Media And Copyright Law: A thin Line a division

(Seminar Paper submitted towards partial fulfillment of assessment in Seminar Paper in

Media Law)

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF MR. PARVEEN KUMAR

Mentor: Media Law
Faculty of Law

SUBMITTED BY:
Rahul Meena
X Semester Student of Bp.Sc. LL.B. (Constitutional Law Hons.)
National Law University, Jodhpur

__________________________________________
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR
WINTER SESSION
(JANUARY-MAY 2016)

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT.....................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................6
FOOTNOTING STYLE:........................................................................................................6
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................6
RESEARCH QUESTIONS.....................................................................................................6
TENTATIVE CHAPTERIZATION...........................................................................................7
PROPOSED BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................7
1.

Books and Reports:.............................................................................................7

2.

Websites:..............................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................9
BRIEF HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT LAWS................................................................11
US SCENARIO.................................................................................................................11
INDIAN SCENARIO..........................................................................................................12
WHAT COPYRIGHT LAW COVERS..........................................................................13
DURATION OF COPYRIGHTS....................................................................................15
OVERVIEW OF COPYRIGHT LAW...........................................................................16
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT...........................................................................17

INDIAN SCENARIO..........................................................................................................17
U.S. SCENARIO...............................................................................................................20
OBJECT OF COPYRIGHT LAW.................................................................................22
COPYRIGHT VERSUS THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION..................................24
THE FAIR USE DILEMMA..........................................................................................25
INDIAN SCENARIO..........................................................................................................25
U.S. SCENARIO...............................................................................................................27
LEADING CASE LAWS.....................................................................................................30
COPYRIGHT LAW VIS--VIS PUBLICS RIGHT TO KNOW.................................................31
COPYRIGHT LAW AND INTERNET.........................................................................34
LEADING CASE LAWS.....................................................................................................37
MORAL RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHT LAW...............................................................40
UNITED KINGDOM SCENARIO........................................................................................41
INDIAN SCENARIO..........................................................................................................42
LEADING CASE LAWS..............................................................................................43
U.S. SCENARIO...............................................................................................................45
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................47
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................49

INTRODUCTION
Seen from a different angle, copyright is not a positive right to do
something but confers a negative right, which restricts others from copying the
original work of an author. A right for one person is thus a restriction on another. Since
the law of copyright protects the right of one person and restrains another
from exercising corresponding rights, the question naturally arises as to whether
the right of the copyright owner infringes the freedom of expression of another
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution or the freedom of business of
another guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). Unlike defamation, contempt,
morality, decency, incitements to an offence and the like, copyright is not one
of the specified restrictions under Article 19(2). However, the law of
copyright is an incident of the general law of property. Whatever an individual
produces by the application of his labour, intellect or skill is his property. The
law of copyright creates a further statutory intangible right of property in
respect of such work if it is an original work1. The right to free expression or free
trade cannot be stretched to mean that a person can be entitled to benefit from
anothers property or the fruits of anothers labour whether tangible or intangible.
The present study looks at the mechanism in the U.S., the U.K. and India to see the rights
and liabilities under both the regime as to understand the clear demarcation of boundaries
created by both the laws.

1 The Copyright Act, 1957, Section 13 (1) (a).

4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A deductive approach is followed in this paper. The data collected would be of secondary
nature. Both primary and secondary data have been relied upon to attain the objectives of
the research paper. The data would be collected through case laws, books, journals,
periodicals and certain websites.
FOOTNOTING STYLE:
The footnoting style and the formatting of the project work is uniform throughout which
is in accordance with NLU footnoting style.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

To study the liabilities under copyright law and the exceptions as well.
To understand the clear limitation under both the laws.
To discuss the aspect of freedom of expression talking copyright law into

consideration.
To discuss the position regarding disclosure of information by any source of

media in the United Kingdom and United States of America.

To critically analyse provisions in various legislations along with case laws to

examine position in India.

To discuss the position of copyright law in United Kingdom, United States of
America and india with respect to media law.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

What are the rights and liabilities under the regime of Copyright Law?
What are the rights under the regime of Media Law and the Freedom of

Expression?
Where exactly the distinction can be drawn between the rights under both the

regime?
What is the position regarding in the United Kingdom?

What is the position regarding both the regimes in the United States of America,

U.K and India?

What is the position regarding the evolution of law by the purview of Case Laws

in the United States of America, U.K and India?

Where the demarcation can be drawn considering both the Regimes across the
World?

TENTATIVE CHAPTERIZATION

Introduction
Brief history of Copyright Laws
What Copyright law Covers
Overview And Object of Copyright Laws
Copyright Law Vis--Vis Publics Right To Know
Copyright Law And Internet
Moral Rights And Copyright Law
Conclusion

PROPOSED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.

BOOKS AND REPORTS:

2.

Law of The Press by D.D.Basu

Ursula Smartt, Media & Entertainment Law, 2nd Edition, (Routledge, 2014)
Madhavi G. Diwan, Facets of Media Law, 2nd Edition, 2013
Major Principles Of Media Law

WEBSITES:

www.copyright.gov
www.citmedialaw.org
www.mediaeducationlab.com
cyber.law.harvard.edu

INTRODUCTION

According to Laurence Sterne2 an English Novelist (1713-1768):

The sweat of a mans brows, and the exudations of a mans brain, are as much a
mans own property as the breeches upon his backside.
Thereby meaning that whatever an individual produces by the application of his labour,
intellect or skill is his property and nobody has a right to deprive him of
such property.

The word Copyright is derived from the expression Copier Of Words first used in the
context, according to Oxford Dictionary in 1586. The word Copy is presumed to date
back to 1485 A.D. (approximate date) and was used to connote a manuscript or other
matter prepared for printing.
Word Copy according to Blacks Law Dictionary means transcript, imitation,
reproduction of an original writing, painting, instrument or the like. Copyright according
to Blacks Law Dictionary is the right in literary property as recognized and sanctioned
by positive law. An intangible incorporeal right granted to the author or originator of
certain literary or artistic production whereby he is invested for a specified period with
the sole and exclusive privilege of multiplying copies of the same and publishing and
selling them.3

2 LAURENCE STERNE in his novel The Life and Opinions of Tristam Shandy.
3 JITENDRA KUMAR DAS, Law of Copyright, PHI Learning Pvt. Limited, 2015.
8

Copyright as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary is an exclusive right given by law
for a certain term of years to an author, composer, etc. or his assignee to print, publish
and sell copies of his original work. Copyright in some form seems to have been
recognized in ancient times. The Roman Law adjudged that if one man wrote anything on
the paper of another, the writing should belong to the owner of the blank material,
meaning thereby the mechanical operation of writing by the scribe deserved to receive
satisfaction.

