VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL
STUDIES
PSDA Assignment
RESEARCH PAPER
“Interpreting the Subject Matter of Copyright under the
Copyright Act, 1957: A Statutory and Judicial Analysis.”
SUBJECT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
SUBMITTED BY:
NAME- BRINDA SHARMA
ENROLLMENT NUMBER- 36917703822
SECTION- VII-D
SUBMITTED TO:
Associate Professor
Dr. DEEPALI VASHISTH
Interpreting the Subject Matter of Copyright under the
Copyright Act, 1957: A Statutory and Judicial Analysis.
ABSTRACT
Copyright is one of the categories of intellectual property which can
essentially be defined as the creations of the human mind including drawings,
paintings, writings, art works, inventions, designs, trademarks, amongst
others. These intellectual properties are governed by specific statutes
defining the scope, purpose, effect and duration of rights granted under such
statutes.
The Copyright law in India is contained in the Copyright Act, 1957 with the
object of encouraging authors, artists and composers to create original works
by way of rewarding such creations with a bundle of exclusive rights
enabling them to commercially exploit their work for a fixed period.
The categories of work are held to be eligible for protection, subject to
fulfillment of conditions of originality and fixation as have been enumerated
under section 13 of the Act and include original literary, dramatic, musical
and artistic works, as well as cinematograph films and sound recordings. The
aforementioned section can be interpreted to understand that an idea, by
itself, would fail to qualify for copyright protection. A simple reading reveals
that such literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works need to be original for
protection under the Act.
The present research aims to make an attempt towards developing an
understanding of the works considered eligible for copyright protection
through statutory interpretations as well as judicial opinions and academic
writings.
KEYWORDS: Subject matter of copyright, literary work, cinematographic work, dramatic
work, musical work, sound recording.
1
INTRODUCTION
Intellectual property rights are statutory rights. The rights are granted to the creator of an
intellectual property. The intellectual property rights granted are different for different
intellectual properties. For an invention the right granted is a “patent”, For a cinematographic
film the right issued is a “copyright” and there are other intellectual property rights like
“Trademark”, “Trade secret” etc. Not every intellectual creation deserves a statutory
protection. Only to those items which are specifically identified and recognised by the law as
the subject matter of protection. “Subject Matter” can be defined as the “property” that
qualifies for protection under the statute. Subject Matter is the first criteria to check whether a
work is eligible for copyright protection or not. If the work is excluded from the subject
matter, then it fails to attain copyright even though the work musters the minimum
requirement stipulated by law, like originality.
Copyright is granted for an original work that is recognised in the law. Originality is a
requirement for the grant of rights. The right granted vest with the author of the created work.
So, there is a requirement to understand what constitutes a work. If there is ten pages in a
book, does copyright subsist on all ten pages individually or the copyright subsist only in the
book as a whole.
In Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, the author explains the idea of what constitutes
a “work.”
A “work” is something that fits within the legal definition — such as a literary, dramatic,
musical, or artistic work. When a creator finishes their work, we look at the final result to
decide (1) what kind of work it is, and (2) whether it is original enough for copyright
[Link] process of creating a work often happens over time and may involve multiple
drafts or revisions. Technically, at each stage of this creative process, a new version of the
work comes into existence, and each version could be seen as a “copyright work” in itself.
However, once the final version is completed, it is not correct to treat every earlier draft or
stage as a separate copyrightable work. The final creation is viewed as one single work, and
copyright protection applies to that complete, final version — not to each step or stage that
led up to it.
SUBJECT MATTER OF COPYRIGHT
Section 13 of the Indian copyright act, 1957 mentions the works in which copyright subsist:
“Section 13 -Works in which copyright subsists— Subject to the provisions of this section
and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following
classes of works, that is to say-
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
(b) cinematograph films; and
(c) [sound recording].”2
WHAT IS ORIGINALITY ?
The Indian Copyright Act seeks to protect 'original' literary, dramatic, musical and artistic
works. The question that arises here is- what is meant by originality?
The word 'original' does not mean that the work must be the expression of original and
inventive thought. Originality with respect to the expression of the thought does not require
novelty of the expression. The Act only requires that the work should not be copied from
another work. This means that the work should originate solely from the author. Therefore, it
can be said:
1. It must be expressed
2. That expression must be new
3. That expression must not be copied from another
1}Literary works
Literary works encompass a broad spectrum, including but not limited to:
Novels, short stories, and poems
Plays and scripts
Articles, essays, and journalistic pieces
Technical manuals, textbooks, and reference works
Databases and compilations
Emails and letters
Under the Indian Copyright Act, a literary work includes not only written novels, poems, and
1
plays but also tables, compilations, and computer programs. Essentially, any work which is
written, irrespective of its quality or literary merit, can be considered a literary work.
