UNIVERSTY OF MUMBAI

ASSIGNMENT TOPIC ON

“Rights of copyrights holder under Copyright Act”

SUBMITTED BY

Hitesh Kumar Chouhan

T.Y.LLB (ROLL NO – 23)

SEM - VI [2023-2024]

D.T.S.S COLLEGE OF LAW

KURAR VILLAGE, MALAD (EAST).400097

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Advocate- Vibhuti Agarwal Mam

 TITLE OF THE ASSIGNMENT TOPIC:

Rights of copyrights holder under Copyright Act

Name of the Student: Hitesh Kumar Chouhan

Roll No: - 23

Program & Semester: T.Y. LL.B. - SEM. - VI

College: D.T.S.S. College of Law, Malad E, Mumbai – 400097

Subject – INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS

Submitted to:

Advocate- Vibhuti Agarwal Mam

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Prof.

Vibhuti Agarwal Mam for their able guidance and support in completing my
Project.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to the Principal Mr M S Kurhade
Sir and Incharge Principal Reeta Bansal Mam for providing me with all the facility
that was required.

Date: HITESH KUMAR CHOUHAN

 INDEX

Sr. no Topic Page no

1) Introduction- Copyright Act

2 Rigjhts of Copyright Holder Under Copyright
Act
3 Types of Rights
4 Case Laws

5 Conclusion
6 Refrences
The Copyright Act

The word copyright is a mixture of two words – ‘copy’ and ‘right’. To be more
precise copyright means ‘right to copy’, wherein only the creator or his authorised
person has a right to reproduce a work. In simple words, a legal right which is
possessed by the owner of Intellectual property is a copyright.

In order to better understand the concept of copyright the elaboration must be

taken into consideration. With the help of a significant mental or intellectual
ability, when a person creates a unique product that product is viewed to be
original. The unique creations including websites, computer software, musical
lyrics, art, literature, poetry, graphic designs, musical compositions, novels,
original architectural design, films, etc. Further, a copyright is a safeguard which
protects an original work from getting duplicated.
When any work is exclusively created by the independent intellect of a creator
without any duplication is called Original Work of Authorship (OWA). Anyone who
is the original creator of any work he automatically has a right over it and also can
prevent anyone else to use it or copy it or replicate it for his own use.

The creator may voluntarily register for copyright if the creator wants to be
secured end and have an upper hand in the legal system. By registering this the
creator can file a suit against a person replicating his work.

Concepts such as discoveries, slogans, brand names, logos, concepts, domain

name, theories, and tiles are all excluded from the purview of copyright and falls
under the category of trademarks and patents. For any speech, idea, discovery
etc. to a copyright needs to be written down in a physical form.

This concept helps the creators and the artist to work fearlessly and create
original products, which are not subjected to replication by any other person.

Rights of Copyright Holder

Copyright legislation is part of the wider body of law known as intellectual
property (IP) which refers broadly to the creations of the human mind. IP rights
protect the interests of innovators and creators by giving them rights over their
creations. Sir John Salmond defined right as an interest recognized and protected
by law1. The recognition of interest of authors or creators of work form the
foundation on which the 'legal rights' of authors rest under copyright law.
An author produces literary, artistic, scientific or dramatic work or a
cinematograph film or a sound recording with various aims and objective. These
aims and objectives can be termed as his interest. In creating any work the author
employs his time, energy, labour, skill, creativity, resources, mind, faculties,
perception, ideology. The production of work by the author may be purely for self
growth, self development and self satisfaction or for commercial gains.
The work may no doubt have a monetary value but it is also an extension of the
personality of the author. The author expect and assumes that other will respect
his work and not encroach on his personality by modifying, amending, distorting
or mutilating his work in any manner that will affect his honor and reputation.
This interest of the author in his personality forms the basis of the moral right of
integrity of the author.
The work is the brainchild of the author and the author can be deemed to be the
parent. He would not, therefore, like anyone else to claim authorship in his work.
This interest lays the foundation for the moral right of paternity of author. The
work created by the author is the property of the author. He, as an owner, has
the exclusive right to reproduce, communicate, distribute, assign or alienate his
work for economic or personal gain.
He alone has the exclusive right to commercially exploit his work. He alone has
the right to reproduce his work in any manner, form or medium. This lays the
foundation for the economic rights of author. On the other hand some people
have opined that:
The right enjoyed by copyright owner is a negative one i.e. it is the right to
prevent others from using his work in certain ways, and to claim compensation
for the usurpation of that right2.
The author may need assistance of others in order to communicate the work in
public. Those who assist the author to communicate the work to public spend
time, energy, labour, skill and creativity therefore, their efforts need also be
recognized and protected.
These communicators of work of the author are referred as the neighbours to the
author and the rights, which emerge, to them are called neighboring rights. The
international conventions recognize three such neighbors namely, producers of
sound recording, performers, and broadcasting organizations.
The importance of protecting IP was first recognized in the Paris Convention for
the Protection of Industrial Property (1883)3 (Paris Convention) and the Berne
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (18864) (Berne
Convention). Both treaties are administered by the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO).
Countries generally have laws to protect IP for two main reasons firstly, to give
statutory expression to the rights of creators and innovators in their creations and
innovations, balanced against the public interest in accessing creations and
innovations; and secondly, to promote creativity and innovation, so contributing
to economic and social development. IP is usually divided into two branches,
namely industrial property and copyright.