BRIEF HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT LAWS

US SCENARIO
Intellectual property law originally evolved within the English common law, but the
framers of the U.S. Constitution considered it so important that they specifically
recognized it, making both copyrights and patents federal matters right from the time the
Constitution was ratified.4

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution includes this language:

The Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts,
by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries.5

Shortly after the Constitution was ratified, Congress accepted that invitation and enacted
the first federal copyright law, The Copyright Act of 1790. That law has been revised
several times since, as technology created new problems that could not have been
anticipated by the framers of the Constitution. The 1976 Copyright Act, the most recent
comprehensive revision of the law attempted (not always successfully) to deal with such
troublesome new problem areas as photocopying, audio and video recording, satellite
communications and cable television. 6

4 GENELLE BELMAS, WAYNE OVERBECK, Major Principles of Media Law, 2014 Edition.
5 Thomas T. Gordon, Arthur S. Cookfair, Vincent G. LoTempio, Brendan S. Lillis, Patent
Fundamentals for Scientists and Engineers, Third Edition
10

Whatever the unresolved problems in copyright law, the history of Congres sional
involvement makes copyright law fundamentally different from some of the other
areas of mass media law it is an area of Federal Statutory Law, not primarily a form of
State Statutory or Common Law.7 If the problems of copyright law are to be solved at
all, they are resolved mainly by Congress, with help from the federal courts.

INDIAN SCENARIO

India being a member of two international conventions on copyright, namely,

the Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act, 1971)
and the Universal Copyright Convention, 1952. After independence, the
Copyright Act, 1957 was enacted, to give effect to the recommendations of these two
conventions. The Act was amended in 1983, 1984, 1992, 1994 and in 1999. The
Indian Copyright Act, 1957 is in accordance with Indias obligations under
the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines copyright as:
A property right in an original work of authorship (such as a
liter ar y, m usical, ar tis tic, photogr aphic, a film work or a
com puter programme) fixed in any tangible medium of
expression, giving the holder the exclusive right to reproduce,

6 WAYNE OVERBECK, Major Principles Of Media Law, Harcourt College Publishers,

2001
7 Ibid.

11

adapt, distribute, perform and display the work.

12

WHAT COPYRIGHT LAW COVERS

Generally, all kinds of creative endeavors may be copyrighted. That includes literary
works (fiction and non-fiction, prose and poetry), musical works (and any accompanying
words), dramatic works (including music), choreographic works and pictorial, graphic
and sculptural works (including both photographs and paintings), computer
software, maps, architectural designs, recordings, motion pictures and radio or
television productions (whether dramatic or news/documentary in nature). 8

However, there are some very important exceptions to this rule. Probably the most
important one for the mass media is that the news itself cannot be copyright ed,
although a description of a news event can be copyrighted. 9 The first reporter to
reach the scene of a plane crash, for instance, cannot prevent others from reporting
the fact that the plane crashed or the details of how it happened. The most that this
reporter can deny to others is his or her account of the event. Others may tell the
story in their own words. 10

Thus, it is commonplace for journalists to rewrite each others stories. When ever
one reporter scores an important Scoop, others quickly pick up the story,
carefully putting it in their own words and perhaps giving credit to the original
8 http://www.entertainerlaw.com/pdf/copyright_101.pdf, visited on 8/04/16.
9 http://www.splc.org/article/2015/08/student-media-guide-to-copyright-law, visited on
8/04/16.
10

ROB WAUGH,

The terrifying rise of cyber crime, Mailonline, 17 jan 2013.

13

source. 11 Even though this is permissible under copyright law, it should be

emphasized that one news medium cannot systematically remove all of its news
from a competitor to avoid having to employ its own news staff. To do that is
called unfair competition. Systematic News Piracy as it has been called, is not
permissible.

11 Id at 5.
14

DURATION OF COPYRIGHTS
In case of India pursuant to the enactment of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1992 the
term of copyright has been extended from 50 years to 60 years after the death of author 12.
While in case of U.S. under the 1909 Copyright Act, a copyright was valid for 28 years
and could be renewed for another 28 years. The 1976 Copyright Act extended the basic
term of a copyright to the authors life plus 50 years. For works created anonymously or
for hire, the term was extended to 75 years from the date of publication. For unpublished
works made for hire and for unpublished anonymous works, the term was set at 100
years from the year of Creation by the 1976 Act.13

In 1998, Congress added 20 years to all of these copyright terms in the Sonny Bono
Copyright Term Extension Act14. Therefore, the basic term now is the authors life plus
70 years, or 95 years for works created anonymously or for hire. Unpublished works
made for hire or created anonymously are now protected for 120 years from the year of
creation.

12 The Copyright Act, 1957, Section 22. An Assignment of copyright by the legal
representatives of the author after 50 years of the death of the author was held ineffective.
See Khemraj v. Garg & Co., A.I.R 1975 Del. 130.
13 17 U.S. Code 302.
14 www.copyright.gov/legislation/s505.pdf, visited on 6/04/16.
15

OVERVIEW OF COPYRIGHT LAW

To summarize very briefly, the owner of a copyright has the Exclusive Right to reproduce
the copyrighted work, to create Derivative Works based on it, and to

distribute copies,

perform the work or display it to the public. 15 Anyone else who does these things is guilty
of copyright Infringement unless what that person does qualifies as a fair use. To prove
an infringement, the copyright owner must show Substantial Similarly between the
original work and the allegedly infringing work. The owner must also show that his/her
copyright is Valid and the infringer had Access to the original work and thereby, violated
one of the exclusive rights of the author. When the copyright eventually expires the work
then falls into the Public Domain, at that point, the once exclusive rights belongs to
everyone.16

15 Id at 5.
16 Ibid
16

INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT
INDIAN SCENARIO
Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 lays down various acts, the doing of , any of
which without a licence from the owner of the copyright or the statutory authority
or in contravention of the terms of such a licence would constitute an
infringement of the copyright in a work. Section 52 enumerates various acts,
the commission of which would not constitute such infringement. These are in the
nature of exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred upon the copyright owner and
also serve as defences in an action for infringement. The remedies for
infringement are laid down under Sections 54 to 58 of the Act.

