Registration of Copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957 –

With Sections and Case Laws

1. Introduction
Copyright is a crucial branch of intellectual property law that grants creators exclusive rights
over their original works. It applies to literary, artistic, musical, cinematographic, and sound
recordings, among others. While copyright in India arises automatically upon creation, the
registration of copyright provides statutory evidence and strengthens enforcement rights.
The governing law, The Copyright Act, 1957, has detailed provisions under Sections 44 to
50 for registration.

2. Importance of Copyright Registration

Although registration is not mandatory for asserting copyright, it is prima facie evidence of
ownership. It becomes critical in:
 Legal disputes (infringement suits)
 Licensing or assignment of rights
 Commercial exploitation (films, books, software)
 Claiming damages and injunctions

3. Legal Framework: Sections 44 to 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957

The statutory framework governing copyright registration is found in Chapter X of the
Copyright Act, 1957. Let us explore each provision in detail:

Section 44 – Register of Copyrights

This section mandates the establishment of a Register of Copyrights at the Copyright Office.
It records:
 Name and title of the work
 Names and addresses of authors, publishers, and copyright owners
 Other prescribed particulars
This public register acts as the central repository of copyright records.

Section 45 – Entries in the Register of Copyrights

Under this section:
 The author, publisher, or copyright owner can apply for registration.
 Application must be in a prescribed form with the prescribed fee.
 For artistic works associated with goods/services, a Trademark Registrar’s
certificate is required to ensure no trademark conflict.
Upon scrutiny, the Registrar of Copyrights may conduct an inquiry and enter the details in
the Register.

Section 46 – Indexes
The Act mandates that the Copyright Office must maintain appropriate indexes of registered
works. These facilitate public inspection and efficient retrieval of registered works.
Section 47 – Form and Inspection of Register
The Register and its indexes:
 Must be available for public inspection during reasonable hours.
 Copies and extracts can be made upon payment of the prescribed fee.
This ensures transparency and public access.

Section 48 – Prima Facie Evidence

This crucial provision states:
“The Register of Copyrights shall be prima facie evidence of the particulars entered
therein.”
Any certified copy or extract is admissible in courts without further proof. This section gives
significant legal weight to registered copyrights.

Section 49 – Correction of Entries

The Registrar is empowered to:
 Correct errors in names, addresses, or other particulars.
 Rectify omissions or accidental mistakes.
Such corrections ensure the Register remains accurate and up to date.

Section 50 – Rectification by the Appellate Board (Now High Court)

Earlier under the Copyright Board and now the High Court, this section allows:
 Rectification for wrong or omitted entries.
 Expunging incorrect entries.
 Correction of defects in the Register.
Any person aggrieved can apply for rectification.

4. Procedure for Registration

The procedural steps are as follows:
1. Filing the Application
o File Form XIV to the Registrar with fees.
o Each class of work (literary, musical, software, etc.) requires a separate form.
2. Examination
o Registrar examines the application for completeness.
o An objection window of 30 days is provided.
3. Inquiries and Objections
o If no objections are raised, registration proceeds.
o If objections are raised, an inquiry or hearing is conducted.
4. Registration and Issuance of Certificate
o Upon approval, entry is made in the Register.
o A Certificate of Registration is issued as proof.
5. Publication
o The particulars may be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise by the
Registrar as per Section 50A.

5. Types of Works That Can Be Registered

  Literary Works (Books, software, poems)
 Dramatic Works
 Musical Works
 Artistic Works (paintings, drawings)
 Cinematograph Films
 Sound Recordings
 Software/Computer Programs

6. Benefits of Registration
1. Legal Evidence: Facilitates speedy relief in court.
2. Public Record: Establishes ownership and deters infringement.
3. Commercial Value: Eases licensing and valuation.
4. International Recognition: Helps in enforcing rights abroad via international
treaties.
5. Protection against Infringement: Registration helps claim both civil and criminal
remedies.

7. Case Laws on Copyright Registration and Protection

✅ 1. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1
Facts: EBC, the publisher of Supreme Court Cases (SCC), sued for copyright over headnotes
in judgments.
Issue: Whether headnotes and formatting were original works eligible for copyright.
Held: Supreme Court held that mere labor (sweat of the brow) isn’t sufficient. Originality
requires minimal creativity.
Relevance: Emphasizes that only original expressions are registrable. Registration is not
conclusive without originality.