Types of rights given under the Act:-

1) Economic Rights
Economic rights are those rights which help the author reap economic
benefits9.As per Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957(14 of 1957), different
rights are recognized for the works considering its nature. The section provides
that it is the exclusive right of the author to do or authorize the doing of the acts
provided thereunder. The important rights generally recognized by all types of
works under the Indian statute that attracted much judicial interpretation include
reproduction rights, right of distribution, and right to communicate work to the
public.
2) Right of reproduction:
According to sec14(a)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957 Copyright owner in a literary,
dramatic, musical, artistic, cinematograph film and sound recording work has an
exclusive right to reproduce the work or authorize the reproduction of work in
any material form.The amendment of 2012 remove the lacunae as the initially
right to store in any electronic means was not given under sec14(c)(i)of the
Copyright Act, 1957(14 of 1957). The author of an artistic work has the exclusive
right to reproduce the work and it includes its conversion from two dimensional
to three dimensional and vice-versa11.
This right has been elaborately dealt by the Delhi High Court in Escorts
Construction Equipment Ltd &Anr vs Action Construction Equipment Pvt Ltd &
Anr.12 The claim of the plaintiffs was that the defendants' Pick-N-Carry Hydraulic
Self Mobile Cranes is the three dimensional reproduction of the drawings for
which the plaintiffs have copyright protection. The Court after referring to Section
14(c)13 observed thus 'Needless to say industrial drawings are produced by
skilled draughtsman.
Some of the drawings incorporate standard parts such as engine or a gearbox in
common use, but even in those drawings there is ample knowledge, labour,
judgment and skill. The drawings used in the design of the crane were
reproduction of the original artistic work. Those copies of drawings were, in turn,
used to manufacture parts of the crane. Those parts manufactured are again
reproduction of the original artistic works.
A reproduction of an artistic work includes a version produced by converting the
work into three dimensional forms. Such drawings are capable of being infringed
by copying of a three dimensional article. 'Based on the above reasoning, the
Court held that the defendants have violated copyright of the plaintiffs in their
industrial drawings and granted an injunction in favour of the plaintiff14.
The point of interest is that through this judgment, the Delhi High Court has, with
the help of the Copyright Act, prevented manufacture of machinery. The object of
copyright protection is to protect creativity of the author and to ensure that no
one other than the author commercially exploited this creativity.
It was never within the ambit of copyright law to prevent manufacture of any
commodity. This confusion probably arose due to the literal interpretation
followed by the Court without considering either the intention of the Legislature
or the consequences of the decision, in practical terms.
It is true that designs are artistic works. But designs are of different types and
which of these has to be protected under the copyright regime is a thought-
provoking issue. The Act has also not made any difference between the drawings
that have an aesthetic value and that are purely functional in nature. But there
exists a separate legislation for the protection of designs, the Design Act, 2000.
It has defined the term design and those which come within that definition ought
to be protected under that legislation and all drawings other than those that can
be classified as fine arts will come within the purview of this legislation. Section
2(c)15i.e. of the Copyright Act gives the impression that drawings that are
functional in nature are beyond the purview of the Act.
Similar rights are also conferred with authors of cinematograph films. They are
vested with the exclusive right to make copy of the film as per Section 14(d) (i) of
Copyright Act16. The right of reproduction is not given to copyright owners of
cinematograph films and sound recording but the right to make a copy is given.
Although the act neither provide for the definition of reproduction or copy nor
the difference between the same.
The Act has neither defined the term 'reproduction' nor the term 'copying' nor
has it laid down the difference between these two. The terms 'reproduction' and
'copying' have been used simultaneously though reproduction encompasses a
wider range of acts. It was held by the House of Lords in Ladbroke Ltd vs William
Hill Ltd17 that reproduction means copying, and does not include cases where an
author or compiler produces a substantially similar result by independent work
without copying. It must also be noted that to constitute reproduction, copying
need not be in to; even substantial reproduction will amount to reproduction.
Reproduction also means making a copy in a different form, even if such copy is
not easily perceptible. Under the Act, the right to reproduction of literary work
also includes storing it in electronic form. This essentially means that storing into
a computer or compact disk will amount to the reproduction, even though the
copy is in a different form when compared with the original. It is important to
note that the law is silent on the nature and duration of storage to constitute
reproduction.
3) Right of Distribution
Apart from the right to reproduce the work, the author is also vested with the
right to distribute the work. It is the right to put copies of the copyrighted work
into the commercial market22i.e. it relates to the control over dissemination of
actual physical copies of the work. The scope and extend of this right is not
uniform i.e. it differs with the work. Once copies are in circulation the right no
longer exists i.e. the right gets exhausted.
The principle of exhaustion is dealt in Article 6 of the TRIPS23, under General
Provisions and Basic Principles. According to the exhaustion principle, once the
intellectual property rights holder has sold a product to which its IPRs are
attached, he cannot prohibit the subsequent resale of that product, as his
intellectual rights in that product are said to have been 'exhausted' by such sale
24.This is also known as the 'First Sale Doctrine', especially in the United States.