On a combined reading of Sections 51 and 52, the following acts amount to acts of
infringement of copyright when committed by a person not authorized by
licence from the owner or the competent authority under the Act:
1. If the defendant reproduces the work in any material form (otherwise
than by way of a fair dealing for the purposes of private use, including
research, criticism or review or for the purpose of reporting current
events) in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical or by broadcast, in a
cinematograph film or by means of photographs.
2. If the defendant makes a cinematograph film by reproducing or converting a
substantial portion of the plaintiffs novel or drama.

17

In R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films17, Fazal Ali, J laid down the following tests for
infringement:

1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or

historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases
is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the
idea by the author of the copyrighted work.
2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest
that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case
the Courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on
fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the
copyrighted work. If the defendants work is nothing but a literal imitation
of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount
to violation of the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the
copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the
conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.
3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been
a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after
having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an
unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the
original.

17 (1978) 4 SCC 118.

18

4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so
that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of
violation of copyright arises.
5. Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there
are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to
copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are
clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence.
6. Where, however, the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play
by a film producer or a Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more
difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a
much broader prospective, wider field and a bigger background where the
defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and
complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has
expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets a totality of
impression that the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the
copyright may be said to be proved.
Copinger 1 8 , a leading international author on the subject, describes the
necessary ingredients of a case for infringement as:
In any case of infringement the plaintiff has to establish not
only that the work in respect of which the complaint is made in
fact so nearly resembles his as to be capable of being an
infringement, but also that it has in fact been produced by the
18 Copinger on Copyright, (12th Edn.) Para 458.
19

use of those features of his work which by reason of the

knowledge, skill and labour employed in their production
constitute

an

original

copyright

work.

There

is

no

infringement unless it is established that the defendant has

produced a work which both closely resembles the plaintiff's
work and has been produced by a direct or indirect use of those
features of the plaintiff's work in which copyright subsists.
U.S. SCENARIO
Under the U.S. Copyright Act, 1976, there are three things which needs to be
proved in order to constitute infringement, they are:
1. The alleged infringer had some access to the authors work,
2. There is substantial similarity between the two works and,
3. That the copyright is valid and covers a legitimate, original work.

For the substantial similarity test to be met, there must be both similarity in the general
ideas underlying the two works (often called the Extrinsic Test for similarity) and
similarity in copyrightable aspects of the expression of those ideas (the Intrinsic Test for
similarity). However, after all of this legal analysis of what constitutes substantial
similarity is completed, the original copyright owner ultimately has to convince a judge
or jury that the Average Person (not just an expert) would see the new work as similar
enough to have been pirated from the original.19

19 Id at 5.
20

21

OBJECT OF COPYRIGHT LAW

The law of copyright is intended to prevent plagiarism and unfair
exploitation of creative work. It is a natural extension of the freedom of
speech and expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. If an
individual enjoys the freedom of speech and expression, he must also be
guaranteed protection of the intellectual property in his expression, be it in the form of a
literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a film or a sound recording.
Copyright protection and a guarantee of material benefit to the creator of an
original work is essential to ensure encouragement of creative work in all walks
of life so that society can make cultural progress. 20 Absence of such
protection would demoralize creative artists and have a chilling effect on
creative activity. Also, since copyright protection is afforded not only to
authors but to publishers and assignees of such work, if others were entitled to
copy their works and profit from their sale, such persons would be
hesitant to invest their resources in publishing and circulating original
works 21 . There is, therefore, a vital public interest in copyright protection.

G. Davies in Copyright and the Public Interest22 provides that:

20Mark

Atalla,

Intellectual

Property

and

the

University

system

at https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/ip/WIPEOUT1.htm, visited on 9/04/16.

21 See infra Ownership of Copyright also refer Land Broke v. William Hill, (1964) 1 All
ER 465 HL, Sumangalam R. Jayalakshmi v. Meta Musicals, A.I.R 2000 Mad. 454.
22 NC Studies, Munich, 1994 XIV 173.
22

Copyright... serves the public interest in freedom of expression.

By enabling the creator to derive a financial reward from the
work, his artistic independence and right to create and publish
according to his own wish and conscience is assured. Alternative
methods of rewarding creators, such as patronage, whether by
the State, or by individuals, carry the risk of control or censorship.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 2 3 recognizes not only
the right to protection of original works but also to the protection of the
economic benefits attached to it. Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, 1948 reads as:
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the
community to enjoy the arts and share in scientific advancement and its
benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material
interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which
he is the author.

23 www.un.org/Overview/rights.html as visited on 8.04.16.

23

COPYRIGHT VERSUS THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Seen from a different angle, copyright is not a positive right to do
something but confers a negative right, which restricts others from copying the
original work of an author.24 A right for one person is thus a restriction on another.
Since the law of copyright protects the right of one person and restrains
another from exercising corresponding rights, the question naturally arises as to
whether the right of the copyright owner infringes the freedom of expression of
another under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution or the freedom of
business of another guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). Unlike defamation,
contempt, morality, decency, incitements to an offence and the like, copyright
is not one of the specified restrictions under Article 19(2). However, the law
of copyright is an incident of the general law of property. Whatever an
individual produces by the application of his labour, intellect or skill is his
property. The law of copyright creates a further statutory intangible right
of property in respect of such work if it is an original work25. The right to free
expression or free trade cannot be stretched to mean that a person can be entitled to
benefit from anothers property or the fruits of anothers labour whether tangible or
intangible.26
24Dr. Peter Drahos, The Universality of Intellectual Property Rights: Origins and
Development, Queen Mary and Westfield College (London, United Kingdom).
25 The Copyright Act, 1957, Section 13 (1) (a).
26Pamela Samuelson, A FRESH LOOK AT TESTS FOR NONLITERAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT,
Northwestern University School of Law, Vol. 107, No. 4, Northwestern University Law Review.