“Section 2(o)- “Literary works” includes computer programs, tables and compilation
including computer databases.”4Under the Indian act, a literary work includes computer
programs, tables and compilation. The word “literary” sometimes create confusion as it is
equated with literature but the word ‘literary’ only amounts to the work that are written,
spoken or sung, there is no requirement for a work to have quality as demanded in linguistic
literature to be qualified for copyright protection
Agarwala Publishing House vs Board of High School And intermediate education6
In the case, a firm of publishers challenged an amendment by the Regulations of the Board of
High School and Intermediate Examination, U. P. In the order it was declared that the
copyright of the question papers set at examinations conducted by the Board shall vest in the
Board and forbidding the publication of such question papers without the Board's permission.
The petitioners made an argument that ‘No copyright can be claimed in question papers set
for examinations because they are not "original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works",
and therefore do not come within the purview of Section 13 of the Indian Copyright Act,
1957.’ The argument by the publishers was heard by the court and the court formulated the
judgment.
The court after hearing the argument opined that:
“The 'literary works' referred to in Section 13 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957, are not
confined to works of literature in the commonly understood sense, but must be taken to include
all works expressed in writing, whether they have any literary merit or not.”
The judgement of the court give light on what amounts to be ‘literary works’,. The court to
support the decision quoted the UK case, University of London Press Ltd. v. University
Tutorial Press Ltd.
“In University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd., it was held that question
papers set for examinations were 'literary works’ because they were "work which is expressed
in print or writing, irrespective of the question whether the quality or style is high.”
The meaning of ‘literary work’ was clearly understood from the judgment and the court
2
rejected the argument by the petitioners that question papers doesn’t constitute as ‘original
literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work’. For a work to be qualified for ‘copyright’
protection the requirement is minimum amount of ‘originality’ and that amount is clearly
identified in the case.
Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D. B. Modak and Anr.
Facts: The Petitioners, Eastern Book Company, a partnership firm, and EBC Publishing
Private Limited were engaged in the business of printing and publishing various legal books
together. One such publication was titled ‘Supreme Court Cases’ or SCC. This publication has
existed since 1969 and consisted of all non- reportable, reportable and short judgements,
orders, records of proceedings and directions of the Supreme Court. They published copy-
edited versions of these judgments along with certain additions such as formatting,
numbering, cross-referring, and other contributions that rendered it user-friendly. It also
incorporated headnotes, footnotes, and long notes.
In 2004, the Respondents, Spectrum Business Support Limited, (also called Respondent-1)
and Regent Datatech Private Limited (Respondent-2) put out a software titled ‘Grand Jurix’
and ‘The Laws’ respectively. These companies were alleged to have copied the entire module
from SCC onto CD-ROMs, thereby infringing the appellants’ IP rights.
Issues: Whether the Petitioners’ work is eligible for protection under Copyright Law?
Whether the Defendants infringed the Petitioners’ copyrights?
Whether individual elements added by the Petitioners suffice to receive copyright protection
over the entire work?
Laws: Section 13, 14 and 52 (1) (iv) (q) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
Analysis: The Petitioners contended that they have copyright in their version of the
judgements compiled in SCC, which is a product of their skills, ability, labour and capital.
They did not intend to claim monopoly over the judgement, but the specific format in which
they publish them. The Petitioners further claimed that their work was infringed by the
Respondents because all the modules contained in the CD-ROM were similar to their work
and they had replicated the Petitioners’ way of publishing the legal reports with the exact
arrangements, sequences, and choices of cases. It was further alleged that the Respondents
3
copied the entire judgement as put forth in the Petitioners’ law report with the same
formatting, paragraph numbers, copy-editing and footnotes.
The Respondents, however, presented that the Petitioners’ product is not eligible for
protection under copyright law as it is merely a derivative work of Supreme Court’s
judgments. Since it does not portray independent creation, it is not an original work. It was
argued that the additions made by the Petitioners were not sufficient enough to render it
protection under the Copyright Act. Further, they applied the merger doctrine and stated that
the idea intended to be expressed by the Petitioners and the form in which they express the
idea are inseparable, therefore leaving no room for a possible alternative expression.
