 
E 
orders, practice directions, record of proceedings, short judgments 
and Judgments of the Supreme Court of India. After the initial F 
procurement of the judgments, orders and proceedings for 
publication from the Registrar, Supreme Court of India, the 
appellants make copy-editing of the judgments, orders and record 
of proceedings procured and various inputs are put in the 
judgments and orders by making an addition of cross-references, G 
formatting of the text, paragraph numbering, verification etc. to 
make them user friendly. The appellants also prepare the 
headnotes, which require considerable amount of skill, labour 
and expertise. And for the said work a substantial amount of 
H 
184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A capital expenditure on infrastructure, such as office equipments, 
computers and for maintaining extensive library, besides recurring 
expenditure on both the management of human resources and 
infrastructural maintenance has been made by the appellants. 
Appellants alleged that the Law Report, so prepared, constitutes 
B an 'original literary work' in which copyright subsists in terms of 
Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and thus the appellants 
alone have the exclusive right to m2ke printed as well as electronic 
copies of the same under Section 14 of the Act. Any scanning or 
copying or reproduction done of or from the Reports or pages or 
C paragraphs or portions of any volume of the Report by any other 
person, is an infringement of the copyright in the Report within 
the mean

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.