24

25

THE FAIR USE DILEMMA

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of
copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for
scholarship or review.27 The competing interests of the right holders and the users of
copyright work rests on a delicate balance and Copyright law maintains it with the help
of fair use or fair dealing provisions. Fair dealing is a formulation known to
jurisdictions that evolved out of the British common law copyright system. 28 These
provisions provide protection for materials taken for research or study, criticism or
review, reporting the news and for purposes related to judicial proceedings.29

INDIAN SCENARIO

In India, Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 explains what all are not legally
infringements. The section begins with fair dealing as one of the exceptions of
infringement. Accordingly, fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic
work for the purposes of (i) research or private study; or (ii) criticism or review, whether
of that work or of any other work does not constitute infringement.
The making of not more than three copies of a book (including a pamphlet, sheet of
music, map, chart or plan) by or under the direction of the person in charge of a public
27 DAVID S. WELKOWITZ, State of the State: Is There A Future for State Dilution Laws?,
24 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 681, 682 (2008)
28 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 114 S. Ct. 1164, 1169 (1994).
29 Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 566 (1985).
26

library for the use of the library if such book is not available for sale in India, the
reproduction, for the purpose of research or private study or with a view to publication, of
an unpublished literary, dramatic or musical work kept in a library, museum or other
institution to which the public has access:
Elaborating the context of studies, the Section further holds that the reproduction of a
literary work...(i) by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction or (ii) as part of the
question to be answered in an examination; or (iii) in answer to such question. (Sec. 52
(1) (h) of Copyright Act) also comes under exception to copyright infringement.
The most important question involved here is that when such a usage amounts to
infringement. In Ramesh Chaudhary & Ors. v. Ali. Mohd30, it was held that:

Verbatim lifting of the text to the extent of copying the complete set of
exercise and the key to such exercises can in no manner be termed as
a review, criticism or a guide to the original work and thus it amounts
to infringement.

Similarly, in Syndicate Press of University of Cambridge & Anr. v. Kasturi Lal & Sons 31,
which also involved the verbatim lifting of the text to the extent of copying the complete
set of exercise and the key to the exercise. And hence, the court observed that the act of
the defendants could not be termed to be a review, criticism or a guide to the original
work. The Court also opined that:

30 AIR 1965 J& K 101.

31 2006 (32) PTC 487 (Del.)
27

While the universal nature of knowledge and its dissemination freely

is a approving concept but it must not transgress rights of an author
guaranteed by the Copyright Act. Those who possess the ability to
create also possess the right to assert that their creation be recognized
and identified with them. They have the right to proclaim that no other
person infringes upon their claim of originality and the right to limit
the use and prevent the abuse of their creation.

U.S. SCENARIO

This is a very important exception to the general rule that copyrighted material cannot be
used without consent. It is particularly significant to the news media, which is in the
business of conveying information, some of it based on copyrighted work.32
Federal copyright law states that an individual other than the copyright owner can use a
copyrighted work without permission if the use would be considered a "fair use." 33 The
Fair Use Doctrine is, in effect, a compromise. It represents a balance by lawmakers of the
need to encourage scientific and cultural progress by making sure creators get credit for
what they do against society's need for readily accessible information. Recognizing the
inherent conflict in these two goals, fair use strives to find a reasonable middle ground.
Whether or not the use of a copyrighted work by a non-owner would be considered a
"fair use" is not always an easy call. There is no black and white rule; each case must be
examined on its own. Indeed, it is this lack of a hard and fast standard that has lead some
32 Circular 1 (Copyright Basics) (May 2012), U.S. Copyright Office, at page 3.
33 17 U.S.C. 107.
28

to label fair use "the metaphysics of law." Nevertheless, as one of the country's leading
experts on copyright law has said: "Ninety-nine times out of a hundred a scholar who
wants to quote a reasonable portion of a copyrighted work can do so without obtaining
permission as long as the quotation does not constitute a substitute for the original." 34
Courts look at four factors to determine if the use of a copyrighted work is a fair use: 35

The purpose and character of the use. Non-commercial uses for purposes like
news reporting, teaching, criticism or commentary are more likely to be fair.

The nature of the copyrighted work. Uses of works containing mostly factual
material like maps or biographies are more likely to be fair than uses of highly
creative and original works like novels and cartoons.

How much of the original work is used. No more of the work than what is
necessary may be used fairly. The test is both quantitative (how many words of a
200,000 word book are reproduced?) and qualitative (using the "core" or "heart"
of a work -- no matter how small -- is less likely to be a fair use).

The effect of the use on the commercial value of the copyrighted work. This is the
most important factor.36 If consumers are likely to buy the use as a substitute for
the original, it probably will not qualify as a fair use.

34 L. RAY PATTERSON (Brock Professor of Law at the University of Georgia), cited by

Stowe, D., Just Do It: How to Beat the Copyright Racket, Lingua Franca (Nov./Dec.
1995), at 38.
35 Id.
36 Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 566 (1985).
29

The most important factor is usually the first, which courts use to determine whether the
use is transformative. 37 The more the use transforms the copyrighted work by adding
new value -- such as attaching new meaning, information or aesthetics -- the less weight
other factors (such as commercial use) will be given and the more likely the use will be
labeled a fair use.38 A work that just involves the same material but in a new form,
though, is not transformative because it does not add anything to the copyrighted
work.39 For example, compiling news stories from the print edition of the New York
Times to post on a blog, but making no other changes, is not transformative. However,
copying parts of New York Times stories into a blog post critiquing their coverage of a
particular topic would likely be transformative.
Fair use therefore authorizes the use of limited amounts of copyrighted works for
purposes like news reporting and education so long as the use does not destroy the
commercial value of the copyrighted work. Thus, a student newspaper can probably
reproduce a single photograph -- particularly one that is reduced in size from the original
-- of the cover of "The Fault in Our Stars" to illustrate a review of the book without
obtaining John Green's (or his publishing company's) permission. Other fair uses
probably include: use of a single frame from a comic strip to illustrate a news article
reporting the retirement of the strip's creator; reprinting a Joe Camel advertisement taken
from a national magazine to illustrate a story on the effect of cigarette advertising on
minors; reprinting two lines from the senior class song as part of a yearbook editor's "The
37 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994).
38 Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
39 Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2nd Cir. 2013).