Exhaustion can be of three types:

National exhaustion - where the author loses the right to control the re-sale of
the product in that particular nation. 25
Regional exhaustion - where the author loses the right to control re-sale of the
product over a specified region but can exercise such right beyond such region.
International exhaustion- where the author loses the right to control re-sale of
the product anywhere in the world after the first authorized sale.
If anyone other than the copyright owner issues the work to the public without
the authority of the owner, then he is an infringer of this right but if he
reproduces the published work without the authority of the copyright owner the
he violates other rights of copyright and not the right to issue copies to the public.
For eg: A has already sold the copies of his work in the market and B subsequently
markets pirates copy of A's work. B has infringed the right of reproduction of A
and not the right to issue copy to the public.
4) Right to Communicate Work to the Public:
The exclusive right to do this vest with the author, irrespective of the nature of
the work. Change in technology has brought change to the nature of
communication and also to the notion of 'public 26'. This has enabled basically
three kinds of communication, such being public performance, being carried on in
the presence of an audience, transmission through cable network and also
wireless broad casting.
And the right to communicate the work through all these means vests exclusively
with the author. To understand the ambit of this right it is necessary to
understand the meaning of the words communication and public. The Section 2
(ff) of the Copyright Act, 195727 has defined the term Communication to Public to
mean making the work available to the public for their enjoyment, irrespective of
whether they actually enjoy it. This it appears is intended to cover transmission
over computer network. The Act has specifically provided that communication
through satellite and other cable means will also come within the purview of
communication to public.
The Bombay High Court through its judgment in Garware Plastics and Polyester
Ltd, and others vs M/s Telelink and others 28 tried to bring out the meaning of
the term communication to public. In this case the plaintiffs were producers of
cinematograph films and the defendants were cable operators who telecasted
those films, for a prescribed fee, without authorization of the plaintiff which was
challenged by them as violating their right under Section 14 of the Copyright Act,
1957 29.
The question before the Court was whether the act of the defendants would
amount to communicating the plaintiffs work to public. The Court brought out a
test to find out what would amount to communication to public and held that the
criteria to decide it are:
Character of the audience and whether it can be described as public or private,
The audience is private or public in relation to the owner of the work,
Whether permitting such performance will cause monetary loss to the owner of
the work which he ought to gain out of the exploitation of his intellectual
property.
Interpreting the term 'Public', the Court held that though the people who receive
broadcast are either residents of apartments in a building which has the network
or residents of the locality, they cannot be treated as members of the same
household or family and consequently their relation with the owner of the work is
of public nature. Moreover, the defendants were collecting certain amounts as
fees which the plaintiff ought to have got and thereby causing loss to him of what
he is lawfully entitled to.
Considering all these, the Court held that the defendant violated the plaintiff's
right to communicate his work to the public guaranteed under Section 14 of the
Copyright Act30.With the coming into of Internet, the notion of communication
and public has changed considerably. It has provided facility for public at different
parts of the world. A person can enjoy the work not only at the same time but any
time when he wishes to enjoy such work.
This has led to the recognition of this right in the Internet context, specifically,
through the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) 1996. As per Article 8 of WCT31, the
authors of literary and artistic work will have the exclusive right to authorize
communication of the work to the public 'in such a way that the members of the
public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by
them.'
This is also called 'on-demand availability right.'the Copyright Act specifically
never dealt with the issue of on-demand availability right till now. But when
looked into the definition of 'communication to public' which uses the terms
'making any work available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the
public directly or by any means of display or diffusion regardless of whether any
member of the public actually sees, hears or otherwise enjoys the work so made
available as per Section 2 (ff) of the Copyright Act , 1957 32.
6) Right to make cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of work
A literary, dramatic or musically work may be reproduced in the form of
cinematograph film or sound recording only with license granted for the purpose
by the owner of the copyright in the work.
But if cinema or sound recording is made with such license, an independent
copyright subsists in cinema or sound recording as a protected work under the
act. The Bombay HC Indian express newspaper (Bombay) pvt.ltd.vs Dr. Jagmohan
Mundhara 33 held that there cannot be a copyright in an event which has actually
taken place. In this case its been its said that there is a difference between simple
reporting of an event and reporting after daring and risky investigation of the
facts.
In the case the attempt of journalists should be treated as his autobiographical
expression where he alone has copyright. Since the producer of the film had
made the film in respect of the work therefore, it in the opinion of the author
amounts to infringement of the copyright of the journalist. Once a sound
recording is made, its only the producer who is the owner and only he can exploit
it exclusively in manner provided in sec 14(1)(e) of copyright act 34.
7) Right to make translation of the work
Translation means reproducing the work or expression of work in a language
other than that of the original version. In order to translate a work protected by
copyright authorization of copyright owner is required 35but the translation also
enjoy copyright without prejudice to the original authors.

