LLM Group 3 Law of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Copyrights Law and other related rights 2023-24 Question Paper with Solutions

For full marks, cover: the statement is a proposition to be proved, not a phrase to be repeated. Prove it in four ways. The rights are separately ENUMERATED in section 14, and they differ by class of work. They are separately ASSIGNABLE under section 18, by right, by territory and by term. They are separately EXHAUSTED and separately LIMITED, so section 52 and the compulsory licences bite on some and not others. And they are separately OWNED, so a single work can have several right holders at once. Then add the two sticks that are not economic at all, moral rights and the 2012 royalty right. Work three cases and close on where the metaphor breaks down, because a discussion needs a limit.

The statement, and where it comes from

Section 14 provides that for the purposes of the Act, "copyright" MEANS the exclusive right, subject to the provisions of the Act, to DO OR AUTHORISE THE DOING of any of the acts it then lists, in respect of a work or any substantial part of it.

For CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS, section 14(d) gives only three: making a copy including a photograph of any image, commercial rental and sale, and communication to the public.

For SOUND RECORDINGS, section 14(e) gives three: making another recording embodying it, commercial rental and sale, and communication to the public.

The differences are not accidental. A film has no translation or adaptation right, because the Act protects the recording rather than the underlying story, which has its own copyright. A sound recording has no public performance right as such, only communication to the public. A candidate who says copyright gives "the right to copy" has collapsed the bundle into one stick.

Proof two: the sticks are separately assignable

Section 18 provides that the owner of the copyright in an existing work, or the prospective owner of a future work, may assign the copyright WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY, GENERALLY OR SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS, and for the WHOLE TERM OR ANY PART.

Proof three: the sticks are separately limited

Section 52 does not remove a work from copyright; it removes particular ACTS from infringement, and the acts differ. Fair dealing under section 52(1)(a) applies to any work but not to a computer programme, which has its own regime in clauses (aa) to (ad). Clause (i) removes reproduction by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction but not public performance, which is separately removed by clause (j) and only for an audience limited to the institution. Clause (za) removes performance and communication in a bona fide religious ceremony, which the 2012 Explanation extends to a marriage procession and social festivities associated with a marriage, but removes nothing else.

The same is true of licensing. Section 31C allows a COVER VERSION, which is an exercise of the recording right in section 14(a)(iv), and touches nothing else. Section 31D allows BROADCASTING, which is an exercise of the communication right, and does not permit reproduction beyond what broadcasting requires. Each compulsory or statutory licence picks out one stick.

Indian Performing Right Society Limited v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association, (1977) 2 SCC 820, shows the bundle being split by the provisos to section 17. The Supreme Court held that where a producer commissions a composer or lyricist for valuable consideration for the purpose of making a film, the producer becomes the first owner of the copyright in the film, and no copyright subsists in the composer or lyricist so as to restrain the film's exhibition. The composer kept his authorship and lost the economic sticks.

The sticks that are not economic

Two entitlements complete the bundle and neither is transferable.

Section 57 gives the AUTHOR, independently of his copyright and even after its assignment, the right to claim authorship and the right to restrain or claim damages for any distortion, mutilation or modification prejudicial to his honour or reputation. Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del), held that the destruction of a bronze mural was the extreme form of mutilation, that the right survived the assignment of copyright to the Union, and awarded damages with a direction that the remnants be returned to the sculptor.

Where the metaphor breaks down

A discussion must say what is wrong with the image as well as what is right.

The bundle is CLOSED. Sections 14 and 16 make it exhaustive: no person is entitled to copyright otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, so a new use that fits no existing stick is simply free. That is why every technological dispute is an argument about whether an existing clause covers the activity, and why India has no general misappropriation doctrine to fill gaps.

The sticks are not equal. Reproduction and communication to the public carry almost all the commercial value today; translation and adaptation rights are rarely exploited separately; and the balance shifted decisively towards communication to the public once delivery became digital.

Conclusion. The statement is accurate and is a statement about the structure of section 14. Copyright is not a single proprietary right in a work but a closed set of separately enumerated entitlements to control particular acts, which differ by class of work, may be assigned or licensed separately by right, territory and term under sections 18 and 19, are separately limited by section 52 and by the compulsory and statutory licences, and may be separately owned, as the first proviso to section 17 and section 13(4) both demonstrate. To the economic sticks the Act adds two that cannot be traded: the moral rights in section 57, which survive assignment, and the author's equal share of royalties created in 2012. The limits of the metaphor are that the bundle is closed, so an unlisted use is free; that the sticks are of very unequal value; and that they are commercially inseparable even though they are legally divisible.