30

Year Gone By" column. But using an entire comic strip or Joe Camel advertisement on
senior class T-shirts or printing all the lyrics from the senior class song on the inside
cover of the yearbook will probably not be fair uses.
LEADING CASE LAWS

1. Basic Books v. Kinkos Graphics Corp.40- By the 1990s another issue

involving classroom copying had become controversial, that was the use of
course packages in college classes. In 1991 a federal court ruled that Kinkos
Graphics, a major producer of these course packets, had to pay royal ties for
virtually all of the copyrighted materials (such as magazine or journal
articles and book chapters) included in these custom compilation of
previously published materials. The court held that such large-scale copying
was not a fair use as the result was that companies like Kinkos and college
bookstores were now charging higher prices for course packets so royalties
had to be paid to each copyright owner.

2. Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services 41- In this case,

the courts 2-1 majority opinion gave teachers and copying services complete
right to copy magazine and journal articles as well as large parts of books for
inclusion in course packets by holding that such copying is a fair use, and
not amounting to copyright infringement. Armed with this decision, many

40 758 F. Supp. 1522.

41 74 F.3d 1528.
31

copying services geared up for a bonanza of royalty-free copying. But then

the celebration ended as the full panel of judges sitting on the sixth circuit
voted to set aside the earlier ruling and rehear the case. The judges then
voted 8-5 to overturn the earlier decision and ruled that large-scale copying
for course packets was indeed an infringement, and not a fair use.

3. Williams & Wilkins v. U.S.42- This case was initiated by a publishing house
whose medical journals were being photocopied on a massive scale by
federally funded medical libraries, so that the libraries could avoid
purchasing additional copies. The publishing house lost its case as in 1973 a
federal court said that the dissemination of medical knowledge was so
important that this copying was a fair use. The case was appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court, but the decision of the federal court remained unchanged.

COPYRIGHT LAW VIS--VIS PUBLICS RIGHT TO KNOW

1. Rosemont Enterprises v. Random House 43- In this case Rosemont (a company

set up by billionaire industrialist Howard Hughes) was trying to prevent
publication of a biography about Hughes, who intensely disliked publicity.
Rosemont learned that the biographer was relying heavily on information
taken from several old look magazine articles about Hughes. The company
quickly bought the copyright on those articles and then sought an injunction
42 487 F.2d 1345, 420 U.S.
43 366 F.2d 303.
32

to prevent publication of the new biography as an infringement of the

copyrighted articles. A trial court ruled in Rosemonts favor, but the federal
appellate court reversed that decision, holding that a copyright owner had no
right to, in effect, copyright history. The appellate court noted that the
magazine articles were only a fraction of the length of the book and that there
had been extensive independent research for the book. The court brushed
aside the argument that the book, like the original copyrighted magazine
articles, was aimed at a popular market and was not merely an instance of
scholarly criticism (something that earlier court decisions had recognized as
a fair use). Ultimately, the court ruled that there was a legitimate public
interest in the doings of the rich and powerful, and that this interest
outweighs the copyright consideration in a case such as this one. Random
House was allowed to publish its book about Howard Hughes without
incurring liability for a copyright infringement.

2. Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates 44- This case involved an amateur
photographers film on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in
1963. The highly unusual and revealing film was purchased by Time Inc.,
and published in Life magazine and, of course, it was copyrighted. Later,
author Thomas Thompson who was publishing a book advocating a new
theory about the assassination, Six Seconds in Dallas. Bernard Geis, the book
publisher, Offered to pay Life a royalty equal to the entire net profits from the
book in return for permission to use still photographs made from the
44 293 F. Supp. 130, 1968.
33

copyrighted film, which was central to Thompsons theory. Life magazines

refused. The book publisher then hired an artist to make charcoal sketches
from the copyrighted photographs, and these appeared in the book. Time Inc.,
sued for copyright infringement. The federal court said the use of charcoal
drawings instead of the photographs themselves did not eliminated the
copyright infringement, but the court also pointed to the legitimate public
interest in the assassination of a president and said this was a fair use of the
copyrighted pictures. To rule otherwise would prevent a full public
discussion of the controversial issues raised by President Kennedys
assassination.

34

COPYRIGHT LAW AND INTERNET

Inevitably, questions of copyright ownership in cyberspace have become controversial as
millions of people began accessing, the Internet during the 1990s. Although there is
much uncertainty in this newly developing area of the law, a few principles are clear.45
The most fundamental principle is that a copyright is still a copyright, regardless of the
means, by which a copyrighted work is published, performed or distributed (although
those three legal terms may have to be redefined in the cyberspace age). 46 Also the fact
that a document is posted online somewhere without a copyright notice does not prove
that the document is in the public domain. Under current law, no recently created work
falls into the public domain unless the creator or other copyright owner expressly places
it in the public domain, If there is no declaration that a work is in the public domain, the
copyright owner could claim copyright infringement if he/she disapproves of the way
someone uses the work. However, once a work is in the public domain, its there for all
purposes. The statement that a work is in the public domain, but only for non-commercial
purposes, is not valid. If a work is in the public domain, anyone can use it for any
purpose. On the other hand, a copyright owner can certainly retain the copyright and

45 JonathanL.Zittrain,TheFutureoftheInternetAndHowtoStopIt(YaleUniversity
Press&PenguinUK2008).
46 Yin Harn Lee, Copyright and Freedom of Expression: A Literature Review available at
https://zenodo.org/record/18132/files/CREATe-Working-Paper-2015-04.pdf, visited on
10/04/16
35

merely grant others a license to use the work for certain specified non-commercial
purposes.47