8) Right to make adaptation

Adaptation is usually understood to involve adapting a pre existing work from one
medium to another or reproducing the work in another medium or alteration to
work in the same medium. adaptation means:
in relation to a dramatic work, the conversion of the work into a non-dramatic
work;
in relation to a literary work or an artistic work, the conversion of the work into a
dramatic work by way of performance in public or otherwise;
in relation to a literary or dramatic work, any abridgment of the work or any
version of the work in which the story or action in conveyed wholly or mainly by
means of pictures in a form suitable for reproduction in a book, or in a
newspaper, magazine or similar periodical;
in relation to a musical work, any arrangement or transcription of the work
in relation to any work, any use of such work involving its rearrangement or
alteration
9) Right of distribution
Distribution right (resale and rental right) the right of distribution is the right to
authorize the public of copies of a work. Distribution of work can be y sale,lease,
rental, lending,any transfer of ownership or possession of copies of work.

In India in the case of literary work (including computer programme),

dramatic,musical or artistic wok to the public not being copies already in
circulation36.
The rental right did not find universal favour with countries, therefore, the WCT
carved out specially tailored exceptions from its rental right. In case of computer
programmes, the rental right need not apply where the programme itself its not
the essential object of the rental.37 The Indian Copyright Act,1957,has provided a
similar exception.
10) Moral Rights
Moral rights are the English translation of the French phrase Droit moral. They are
in addition to the economic rights, and they are inalienable. Moral rights
safeguard personal and reputational rights, which permit authors to defend both
the integrity of their works and the use of their names Section 57 of the Act
Independent of the author's copyright and even after the assignment either
wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the
special right:
To claim authorship of the work; and
To restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification
or other act about the said work which is done before the expiration of the term
of copyright if such distortion, mutilation, modification or other act would be
prejudicial to his honor or reputation.In addition to the protection of economic
rights, the Copyright Act also protects moral rights of the author. Moral rights
flow from the fact that a literary or artistic work reflects the personality of the
creator, just as much the economic rights reflects the author's need to keep body
and soul together38. Article 6ibs of the Berne Convention directs the member
States to protect the moral rights of the author.
The rationale behind moral right was also explained in the case of Amar Nath
Sehgal vs. Union of India 39 In which the Delhi High Court held that In the
material world, laws are geared to protect the right to equitable remuneration.
But life is beyond the material. It is temporal as well. Many of us believe in the
soul. Moral rights of the author are the soul of his works. The author has a right to
preserve, protect and nurture his creations through his moral rights.
Modified form of work should look different from the original Once the author's
rights are transferred, the licensee has a right to make certain necessary
modifications to suit his situation, but the modifications shouldn't be in such a
way that the modified form looks quite different from the original which may
affect the reputation of the author. In the case of K.P.M Sundaram vs. Rattan
Prakashan Mandir 40 It was held that the words or other modification appearing
therein, will have to be read ejusdem generis with the words distortion and
mutilation.
The Court stated that the modification should not be so serious that the modified
form of the work looks quite different from the original.Moral rights remain with
the author even after transferIn the case of Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikash
Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and Anr 41, The Delhi High Court has held that:
These rights (moral rights) are independent of author's copyright and the
remedies open to the author under Section 5542. In other words, Section 57 43
confers additional rights on the author of a literary work as compared to the
owner of a general copyright. The special protection of the intellectual property is
emphasized by the fact that the remedies of a restraint order or damages can be
claimed: even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright.
Thus even though an author may sell his economic rights to a publisher for
publication, the moral rights shall remain with him which cannot be taken away
from him.Can Moral rights be waived off? Previously moral rights were treated
like that of fundamental rights to an individual as they are not merely for the