✅ 2. R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) 4 SCC 118

Facts: Plaintiff claimed his drama was copied in a film.
Held: The court laid down the "Substantial Similarity Test." Mere idea copying is not
infringement; expression must be copied.
Relevance: Registration helps establish the form and scope of expression claimed as original.

✅ 3. Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd. (1989) AIR 1989 Del 63

Facts: Najma claimed copyright over lectures published by Orient Longman.
Held: Delhi HC held oral lectures not reduced to tangible form were not copyrightable.
Relevance: Demonstrates the importance of fixation and documentation—prerequisites for
registration.

✅ 4. Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Aditya Pandey (2012) 50 PTC 335 (Del)
Facts: IPRS sought to enforce copyright in musical works.
Held: Delhi HC upheld the registration of rights and recognized IPRS’s role in enforcing
such rights.
Relevance: Illustrates how registration allows collective societies and owners to enforce
rights more effectively.
✅ 5. Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Music Ltd. (2019)
Facts: Dispute over streaming rights and use of copyrighted songs on a platform.
Held: Bombay HC reinforced that ownership must be clear, and registration simplifies
proving rights.

8. Critical Analysis
📌 Is Registration Mandatory?
No. But it is highly recommended. In the absence of registration, the burden of proof in
court increases.
📌 Lacunae in the Registration System
 Manual processes can be slow.
 Lack of awareness among artists.
 Digital works (e.g., memes, blogs) often go unregistered.
📌 International Practices
In the U.S., registration is required before infringement suits. India’s system is more lenient
but lacks robust digital protection mechanisms.
📌 Recommendations
 Simplify online registration.
 Encourage automatic notifications and e-certificates.
 Link copyright registration with Aadhaar or Digital India initiatives for better reach.

9. Conclusion
The registration of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957 provides a solid foundation for
protecting the intellectual efforts of authors, artists, filmmakers, and software developers.
Sections 44 to 50 lay out a systematic framework, and judicial interpretations have affirmed
the evidentiary value of registration. While not mandatory, registration greatly enhances
enforceability and commercial value, making it an indispensable tool in the IPR ecosystem.

Rights of the owner of a Copyright:

In order to exercise and enjoy the position of ownership of the copyrighted work, certain
rights have been conferred to the owner in terms of morality and on monetary benefits by the
copyright Act, 1957, and are also recognized by International conventions like TRIPS and
Berne.
Economic rights of a Copyright Owner –
Any right that yields or payoffs the owner monetarily are said to be the economic rights. The
economic right of the owner are been listed out in Section 14 of the principal Act, under the
meaning of copyright.
Right to reproduce the work :
Reproduction is an act of copying from the previously finished works or giving it a
differential form by adding, editing or modifying the same. In short in means the right to
copy. Such right shall exclusively be exercised by the owner of the work and shall not be
infringed by any other person since the act of reproduction of the work may economically
make benefits to its owner. Be it a book which has been published or a compact disc that has
been recorded and manufactured, right of reproduction of copyrighted works are the basis to
protect a work from the act of exploitation. The concept of substantial and material copying
has also been enclosed within the reproductive right. In regards to the violation of copyright
 of the owner, it is not necessary to copy the entire subject matter of the work to held
responsible for such infringement and a part of the reproduction of a particular work would
be enough for the infringement of the same.
Right to distribute in market :
Similar to the right of reproduction, the owner of the copyrighted work also has a right to
distribute in the market and make money out of it. The act of distribution may be in the form
of sale, lending for free or for a consideration, rental, or free distribution by the way of gift.
The right of distribution differs from case to case and shall not be exercised in a similar
manner at each instance. If the work that has been sold is a book, the rule of exhaustion shall
be applied. Wherein the right to distribute the book will be exhausted and ceases to exist after
the first sale of it and the buyer of the book will be further entitled to resale it as a second
hand material. Whereas this condition is not the same in case if the owner of copyright set
ups a library and charges rental fee to read the books available there and the law does not
prohibit to do so also the rule of exhaustion will not come to play.
Right to communicate to the public :
It means letting or making the product/work available to the public by way of broadcasting,
simulcasting or webcasting. If a person not being the owner of the work, communicates it to
the public would amount to the act of infringement. In Indian performing right society Ltd.
V Aditya Pandey, the Delhi High Court held that “the defendant is accordingly restrained
from communicating any of such works to the public, or performing them, in the public,
without such appropriate authorization, or licensing”.[2]
Right of adaptation :
Conversion, alteration, transcription or rearranging a copyrighted work means and includes
the right of adaptation. These rights are exclusively available only to musical, literary or
dramatical works and are not extended to the computer programmes. Although the right of
adaptation are being protected by the statute, it is also been governed by the principles laid
down under a classical case, by the Privy Counsel, in Macmillan and Company Ltd. V K.
and J. Cooper[3]. The defendants were alleged on infringing the book published by the
plaintiff and the nature of the book which was previously published by the Plaintiff was put
to test and was figured out the work was made out of a non – copyrighted source, such that
the Plaintiffs book lacked its nature of originality and held that the defendants are not guilty
of infringement. The principle employed here is that, although a work has been adapted from
such source it must possess a quality of originality to an extent.
Right to translate :
The owner of the copyrighted work has a right to translate his work to any other languages he
wants.
In Academy of General Edu., Manipal & ANR. Vs. B. Malini Mallya[4] – petition was filed
by the plaintiff, alleging on the use of his idea without authorization. The Court held that
“mere adaption of an idea would not amount the act of infringement and there must be a
substantial copy of work to attain the same.
Moral rights of a Copyright Owner:
A moral right would stand a step ahead of an economic right in which it is based on the
dignity, uniqueness and the reputation that a work has gained and maintained. It has been
well illustrated in the case of Amarnath Sehgal v Union of India[5],the plaintiff’s
masterpiece was damaged by the defendant by which it lost its aesthetic and market value. A
mandatory injunction was passed by the court in addition of fine amount of 50 lacs as the cost
of damage.
The moral rights of the copyright owner has been provided under Section 57 of the principal
Act that encompasses three basic moral rights.
i. Right of paternity;
 ii. Right of integrity; and
iii. Right to retraction.
Right of paternity :
The right of an owner of copyright to claim and prevent others to claim the ownership of his
copyrighted work is said to be a right of paternity. Sholay Media Entertainment and Pvt.
Ltd. V Parag M. Sanghavi[6], was a landmark judgement delivered on the Right of paternity
of the copyright owner, where the court granted protection to the title of the movie which
made the defendant to replace his’ movie title completely by refraining the use of the name
which causes damage to the cult of the name “Sholay” since it was deceptively similar with
the same.
Right of integrity :
The right of the owner of the copyright to protect the reputation of his own work from
exploitation is the right of integrity. Sajeev Pillai v. Venu Kunnapalli & ors[7]., the
respondent was alleged on the act of pre – release publicity of the movie which was yet to be
released without ant authorized permission. The court granted relief to the aggrieved
petitioner by restraining the respondent to carry on such act which damages the exclusiveness