In 1995, a task force under the direction of Bruce Lehman, the U.S. commissioner
of patents and trademarks, released a 249-page White Paper discussing the
copyright, trademark and patent implications of cyberspace. The paper proposed a
number of changes in copyright law that would increase the protection for corpo rate
copyright owners at the expense of writers, artists, librarians, and the general
Internet-surfing public. Among other things, the task force proposed:
1. To eliminate the First Sale Doctrine, which allowed the buyer of a
copyrighted work to resell it or lend it to others without having to pay
additional royalties (this could undercut the ability of libraries to buy one
copy of a book or magazine and then lend it to patrons as well as clarifying
the right of copyright owners to prevent legitimate purchasers of a work
from distributing it in cyberspace),
2. To clarify the principle that the digital transmission or storage of a work in a
computer, even if only temporarily, is copying and/or distribution of the
work,
3. To outlaw devices designed to defeat anti-copying technologies and,

47 Marlin H. Smith, The Limits Of Copyright: Property, Parody, And The

Public

Domain,

availableat http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3225&context=dlj, visited on 10/04/16.
36

4. To allow libraries to make only three copies of a digital work, with one
available for public viewing in the library (but not for borrowing or copying)
while the other two being kept in a closed public records.

In 1998, in the case of Quality King Distributors v. L Anza Research

International 48, the Supreme Court sidestepped the task forces proposal to eliminate
the First Sale Doctrine, not only upholding it but ruling that it allows a discounter to
have American-made products that are sold al lower prices overseas and bring them
back into this country as gray market goods, undercutting

list-price retailers.

In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a far-reaching new
law that expanded on the Telecommunications Act, 1996 giving both copyright owners
and Internet service providers (ISPs) extensive legal protection but at the expense of
those who posted and used material on the Internet, including librarians, educators,
website owners and the Internet-surfing public. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
1998 had many provisions, among other things, it brought the United States into
compliance with the provisions of two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
treaties signed several years ago.49

48 118 S.Ct. 1125.

49 International Bureau of WIPO, The Advantages Of Adherence To The
Wipo Copyright Treaty (Wct) And The Wipo Performances And
Phonograms Treaty (Wppt),availableat.
37

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998 also established new rules governing
digital copyrights, giving additional copyright protection to digital renderings of motion
pictures, videos, sound recordings, photography and graphics. The act also banned many
technologies that could evade authorized access and copy-prevention schemes.

Perhaps the most controversial features of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was
the handling of alleged copyright infringements on the Internet. The law exempted
Internet service providers from liability for what their subscribers may post on the net if
they acted quickly to shut down sites containing alleged infringements. A copyright
owner merely notified the ISP that material on a

particular site was a copyright

infringement, providing a statement that he/she had a Good Faith Belief that the use of
the disputed material was an infringement.
In effect, this allowed copyright owners to shut down websites without ever going to
court to prove that an infringement has in fact occurred. Internet providers were
exempted from copyright liability if they acted as copyright enforcers. As and when
they failed to play that role, they were held liable for any infringement that may occur.

Meanwhile, a number of individual Bulletin Board System 50 ( B B S ) owners faced

lawsuits because copyrighted materials were posted on their systems and could be

50 A Bulletin board system, or BBS, is a computer system running software that allows
users to dial into the system over a phone line (or Telnet) and, using a terminal program,
perform functions such as downloading software and data, uploading data, reading news,
and exchanging messages with other users.
38

downloaded. Several of these cases involved copyrighted software or digitized

images.

LEADING CASE LAWS

1. Playboy Enterprises v. Sanfilippo 51- In this case a Bulletin Board System

( B B S ) owner was successfully sued by the Playboy Enterprises for having
170 copyrighted images from Playboy publications available online. Playboy
aggressively pursued the owners of Internet sites containing images owned
by Playboy. In 1998, Playboy won the largest statutory damage award in the
history of American copyright law, a $3.74 million judgment against the
owner of a site that allegedly distributed 7,475 Playboy-owned photographs
over the Internet.

2. Playboy Enterprises v. Terri Welles 52- Playboy also sued Terri Welles, the
1981 Playboy Magazine Playmate of the year, in an attempt to keep her from
identifying herself by that title on her website. However, a federal judge
refused to grant a preliminary injunction in that case, holding that Playboy
was unlikely to prevail in court even though Playmate of the Year is a
registered trademark of Playboy. The judge said that a title such as Playmate
of the Year becomes a part of a persons identity, like being an Academy
Award winner or a former Miss America or a Heisman Trophy winner. To
51 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4773.
52 7 F. Supp.2d 1098.
39

indicate this status on a website is a fair use under trademark law. Playboy
appealed and the ninth circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the judges
ruling without publishing an opinion.

Another controversy arose when the National Writers Union (NWU), an

organization that represented about 3,000 freelance writers, sued corporations that
owned several major newspapers and magazines as well as the Lexis-Nexis
computer database, alleging that these large corporations routinely posted NWU
members works without copyright clearances. NWU contended that the normal
authorization to publish a work in printed form does not carry with it the automatic
right to distribute the same work in electronic form. A federal judge rejected the
NWUs claims in 1997.

Still other confusing copyright dilemmas have arisen in cyberspace. One that may
have no solution is Chain-e-Mail i.e. the common practice of forwarding messages to large lists of friends, clients or customers. Here the system is that someone
puts a copyrighted work online, often dropping the original byline and the copyright
notice, thereafter, he or she sends it to a few dozen friends, who then send it to
others before long, thousands or millions of people receives that message.