benefit of the individual but as a matter of public policy, for the benefit of the
general public.
But the single judge bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sartaj Singh
Pannu vs Gurbani Media Pvt Ltd &Anr 44 in relation to whether the Director can
also waive his moral right if any to be acknowledged as the Director of a film, held
that:
the Court is not prepared to go as far as to deny the right of a Director to waive
his right to be credited as such if for any reason he does not want his name to be
associated with the film. As long as the waiver is voluntary, it cannot be said to be
opposed to public policy.Thus after this decision, the moral rights can be waived
by the author if he wants to.
11) Broadcasting Rights in India
the broadcasting organisation is conferred with Broadcasting Reproduction Rights
wherein the organisation is conferred with a series of rights in respect to the
broadcast made namely,
1. reproducing the broadcast;
2. causing the broadcast to be heard or seen by the public on payment of any
charges;
3. making any sound recording of visual recording of the broadcast;
4. making any reproduction or such sound recording or visual recording where
the initial recording was unauthorised;
5. selling or hiring or offering for sale or hire to the public any such sound or
visual recording.
Following the operation of Section 3745, the performance of any act as under (a)
to (e) shall require a license of the broadcasting organisation or else the act shall
be treated to be a violation of copyright. However exceptions to the same have
been provided in Section 3946 of the Act.
These exceptions can be broadly categorised as;(a) for private use, (b) for
purposes of bonafide training or research,(c) for reporting of current events (here
it is to be noted that only excepts of such broadcast are allowed to be used under
this exception), and(d) general exceptions as provided under Section 5247 of the
Act.Further, Section 39A48 extends the general provisions under the Act to
broadcasting.
Case Studies
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.
In this case the Appellant, a music company, challenged the direction of the
Copyright Board directing the Registrar of Copyrights to grant a compulsory
licence to the Respondent, a leading FM (Radio Mirchi) broadcaster, to broadcast
the songs the copyright in which was owned by the Appellants when in a legal
battle the Respondents had accepted that there was a violation on their part in
broadcasting the songs.
It was held that:
Since the respondent has not obtained any authorization or license to broadcast
the songs from the appellant, it was an infringer and granting compulsory license
under Section 31 to such infringers would be like putting premium on their
defaults which would also encourage others to first infringe and where
infringement was discovered, apply for a compulsory license. Therefore such
could not be allowed.
Since Section 31(1)50 employs the term 'may', its not mandatory for the Board to
grant license to each and every applicant. Thus a licence can be granted or denied
on valid grounds. However Section 31 envisages that the decision to grant or
refuse license should be made after holding sufficient inquiry.
Star India Private Limited vs Leo Burnett (India) Pvt ltd
Here the plaintiff was the owner of the cinematograph film titled Kyun Ki Saas Bhi
Kabhi Bahu Thi. The defendants made a commercial film under the title Kyun Ki
Bahu Bhi Kabhi SaasBanegi with similar characters being played by the same
artists.
The question which came for the consideration before the court was whether the
commercial film made by the defendants is a copy of work of the plaintiff. The
Court here pointed out that the rights guaranteed under Section14 (a) (b) and (c)
and that under Section14 (d) and (e) are of different degree20. The exclusive right
in the former is to reproduce the work in any material form while the exclusive
right conferred in the latter is to make a copy of the respective subject matter.
It is this difference in the wordings of the provisions that resulted in the
differential interpretation of the provision.Consequently production by another
person of even the same cinematograph film will not constitute an infringement
of copyright of the first film. The term 'to make a copy' of a film would mean to
mean a physical copy of the film itself and not another film which merely
resembles it.
If the second film has been filmed or shot separately and even if it resembles the
first film, it is not the copy of the first film and therefore does not amount to
infringement. The Court relied on and other where it was held that for a second
film to infringe copyright in the first film, it has to be an actual copy of the first
film.
To prove Infringement of right of reproduction plaintiff must have to establish
that the defendant reproduced the entire work or substantial part to succeed in a
copyright action. There is no copyright on idea.