The Court held that for a derivative work to receive copyright protection, it must be
demonstrated that the derivative work is more than just a copy of the original. It must contain
the author’s independent skill apart from capital and labor. The court wanted to identify
whether the petitioner's work was original. For doing so, they determined that the modicum
of creativity was too high of a standard whereas sweat of the brow test was too low of a
standard. Hence, they decided to apply the Canadian test of "skill and judgement". According
to the court, skill meant those which are not trivial and are substantial and judgement meant
the use of resources that went beyond the mere expenditure of labour and capital. The
Respondents were ordered to refrain from copying the paragraphs made by the Petitioners for
internal referencing and to stop using the Petitioners’ views on dissent and concurring
opinions of the cases. The final judgement was in favour of the Petitioners, giving them an
exclusive right over their content, prohibiting the utilisation of the same.
Essential Requirements for Protection of a Literary Work under Copyright Law
1] Originality: Originality is the necessary condition of copyright. A work that merely reflects
an “age- old practise, firmly rooted in tradition and so commonplace that it has come to be
expected as a matter of course” is not remotely creative. Folklores are also exempted in this
sense. Exercise of efforts on the part of the author should not be trivial in nature and thus
should not be a mere exercise of the mechanical function of copying the work of another. The
variation must be substantial in nature than merely trivial. A literary work is entitled to
copyright protection, if it is an “original literary” work. The word original does not demand
original or inventive thought, but only that the work should not be copied but should originate
from the author. An ‘original’ must be a “product of an exercise of skill and judgment”, where
4
‘skill’ is “the use of one's knowledge developed aptitude or practised ability in producing the
work” and ‘judgment’ is “the use of one's capacity for discernment or ability to form an opinion
or evaluation by comparing different possible options in producing the work”.
The Indian copyright law mandates that not every effort or industry, or expending of skill,
results in copyrightable work, but only those, which create works that are somewhat different
in character, involve some intellectual effort, and involve a minimum degree of creativity. The
authorship involved in the creation of work should be a result of substantial or distinguishable
variation and not a result of the trivial variation. The Copyright Office will examine the work
for determining whether it satisfies the originality requirement and this should not be
interpreted in a manner that the work should be novel, distinctive, innovative or unique. Each
case would be scrutinized on its individual merits to establish originality as per the current
approach.
2] Copyrightable Authorship and Subject Matter: For a work to qualify as a copyrightable
subject matter under literary class, it must have de minimis literary expression in the form of
text, notes or symbols. It can be expressed in the form of a book, novel, magazine, etc.
Copyright office examines the work to determine whether it constitutes copyrightable subject
matter and examine the information provided in the application and also the work enclosed with
the application, to ascertain whether the work qualifies as literary work.
3] Publication: A Literary Work (except in the case of Foreign Literary Works) to qualify for
copyright protection the work in India, apart from the requisites discussed above, should also
have to qualify the following conditions:
a) The work is first published in India.
b) Where the work is first published outside India, the author is at the date of such
publication must be a citizen of India.
c) Where the work is first published outside India and the author was dead at the dateof such
publication, the author at the time of his death must be a citizen of India.
d) In the case of an unpublished work, the author is at the date of making of the worka
citizen of India or domiciled in India.
Acquisition of copyright of a literary work is automatic and it does not require any formality.
5
2} DRAMATIC WORKS
Section 2(h) of the Indian copyright act defines Dramatic works, A “dramatic work” typically
refers to a work of action, with or without words or music, which is capable of being
performed before an audience.
Dramatic works refer to the portrayal or dramatic enactment of a specific plot. A drama,
recitation, acting based on a book, coordinated movements, etc. may be among them
A dramatic work is a sort of literary work as well. Any arrangement of acting a play, or a part
for recitation, or choreographing work or dumb show entertainment, a visual arrangement, or
acting work based on a fixed literary work is included in the Dramatic Works. Dramatic works,
on the other hand, does not include any type of cinematograph films.
Original theatrical work and its adaptations are protected by copyright.
Entertainment in a dumb movie.
Any piece or recitation, choreographic performance in which the scenic arrangement or
acting form is fixed in writing otherwise.
However, a cinematograph film is not included on this list.
Essential requisites of a dramatic work
A dramatic work is something that can be written, printed, or reduced to a permanent form,
provided that it can be reduced to the point where it reveals a plot or story and suggests how it
should be conveyed, such as through dialogue or action. Dramatic performance is the name
given to this type of work. As a result, for any work to qualify as dramatic work, it must meet
three criteria:
(i) It must be reduced to a permanent form,
(ii) It must disclose a plot or story, and it must be performed in front of an audience.