40

MORAL RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHT LAW

The term Moral Rights is a translation of the French term Droit moral and refers to
the ability of authors to control the eventual fate of their works. An author is said to have
the moral right to control his work.53 The concept of moral rights thus relies on the
connection between an author and his creation. Moral rights protect the reputation of the
creator, rather than purely monetary, value of a work to its creator. They are based on a
belief that artistic creation is something more than an attempt to earn a livelihood. The
creative act results in a special relationship between the creator and his work both the
creative impulse and the work are of value to society through his work. By recognizing
these aspects moral rights bring a cultural focus to copyright law54.
Moral rights appear to have originated in France in the 19th century, premised on the
work of the German philosophers Kant and Hegel. Commentators have pointed to
several catalysts to the creation of moral rights, from the fall of the Ancient Rgime, the
rise of the artist as entrepreneur, free of aristocratic or church patronage, to the Romantic
emphasis on the original creation of the lonely genius55.
Moral rights vary in scope, but they all recognize certain rights in an artists work that are
distinct from traditional property rights and that rely less on economic rationales than on
the right to the continued control of the artists creative personality through control over

53 Michael Seadle, (2002) "Copyright in the networked world: moral rights", Library Hi
Tech, Vol. 20 Iss: 1, pp.124 - 127
54 Cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html as visited on 5.04.16.
55 Law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/200flspub6488.pdf as visited on 5.04.16.
41

the art itself.56 Moral rights acknowledge that an artist has, in addition to an economic
interest in his reputation, a creative persona that is injected into the work of art at creation
and which remains a part of the work despite his physical relinquishment of the object to
others.57
UNITED KINGDOM SCENARIO
The English tradition has manifested certain skepticism towards claims that authors
deserve special protection in law. The United Kingdom Government acknowledged the
importance of moral rights when it effected a major overhaul of Copyright Law in 1988
(Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988)58. It also accepted the general conclusion of
that existing laws were inadequate to comply with Berne Convention for Protection
of Literary and Artistic Works, 1971 and express statutory rights were necessary.
Adopting a typically British legislative style, a detailed and complex moral rights code
was favored in preference to a simple restatement of the general principles set out in
Article 6 of Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and Artistic Works,
1971 59 which would have left the courts with too free a hand to work out how they
56 Karen Y. Crabbs, The Future of Authors' and Artists' Moral Rights in
America, 26 BEVERLY HILLS B. Ass'N J. 167, 169 (1992).
57 Jill R. Applebaum, The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990: An Analysis Based on the
French Droit Moral, 8 AM. U. J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 183, 187 (1992).
58 www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue4/copyright as visited on 4.02.16.
59 Article 6 - (1) Where any country outside the Union fails to protect in an adequate manner the works of
authors who are nationals of one of the countries of the Union, the latter country may restrict the protection
given to the works of authors who are, at the date of the first publication thereof, nationals of the other
country and are not habitually resident in one of the countries of the Union. If the country of first
publication avails itself of this right, the other countries of the Union shall not be required to grant to works
thus subjected to special treatment a wider protection than that granted to them in the country of first

42

should apply. The Act sets out the rights, the conditions which must be satisfied in order
for them to be acquired, their scope and, in particular, the numerous exceptions and
qualifications to them which were designed to satisfy sectional interests.
A careful examination of these rights is necessary in order to determine whether they
confer greater protection for moral rights than that existed before and whether or not they
match up to Article 6 of the Berne Convention, 1971 or to the equivalent moral rights
laws of civil law countries. There are four rights in the new moral rights code, they are:
1. The right to be identified as author or director (the right of paternity or
attribution),
2. The right to object to derogatory treatment of a work (right of integrity),
3. The right not to be falsely attributed as author or director and,
4. The right to privacy of certain photographs and films.

publication. (2) No restrictions introduced by virtue of the preceding paragraph shall affect the rights,
which an author may have acquired in respect of a work published in a country of the Union before such
restrictions were put into force.
(3) The countries of the Union which restrict the grant of copyright in accordance with this Article shall
give notice thereof to the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (hereinafter
designated as "the Director General") by a written declaration specifying the countries in regard to which
protection is restricted, and the restrictions to which rights of authors who are nationals of those countries
are subjected. The Director General shall immediately communicate this declaration to all the countries of
the Union.

43

INDIAN SCENARIO
The copyright law in India is quite old and the Indian judiciary, in spite of many
challenges, had always strived for protecting the rights of authors. Some of the
abovementioned moral rights have statutory recognition in India under Section 57 of the
Indian Copyright Act, 1957. This section provides an exception to the rule that after an
author has parted with his rights in favour of a publisher or other person, the latter alone
is entitled to sue in respect of infringement. The author retains the special rights even
after the assignment of the copyright. The principle underlying this section is that damage
to the reputation of an author is something apart from infringement of the work itself.

LEADING CASE LAWS

1. Mannu

Bhandari

v.

Kala

Vikas

Pictures

(P)

Ltd.http://www.ebc-

india.com/lawyer/articles/2003v8a3.htm - Ref1260- The defendant had

produced the motion picture Samay Ki Dhara under assignment of filming
rights of the plaintiffs novel Aap Ka Bunty. The plaintiff claimed a special
reputation for her novel Aap Ka Bunty and submitted that her image would
be lowered down before the students, research scholars and the literary
world if the distorted version of her novel would be allowed to be presented
through the film and thus, sought permanent injunction against its screening
and exhibition.
The authors objections were:

60 AIR 1987 Del 13.

44

(1) There was a change of title,

(2) Some characters and dialogues had been changed/modified which were
not present in the novel and,
(3) The end of the film was different from that of the novel.
The Court held that:
It does not sit as a sentinel (guard) of public morals. It cannot impose its
views on sex or its depictions in the works of art. Some dialogues have to be
deleted from the film as they distorted the characters and thus cannot be
described as necessary changes for the change in the medium i.e. from
literary to audio-visual. Another change had to be made in the end of the
film. Regarding title, the name Aap Ka Bunty should find a place in the title
of the film.
Thus, the Court upheld the moral rights of the author and the decision of the
Court vindicated the view that the film producer cannot make any
unnecessary changes in the original work of the author without his or her
permission.
2. K.P.M.

Sundhram

v.