and reputation of the movie.
Right to retraction :
Retraction is an act of taking back the previous assertion made. The author at times may feel
to give up his own right as an act of honoring the dignity of his work which sounds like
assassinating ones own life for the sake of protecting the so far gained reputation. The
principal Act, under section 57 grants the author the right to withdraw from the publication of
his work. In simple terms it means waiving of his granted rights for the sake of protection of
reputation or integrity. In Amarnath Sehgal v Union of India[8], the court pointed out the
right to retraction as to withdraw ones own publication if the author feels the condition of his
work is derogatory in nature and are advisable to do the withdrawal of the same. This would
be the author’s right to retraction.
Conclusion :
Hereby, it is to be concluded that the above made discussion on the concept of ownership of
copyrights positively implies the position of Indian legislature and the judiciary in making
and interpreting the laws respectively to its finest possible form. The rights conferred under
the provisions has spelled out the significance and importance given to acquire the title of
ownership, especially by way of honoring the efforts given in by an artist at various facets of
his career in order to produce valuable outcome and their rights are been protected both under
the economic and moral aspect. One highly notable and appreciable provision that shall be
regarded astonishing is the right of retraction which has been conferred to the owner of the
copyrighted work to safeguard the dignity that he has gained through his work. Further the
addition of precise provisions through the copyright Amendment Act has comforted and
eased off the hurdles faced by the performers and broadcasters.
Performers’ Rights under the Copyright Act, 1957
Introduction
The development of Performers’ Rights is a milestone in the evolution of copyright law in
India. With the growth of the entertainment industry, the significance of performers such as
singers, dancers, musicians, actors, and others who contribute creatively to performances has
become paramount. Traditionally, copyright law focused on authors and producers, but
modern jurisprudence recognizes that performers too have independent rights in their
performances, separate from the copyright in the underlying works. In India, the Copyright
(Amendment) Act, 1994 introduced Performers’ Rights through Sections 38 and later
enhanced through Sections 38A and 38B by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012. These
provisions align Indian law with international conventions such as the Rome Convention,
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), and the TRIPS Agreement.
(A) Meaning and Scope of Performers’ Rights
Performers' Rights refer to the exclusive rights conferred upon a performer for the protection
of their live visual or acoustic performances. These rights enable performers to control the
use of their performances, prevent unauthorized exploitations, and benefit from their
commercial use. The rights granted are both economic and moral in nature and are similar,
though distinct, from the rights granted to authors and producers of original works.
Performers’ Rights recognize the performer’s contribution as original and creative, justifying
the legal protection granted. Performances that are captured in sound recordings, films, or
broadcasts are valuable economic assets in the entertainment and media industries, making
legal recognition of these rights critical.
(B) Definitions under the Copyright Act, 1957
Section 2(q): “Performance,” in relation to performers’ rights, means any visual or acoustic
presentation made live by one or more performers.
Section 2(qq): “Performer” includes an actor, singer, musician, dancer, acrobat, juggler,
conjurer, snake charmer, a person delivering a lecture, or any other person who makes a
performance.
Proviso to Section 2(qq): In a cinematograph film, a person whose performance is casual or
incidental in nature and not acknowledged in the credits is not treated as a performer, except
for the purpose of Section 38B(b).
These definitions reflect a wide and inclusive approach, recognizing a variety of artistic
expressions.
(C) Sections 38, 38A, and 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957
Section 38 – Exclusive Right of Performers
Before the 2012 amendment, Section 38 only granted performers protection against
unauthorized recording and reproduction. The amended Section 38 confers Performers’
Rights on performers, which include:
 Protection from unauthorized recording or broadcasting of their live performance.
 Protection against reproduction of such recordings.
Section 38(4) provides that a performer’s right is infringed when:
 A person, without the performer's consent, records or broadcasts a live performance.
 The recording is reproduced without authorization.
The term of protection under Section 38(7) is 50 years from the beginning of the calendar
year following the year in which the performance is made.
Section 38A – Exclusive Economic Rights of Performers (Inserted by the 2012 Amendment)
This section provides performers with exclusive economic rights similar to those of authors.
A performer has the exclusive right to do or authorize the doing of the following acts in
respect of their performance:
 To make a sound or visual recording of the performance.
 To reproduce the performance in any material form.
 To broadcast or communicate the performance to the public.
 To issue copies of it to the public.
 To sell or give on commercial rental any recording of the performance.
Importantly, the section emphasizes that the consent of the performer is necessary to use their
performance, and this consent must be in writing.
Section 38B – Moral Rights of Performers
This provision mirrors the moral rights of authors under Section 57 and grants the following
moral rights to performers:
 The right to be identified as the performer.
 The right to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, or other
modification of their performance which would be prejudicial to their reputation.