(iii) It should be ready to be performed via dialogue, action, or a combination of the two.
Fortune Films International vs Dev Anand
The plaintiff is a cine artiste and the appellants are the producers of the motion picture
"DARLING DARLING". An agreement was formed between the producer and the cine
artiste stating that the work of the artiste in the picture on completion will belong to him
absolutely and the copyright therein shall vest in you and they will not be entitled to exhibit
6
the said picture until full payments are settled. However, upon settlement copyright shall vest
in the producers automatically. Also, shall not release the said picture not exhibit or distribute
or exploit or part with any prints of the said picture to any party directly or indirectly for the
purpose of exhibition, distribution and exploitation in the territories specified. The agreement
was violated by the producer. Dev Anand filed a case for the violation of contract and
infringement of his copyright in the movie. He argued that his work in the movie comes
under the definition of ‘Dramatic works’ and there exist a copyright for his work. The court
after hearing the arguments observed that,
“It must be observed that the concluding portion of the definition of "dramatic work" in the
Sub-section, which excludes a cinematograph film, would seem to clearly shut out any
contention that the dramatic performance of a cine artiste which is fixed or recorded in the film
negative will be "dramatic work" within the meaning of this definition and therefore protected
by the Copyright Act.”
“The definition is an inclusive definition; but it would not be permissible to extend it to cover
all cases where the work can be popularly described as exertions or efforts of a dramatic
nature. In this connection it may be clarified that we are not concerned with the work on a
stage or performance in a drama (which may be of several types) which may or may not be
covered by the definition of "dramatic work”.”
The court rejected the claim of the actor on the grounds that his work is not something which
comes under the definition of ‘Dramatic works’. The protection of work under the definition
doesn’t extent to cinematographic film and there is absolute clarity in this in the act.
DIFFRENCE BETWEEN LITERARY WORD AND DRAMATIC WORK
The term “literary works” refers to a work of fiction, technical books or papers, biography,
dramatics, thesis, screenplay, research work, compilation, tables, and computer programmes,
including computer databases that are original or unique creations of literature. It can be
asserted regardless of the work’s style, quality, or literary merit.
Copyright protects original literary works and the expression of ideas, although the
expression does not have to be original or novel.
The work must not be copied from another work but must originate from the author.
Two authors independently producing an identical work will be entitled to copyright in their
7
respective works.
The emphasis is more on the labour, skill judgment and capital expended in producing the
work. It includes tables, compilations and computer programs.
3} ARTISTIC WORKS
The artistic works are granted copyright protection and artistic works include painting,
sculpture, works of architecture etc. Section 2(o) of the copyright act defines ‘artistic
works’.
“Section 2(C)- “artistic work” means,-
(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an
engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;
(ii) a [work of architecture]; and
(iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship;”
So, in the first part it is mentioned that there is no requirement for artistic quality, which
means the only consideration for granting copyright for an artistic work is ‘originality’. But,
when it comes to the third part there mentions a requirement of ‘artistic craftmanship’, which
means that there should be some amount of skill. Both parts are contradictory to each other.
Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005 (30) PTC 253 Del HC)
Facts- The plaintiff, Amar Nath Sehgal, a distinguished sculptor, created a large bronze mural
for the walls of Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi, which was unveiled in 1962. The mural was an
original artistic work within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 2(c) of the
Copyright Act, 1957. In 1979, the Government of India, without seeking the author’s
permission, removed the mural and dumped it in a storeroom, where it was mishandled and
damaged, losing both its artistic and aesthetic value. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a suit
claiming that the act amounted to mutilation and destruction of his work, thereby violating his
moral rights under Section 57. He sought a permanent injunction, return of the mural, and ₹50
lakhs in damages for the injury to his honour, reputation, and artistic integrity.
Issue- Whether an author’s moral rights under Section 57 continue to subsist and be enforceable
even after ownership or economic rights in an artistic work protected under Section 13 have
been transferred to another person.
Judgment- The Delhi High Court held in favour of the plaintiff, declaring that moral rights are
8
independent of economic ownership and continue to vest in the author even after the transfer
of physical or economic rights. The Court observed that the mural was an “artistic work”
protected under Section 13, and therefore the author retained the right of integrity and
authorship under Section 57. The Government’s act of removing and dumping the mural
without permission amounted to mutilation and destruction, which was a violation of the
author’s honour and reputation. The Court held that destruction is the highest form of
mutilation, as it severs the spiritual bond between the artist and his work. The Court awarded
₹5 lakhs in damages and directed that the mutilated mural be returned to the plaintiff,
emphasizing that moral rights safeguard the personal, spiritual, and reputational link between
an author and their artistic creation.