Video Master v. Nishi Productions

The Plaintiff claimed that the sole and exclusive video copyrights in a
cinematographic film [Bees Saal Baad] were assigned to it under an agreement by
the producer of the film i.e. the Defendant.
It alleged that the Defendant had entered into an agreement with another
distributor whereby a copy of the film was given to them, which in turn was used
to make cassettes which were to be used for satellite TV transmission.
Thus a violation of the copyright of the Plaintiff was alleged. It was held that:
Copyrights in Cable TV rights and satellite broadcasting rights are two different
rights under the Copyright Act, which can exist in different persons without
infringing copyright of each other.
By receiving satellite signals on dish antenna owned/maintained by Cable TV
operator or private party and by relaying signals through media of Cable to the
viewers, there was no violation of the exclusive video copyright of the
Plaintiff.The rights of performing artists in their performances of literary and
artistic works are in general covered by the concept of related rights. If the rights
provided by copyright apply to authors, related rights, also known as neighboring
rights concern other categories of owners of rights, other than the author.
.
Conclusion
In order to ensure a full and effective participation in public life and to lead a
better life access to information and knowledge is a must. In a welfare State it is
the duty of the State to ensure that there is dissemination of knowledge and
information to such an extent that it benefits all. At the same time it is the duty of
the State to protect those intellectual labours which is the root cause of this
information. This balance is being ensured with the help of copyright law.
But we can see that the current Copyright Act is not adequate to deal with the
needs of the changing society. The influence of Internet is rampant and so are the
problems it creates, relating with copyright. The current Act is incompetent to
deal with this scenario. Just because to date no such issue has come before any
Indian Court it would be foolish to believe that it will never come or wait till the
date when such issues actually come.
Internet should not be looked upon as a problem creator, instead it must be seen
as the most preferred means for the dissemination of information and rules must
be drafted in such a manner so as not to prejudicially affect free access. From the
cases discussed it can be inferred that the courts have always taken a pro-author
attitude. The courts have in most situations widened the ambit of the rights
guaranteed by the Act and in most cases have gone much beyond the philosophy
of copyright protection and intention of the legislature to grant protection to
authors of the work. In certain cases it seems to be just though in most cases it is
not so.The courts while giving most judgments in favour of authors seems to
forget the social implications such judgments can have. The court which is
supposed to strike a balance between the rights of authors and public interest can
be seen, in certain cases, as the cause for upset of the existing balance.
The reason for this fluctuating stand by the judiciary is, for sure, the gaps in the
law. It is high time for the legislature to act and bring in changes to the existing
law, especially in the situation of changing technology. The amendments
proposed in 2006 seem to be a positive step bute it is not adequate to deal with
the change.

Refrences
Copyright Act, 1957
Copyright, Designs and Patent Act,1988
US Copyright Act,1976
law of copyright -Alka Chawla; David Brainbridge, Intellectual Property, 5th Ed.(2002) Pearson
Education London, p.97 ;Intellectual Property Rights and Law by Dr. G. B. Reddy ;
law relating to intellectual property rights by VK Ahuja (3rd edition)