Rattan

Prakashan

Mandirhttp://www.ebc-

india.com/lawyer/articles/2003v8a3.htm - Ref1361- The plaintiff and his

co-authors entered into an agreement with the defendant giving them sole
and exclusive licence to print and publish their works. The plaintiffs claimed
61 AIR 1983 Del 461.
45

that the defendants mutilated and distorted the original works by publishing
various books in modified form. The defendants admitted the modifications
made. The plaintiffs revoked the agreement.
The Court held that:
With the revocation of agreement by the plaintiffs, no right was left with the
defendants to continue to publish and sell the works. Interim injunction was
also granted.
Therefore, the conclusion that follows as far as Indian position is concerned is that
the moral rights remain with the author and are enforceable even if all the economic
rights have been licensed/assigned.
U.S. SCENARIO
The debate over moral rights became heated in U.S. when Congress voted to change U.S.
copyright law to make it compatible with the requirements of the Berne Convention more
or less.62 Under American law, the copyright owner (who is often not the creator of the
work) has the absolute right to change a literary or artistic work without the consent of
the original author or artist. But under Article 6 of the Berne Convention, 1971 each
member country must recognize moral rights, thereby giving the original artist the right
to prevent the work from being changed without his consent.63

62 A. Frazier, On Moral Rights, Artist-Centered Legislation, and the Role of the State in
Art Worlds: Notes on Building a Sociology of Copyright Law, 70 TUL. L .REv. 313, 315
(1995).
46

The moral rights question has always been a major obstacle, to American participation in
the Berne Convention, 1971: U.S, copyright owners strongly oppose any recognition of
moral rights, while groups of authors and artists want such rights. The moral rights issue
has received considerable publicity recently in connection with the colorization of older
black and white motion pictures. Many of the actors and directors who made these
movies view colorization as a. sacrilege (violation) like mutilating a classic painting. But
the copyright owners see colorization as a way to make the films more appealing to a new
generation of movie viewers. Cable Entrepreneur Ted Turner had been at the center of
this controversy because his company colorized almost the entire MGM library of classic
films. He purchased the copyrights to these films in the mid-1980s and then had them
colorized, something he had every right to do, despite the bitter objections of many actors
and directors.

For the most part, Congress sided with Turner and other copyright owners, refusing to
recognize moral rights. When Congress voted to have the United States join the Berne
Convention, 1971 still without recognizing moral rights that action stirred a controversy
among copyright lawyers. Some contended that signing the Berne Convention
automatically gave legal recognition to moral rights in the United States, despite
Congress efforts to sidestep the issue. Others pointed out that the 1988 law specifically
said joining the Berne Convention did not change American law on this point and there
was also the question of how the United States could legally sign a treaty while
steadfastly refusing to recognize one of its major provisions.
63 Carol G. Ludolph & Gary E. Merenstein, Authors' Moral Rights in the United States
and the Berne Convention, 19 STETSON L. REv. 201, 204 (1989)
47

48

CONCLUSION
Given the magnitude and dimensions that piracy has attained in recent times,
the onl y effective solution would be by consolidated action through
self-regulation. Measures that could be taken to clamp down on piracy in India and
abroad include:
(a) Organized action from the entire industry including through
the setting up of a piracy prevention fund to tackle piracy both in
India and overseas through litigation, through governmental and
intergovernmental co-operation in ensuring enforcement of
copyright laws. One possibility for the purposes of augmenting
resources for this fund is to get the government to contribute a
small fraction of the service tax collection from the entertainment
and media sector towards the Piracy Prevention Fund. As the
government itself loses out on huge amounts of revenue on account of
piracy and it would ther efore ma ke prac tica l econo mi c s ens e to
ens ure th at the government itself contributes to the piracy
prevention fund. This fund should be utilized towards initiating
litigation both in India and in foreign countries against the offenders.
(b) At the international level, particularly in countries such as the
United Kingdom and the USA where piracy is rampant measures
could be taken by Indian copyright societies with the co-operation of
their international counterparts.

49

(c) Within India itself, stringent regulations are necessary through a more
effective enforcement of the copyright laws, like for example The Cable
Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, which has been in force for
over ten years already, but as far as its enforcement is concerned it is yet
to be put into action.

50

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CASES
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 114 S. Ct. 1164, 1169 (1994).-------------------------------23
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994).-----------------------------27
Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2nd Cir. 2013-------------------------------------------------27
Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991).------------------27
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 566 (1985).- - -23, 26
STATUTES
17 U.S. Code 302.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
The Copyright Act, 1957, Section 13 (1) (a).------------------------------------------------3, 22
TREATISES
Copinger on Copyright, (12th Edn.) Para 458---------------------------------------------------17
Dr. Peter Drahos, The Universality of Intellectual Property Rights: Origins and
Development, Queen Mary and Westfield College (London, United Kingdom).-------22
GENELLE BELMAS, WAYNE OVERBECK, Major Principles of Media Law, 2014 Edition.--9
JITENDRA KUMAR DAS, Law of Copyright, PHI Learning Pvt. Limited, 2015.--------------7
L. RAY PATTERSON (Brock Professor of Law at the University of Georgia), cited by
Stowe, D., Just Do It: How to Beat the Copyright Racket, Lingua Franca (Nov./Dec.
1995), at 38---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------26
Thomas T. Gordon, Arthur S. Cookfair, Vincent G. LoTempio, Brendan S. Lillis, Patent
Fundamentals for Scientists and Engineers, Third Edition----------------------------------9
51

WAYNE OVERBECK, Major Principles Of Media Law, Harcourt College Publishers, 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
ARTICLES
DAVID S. WELKOWITZ, State of the State: Is There A Future for State Dilution Laws?, 24
Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 681, 682 (2008)--------------------------------23
http://www.splc.org/article/2015/08/student-media-guide-to-copyright-law, visited on
8/04/16.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
Jonathan L. Zittrain, The Future of the Internet -- And How to Stop It (Yale University
Press & Penguin UK 2008).--------------------------------------------------------------------32
Karen Y. Crabbs, The Future of Authors' and Artists' Moral Rights in America, 26
BEVERLY HILLS B. Ass'N J. 167, 169 (1992).--------------------------------------------39
Michael Seadle, (2002) "Copyright in the networked world: moral rights", Library Hi
Tech, Vol. 20 Iss: 1, pp.124 - 127--------------------------------------------------------------38
ROB WAUGH,

The terrifying rise of cyber crime, Mailonline, 17 jan 2013------------------11

Yin Harn Lee, Copyright and Freedom of Expression: A Literature Review available at
https://zenodo.org/record/18132/files/CREATe-Working-Paper-2015-04.pdf, visited on
10/04/16-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------32
OTHERS
LAURENCE STERNE in his novel The Life and Opinions of Tristam Shandy------------------7
RESEARCH PAPER

52

International Bureau of WIPO, The Advantages Of Adherence To The Wipo Copyright

Treaty (Wct) And The Wipo Performances And Phonograms Treaty (Wppt),availableat.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------34

53