4] MUSICAL WORK-
Section 2(p) of the act defines ‘musical works’ –
“Section 2(p)- “musical work” means a work consisting of music and includes any graphical
notation of such work but does not include any words or any action intended to be sung, spoken
or performed with the music.”
The protection granted to ‘musical works’ doesn’t extent to words, actions to be sung, spoken
or performed with the music. Which means that the protection only extends to the musical part
and this part is considered as the work in which copyright subsist.
The Gramophone Company Of India v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.
Facts- The plaintiff, The Gramophone Company of India Ltd., produced audio records titled
“Hum Aapke Hain Kaun” under rights allegedly assigned to it by Rajshree Productions Pvt.
Ltd., the copyright owner of the cinematograph film.
The defendant launched a series of audio cassettes containing version (remixed) recordings of
the same songs without obtaining permission or license from the plaintiff. The defendant also
adopted the same title “Hum Aapke Hain Kaun” with a similar design, color scheme, get-up,
and layout, even using photographs of Salman Khan and Madhuri Dixit on the cassette inlay
cards — creating deceptive similarity with the plaintiff’s product.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from:
Manufacturing or selling cassettes under the title “Hum Aapke Hain Kaun”, and
Using packaging identical or deceptively similar in design, color scheme, layout, or get-
up to that of the plaintiff.
9
Issues: Whether the sound recordings produced by the plaintiff qualify as “musical works”
under the Copyright Act.
Whether the defendant’s version recordings amounted to copyright infringement of the
plaintiff’s musical works.
Whether similarity in title, design, and presentation constituted passing off of the plaintiff’s
product.
Contentions: The plaintiff claimed to be the lawful owner of the copyright in the sound
recordings of “Hum Aapke Hain Kaun”, having received rights from Rajshree Productions.
The defendant’s version recordings were unauthorized reproductions violating the plaintiff’s
copyright. The use of identical title and design elements was intended to mislead consumers
and capitalize on the reputation of the plaintiff’s work.
The defendant argued that their recordings were independent version recordings, not
reproductions of the plaintiff’s sound recordings. It was contended that no valid copyright
existed in the alleged “musical work” since it was never printed, reduced to writing, or
graphically produced, as required under the definition of “musical works.” Hence, there was no
infringement of any legally recognized musical work.
Judgment: The court observed:
Musical work is not merely a combination of melody and harmony; it must also be expressed
in a tangible form—that is, printed, written, or graphically represented.
In this case, neither party had shown that their compositions were printed, reduced to writing,
or graphically [Link], no copyright could exist in the alleged “musical works”
of either the plaintiff or the defendant.
Thus, the court held that: The sound recordings in question did not qualify as musical works,
and No copyright infringement could be claimed based on such works.
5} CINEMATOGRAPHY FILMS AND SOUND RECORDING-
Section 2(f) and section 2(xx) of the Indian copyright act defines ‘cinematograph films’ and
‘sound recording’ respectively and in this case the word ‘original’ is not used, this may be
10
because the works mentioned in secion13(b) and (c) are compilations of the work in section
13(a). Thus, the works mentioned 13(b) and 13(c) naturally become an ‘original’ work.
“cinematograph film means any work of visual recording and includes a sound recording
accompanying such visual recording and “cinematograph” shall be construed as including
any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography including video films”
'Visual recording'includes any recordings from which moving images may be obtained, it
also includes storing the recording in any electronic medium. Therefore, the recorded work
with moving visuals/images is considered as a cinematograph film.
Cinematographic films, often called films or movies in general language, are a form of visual
storytelling and entertainment that combines moving images, audio, and sometimes text to
narrate or convey the story.
Therefore, cinematographic films can be defined as visual work in any medium created
through a method by which moving images can be created. Cinematograph includes any work
that involves moving images or visuals.
Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Vipul Amrutlal Shah & Ors
The decision issued by the Bombay High Court. It was held that a cinematographic film is a
"collection or collage or ensemble of various works like story, screenplay, dialogue, sound
track, video images, lyrics, etc. Each of these works may also enjoy copyright protection. By
operation of law or by contract or assignment the producer of the film may be vested
copyrights in the above works…Now when all these works are put together However, not
each and every work is entitled to copyright protection. In order to claim copyright there
must be some originality in the work. The author of the work may obtain raw materials for
the work from any or many sources but will only be entitled to copyright if these raw
materials are converted, by use of his labour skill, capital and intelligence to create another
material or work which is something different from the raw materials and has an element of
novelty.”