Section 38B(2) provides that the moral rights of the performer exist even after the economic
rights are assigned or waived.
Together, Sections 38, 38A, and 38B establish a robust framework for performers’ rights,
acknowledging their creative contribution and protecting them against commercial
exploitation without consent.
(D) Distinction Between Performers’ Rights and Copyright
While both performers and authors are protected under the Copyright Act, the rights granted
to each are distinct:
Copyright:
 Vests in original works such as literary, artistic, musical, and cinematograph works.
 Granted to authors and producers.
 Includes economic rights and moral rights (Sections 14, 57).
Performers’ Rights:
 Vests in the act of live performance.
 Granted to individuals who present visual or acoustic performances.
 Codified under Sections 38, 38A, and 38B.
 Performers’ Rights are “neighboring rights” or “related rights,” as distinct from
copyrights in original works.
(E) Duration of Performers’ Rights and Remedies for Infringement
Term of Protection:
Section 38(7) provides that the duration of Performers’ Rights is 50 years from the beginning
of the calendar year next following the year in which the performance is made.
Infringement:
An unauthorized recording, broadcasting, reproduction, or commercial distribution of a
performance without written consent constitutes an infringement. Legal remedies include:
 Injunctions to prevent unauthorized use.
 Damages or account of profits.
 Criminal liability under Section 63.
(F) Landmark Judicial Pronouncements
1. Neha Bhasin v. Anand Raj Anand & Ors. (2010)
Facts: Singer Neha Bhasin filed a suit against music composer Anand Raj Anand for using
her performance without due credit and royalty.
Issue: Whether the use of a recorded performance without the performer's consent and credit
violates her Performers’ Rights?
Held: The Delhi High Court upheld the performer's right to receive royalties and to be
acknowledged. The Court observed that unauthorized reproduction of a performer’s work
without credit amounted to moral rights violation under Section 38B.
Significance: The case reinforced the necessity of obtaining consent and giving due credit to
performers.
 2. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Aditya Pandey & Ors. (2011) (Delhi High
Court)
Facts: IPRS claimed rights on behalf of composers and lyricists over public performance of
music. The issue arose whether broadcasters and event organizers were liable to obtain a
license.
Held: The Court differentiated between authors’ rights and performers’ rights. It stated that
once performers assign their rights, societies like IPRS can enforce them.
Significance: Clarified the rights of collecting societies and emphasized the economic nature
of Performers’ Rights.
3. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Chintamani Rao & Ors. (2007) (Delhi High Court)
Facts: The plaintiff alleged infringement of its rights by organizers of a musical concert that
played sound recordings without authorization.
Held: The Court held that the performers had a right to license their work, and using such
performances without permission amounted to infringement.
Significance: Reinforced the commercial nature of Performers’ Rights and the need for
licensing.
4. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. (2020) (Delhi High
Court)
Facts: Novex, on behalf of performers, sued Lemon Tree Hotels for playing copyrighted
music without proper licensing.
Held: The Court observed that mere assignment of sound recording rights does not eliminate
performers’ economic rights under Section 38A. Performers remain entitled to royalties and
licensing revenues.
Significance: Strengthened performers’ claim to independent rights, even when recordings
are used commercially by third parties.
(G) Relevance of Performers’ Rights in the Digital and OTT Era
The rise of digital platforms, live streaming services, and OTT content has heightened the
significance of performers’ rights:
 Performances are now widely shared, streamed, and monetized online.
 Platforms like YouTube, Spotify, Netflix, and Instagram monetize live and recorded
performances.
 Performers’ Rights ensure that artists are compensated for such usage.
 Challenges include unauthorized streaming, deepfakes, and digital reproduction,
which often bypass consent.
The 2012 amendment rightly extended the scope of Performers’ Rights to digital mediums by
explicitly referring to electronic and other formats of communication.
(H) Interface of Performers’ Rights with Economic and Moral Rights
Economic Rights:
Section 38A grants economic rights like reproduction, broadcasting, distribution, and
commercialization of a performance. These rights enable performers to:
 Enter into license agreements.
 Receive royalties for commercial use.
 Enforce rights against unauthorized exploitation.
Moral Rights:
Under Section 38B, moral rights protect the personality and reputation of the performer.
These include:
  The right to be identified as the performer.
 The right to object to distortion or mutilation.
Moral rights persist beyond assignment of economic rights and are inalienable. The Indian
regime thus offers a balanced approach.
(I) Role of Copyright Societies and Enforcement Mechanisms
Copyright societies like the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) and Phonographic
Performance Limited (PPL) play a vital role in:
 Collecting and distributing royalties on behalf of performers.
 Licensing public performance rights.
 Enforcing Performers’ Rights through litigation or negotiation.
Under Sections 33 and 34 of the Copyright Act, these societies must be registered and
function under the supervision of the Copyright Office.
Enforcement Mechanisms:
 Civil remedies: injunctions, damages, accounts of profits.
 Criminal prosecution under Sections 63 to 70.
 Border measures and digital takedowns under Section 52(1)(b) & 69A of the IT Act,
2000 (for online infringement).
(J) Conclusion
The recognition of Performers’ Rights under the Indian Copyright Act is a significant step
toward balancing the interests of all stakeholders in the creative economy. The legislative
framework post the 2012 amendment is aligned with global standards and empowers
performers both economically and morally. However, several improvements can be
suggested:
 Better awareness among performers about their rights and available remedies.
 Enhanced capacity-building of copyright societies for efficient royalty collection.
 Stronger enforcement in digital platforms, including collaborations with OTT
services.
 Legislative updates to address emerging challenges like AI-generated performances
and deepfake impersonations.
Ultimately, the law must evolve to protect the dignity, effort, and creativity of performers in
an increasingly digitized and globalized entertainment environment.
DOCTRINE OF FAIR USE UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 – A
DETAILED STUDY
I. Introduction
Copyright law aims to balance two competing objectives: to reward creators with exclusive
rights and to ensure the dissemination of knowledge and culture in society. This balance is
maintained through carefully crafted exceptions and limitations, the most significant being
the Doctrine of Fair Use, referred to as “Fair Dealing” in India.
Fair use serves as a defence against claims of copyright infringement when certain uses of
copyrighted works are permitted without seeking authorization from the copyright holder. In
the Indian context, this doctrine is codified primarily under Section 52 of the Copyright Act,
1957. It permits specified uses of copyrighted works without constituting infringement,
particularly in the domains of education, research, reporting, parody, satire, and criticism.
The doctrine’s legal relevance has dramatically increased in the age of digital
communication, social media, and online content creation. This answer examines the origin,
scope, statutory framework, and judicial interpretation of fair use in India, contrasts it with
the American fair use model, and assesses its applicability in the digital context.
II. Statutory Basis of the Doctrine of Fair Use in India
Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides a comprehensive list of acts that do not
amount to copyright infringement. These are considered exceptions based on the principle of
“fair dealing,” especially when the use is for public interest, educational, or critical
commentary purposes.
A. Section 52(1)(a) – Core Fair Dealing Clause
This provision permits:
(i) private or personal use, including research;
(ii) criticism or review, whether of that work or any other work;
(iii) reporting of current events and current affairs, including reporting of lectures delivered in
public.
Importantly, the term “fair dealing” is not defined in the Act. Courts are thus vested with
discretion to interpret the scope of fairness based on the facts of each case.
B. Additional Relevant Provisions of Section 52
Apart from the general fair dealing clause, several sub-clauses in Section 52(1) are highly
relevant:
 Section 52(1)(h): Reproduction for judicial proceedings.
 Section 52(1)(i): Reproduction in the course of instruction or educational use.
 Section 52(1)(j): Performances in educational institutions.
 Section 52(1)(m): Reproduction in newspapers or magazines for current events,
unless expressly reserved.
These clauses emphasize a legislative intent to protect free speech, education, and democratic
discourse over commercial restrictions.
III. Leading Judicial Interpretations in India
A. Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, AIR 1996 Ker 63
Facts: Civic Chandran authored a counter-drama based on “Ningalenne Communistakki,” a
famous play. The original author sued for infringement.
Issues:
 Did the use of the original script in the counter-drama amount to infringement?
 Was the use transformative and critical in nature?
Held: The Kerala High Court ruled in favor of the defendant. It held that the counter-drama
was a critique and qualified under “criticism or review” in Section 52. The court emphasized
the transformative nature of the work and public interest.
Significance: This was among the first cases where the Indian judiciary discussed the concept
of transformative use, albeit implicitly. It confirmed that derivative critical works can enjoy
protection under fair dealing.
B. Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy
Services, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4658
Facts: Photocopies of excerpts from textbooks published by Oxford University Press,
Cambridge University Press, and Taylor & Francis were compiled as course packs by
Rameshwari Photocopy Services for Delhi University students.
Issues:
 Was the photocopying and distribution for educational purposes infringement?
 Could the fair dealing defense under Section 52(1)(i) and (h) be invoked?
Held: The Delhi High Court held that reproduction of works in the course of instruction by
educational institutions is permissible. It recognized students’ and teachers’ right to access
educational material.
Significance: This case is the most authoritative interpretation of Section 52(1)(i) and
expanded the scope of fair dealing to include photocopying for academic purposes.
C. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (44) PTC
575 (Del)
Facts: The defendant used short clips of copyrighted songs for a satirical TV program.
Issue: Whether satire constitutes “criticism or review” under Section 52(1)(a)(ii).
Held: The court ruled against the defendant, stating that satire is not explicitly mentioned
under Section 52 and therefore cannot be presumed to be permitted.
Significance: Reinforced a strict, literal reading of Section 52 exceptions, in contrast with
more liberal U.S. fair use jurisprudence.
D. India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 Bom
CR 514
Facts: India TV broadcasted snippets of songs owned by Yashraj Films during news
presentations.
Issue: Whether this amounted to reporting current events under Section 52(1)(a)(iii)?
Held: The Bombay High Court held that mere insertion of songs in news stories does not
justify exemption. The use lacked necessity and proportionality.
Significance: Set limits on the use of entertainment content in the name of news reporting.