11
Critical Analysis
The judicial interpretation of the subject matter of copyright under Section 13 of the
Copyright Act, 1957 demonstrates a dynamic balance between statutory precision and judicial
creativity. The Act lays down six broad classes of protectable works, yet courts have played a
decisive role in defining the scope and essence of these categories through case law. A
recurring challenge observed through cases such as Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak
and Agarwala Publishing House v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education is the
tension between creativity and mechanical labour. Indian courts have attempted to locate the
threshold of “originality” between the “sweat of the brow” and “modicum of creativity”
standards by adopting the Canadian test of skill and judgment, which appears to be the most
balanced approach within the Indian context. However, the absence of a fixed legislative
standard still leaves ambiguity in determining what constitutes sufficient originality, allowing
for inconsistent application across various types of works.
Further, while Section 13 provides the foundation for identifying the subject matter of
copyright, cases like Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India expand its interpretation beyond
mere economic rights to include moral and dignitary interests of authors. The judgment
effectively linked Section 13 (artistic works) with Section 57 (moral rights), underscoring that
creative works are not merely commodities but also extensions of the author’s personality and
spirit. This judicial stance strengthens the moral dimension of copyright law, ensuring that the
creator’s integrity remains protected even after economic transfer. However, such recognition
also raises complex questions regarding ownership and public interest, especially when the
physical work belongs to another entity, as seen in the Sehgal case. The court’s reasoning,
while progressive, invites debate on how far moral rights should limit the economic rights of
lawful owners.
Moreover, the Indian framework, while broad, continues to struggle with technological
adaptability. The definitions of “literary,” “artistic,” and “musical” works under Section 2
have been criticized for their traditional orientation, failing to fully anticipate modern creative
forms like digital art, AI-generated works, and multimedia content. Judicial interpretation has
been reactive rather than anticipatory. This reactive stance may eventually dilute the certainty
of Section 13 unless legislative intervention brings clearer classification and inclusive
language to accommodate new creative mediums.
In essence, Indian copyright jurisprudence—though commendably protective of authorial
interests—still reflects an uneven evolution. The judiciary’s proactive interpretation has filled
12
many statutory gaps but at the cost of uniformity. To ensure coherence, the legislature must
revisit Section 13 and related provisions to harmonize moral, economic, and technological
aspects of copyright protection. Only then can India maintain an equitable balance between
the creator’s individuality, the user’s access, and society’s broader interest in creativity and
innovation.
Conclusion
The Copyright Act, 1957 establishes a broad framework for safeguarding creative expression,
ensuring that works born out of skill, labour, and intellect receive due legal recognition.
Section 13 serves as the foundation by identifying the categories of works—literary, dramatic,
musical, artistic, cinematograph films, and sound recordings—that qualify for protection,
provided they meet the requirement of originality and fixation. Judicial precedents have
played a defining role in interpreting these statutory provisions, clarifying that originality
does not imply innovation but a genuine and independent creation of the author. Through
landmark cases such as Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak and Amar Nath Sehgal v.
Union of India, the courts have reaffirmed that copyright extends beyond economic interest,
protecting the author’s moral and creative identity attached to their work. The recognition of
moral rights, particularly in artistic works, highlights that creative effort carries a personal and
enduring connection between the author and their creation. While the statute has proven
effective in defining and safeguarding traditional forms of expression, emerging creative
domains driven by technology necessitate a more adaptive interpretation. Ultimately,
copyright continues to serve its dual purpose—encouraging innovation while preserving the
dignity and integrity of the creator’s work within an evolving creative environment.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Copyright act 1957
2. Meenu Paul, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS 32, (Allahabad Law Agency, Law
Publishers, Faridabad Haryana 2022).
3. [Link]
4. [Link]
subject-matter-of- [Link]
5. [Link]
6. “A Study On Subject-Matter Of Copyright” by 1Deepa Singh,
2Dr. Jayashree Nandeshwa
13
7. LAW OF COPYRIGHT: DAS, JATINDRA KUMAR Edition : SECOND EDITION
8. 7. Meaning and Subject Matter of Copyright, LAW BHOOMI (Sept. 15, 2023),
[Link]
copyright/#Subject_matter_of_Copyright .
14
15
