A. Intellectual Property — Copyright Act, 1957 — Ss. 13 and 2(o) — Derivative or secondary literary work produced from pre-existing material in the public domain — Test and standard of “originality” for, so as to qualify for copyright protection — Rejection of the “sweat of the brow” and the American creativity test — Adoption/enunciation of Indian-Canadian test of “skill and judgment with flavour of creativity” — Held, to claim copyright in a derivative work, the author must produce the material with exercise of his skill and judgment with a flavour of creativity which may not be creativity in the sense that it is novel or nonobvious, but at the same time it is not a product of merely labour and capital — The copyright work which comes into being should be original in the sense that by virtue of selection, coordination or arrangement of preexisting data contained in the work, a work somewhat different in character is produced by the author — To support copyright, there must be some substantive variation and not merely a trivial variation, not the variation of the type where limited/unique ways of expression are available and an author selects one of them which can be said to be a garden variety

B. Intellectual Property — Copyright Act, 1957 — S. 13 — Copyright in law reports/journals publishing judgments of courts — Portions protected by copyright and not open to others to reproduce without permission of copyright holder — Headnotes, editorial notes and footnotes appearing in law report — Copyright protection granted by High Court, not having been challenged before Supreme Court, affirmed by Supreme Court — Further held, inputs put in the original text by the appellants in paragraph numbering, paragraphing, internal paragraph numbering, internal referencing, introducing phrases like “concurring”, “partly concurring”, “partly dissenting”, “dissenting”, “supplementing”, “majority expressing no opinion”, etc., require knowledge, sound judgment and legal skill — The exercise and creation of these inputs has a flavour of the minimum amount of creativity required for copyright protection — Therefore in these inputs put in the judgments reported in SCC, the appellants have a copyright and nobody is permitted to utilise the same — Hence, appellants entitled to this protection in addition to the protection granted by the High Court

C. Intellectual Property — Copyright Act, 1957 — Ss. 13, 52(1)(q)(iv), 2(k) & 17(d) — Copy-edited text of judgments of courts as published in law reports/journals viz. judgments published with various inputs made by the publisher to enhance readability and user-friendliness of the text — Subsistence of copyright, if any in such copy-edited text — Test and standard of “originality” for — Rejection of the “sweat of the brow” and the American creativity test — Adoption/enunciation of Indian-Canadian test of “skill and judgment with flavour of creativity” — Held, copyright would not be found to subsist in copy-edited judgments merely by establishing amount of skill, labour and capital put in the inputs of the copy-edited judgments — To secure copyright for copyedited judgments it is necessary that the labour, skill and capital invested should be sufficient to communicate or impart to the judgment printed some quality or character which the original judgment does not possess and which differentiates the original judgment from the printed one — To support copyright in the copy-edited judgment, there must be some substantive variation and not merely a trivial variation, not the variation of the type where limited/unique ways of expression are available and an author selects one of them which can be said to be a garden variety — Though the creativity standard, which is applicable, does not require something novel or non-obvious, but some minimal degree of creativity is required — Appellants claiming copyright in the copy-edited version of the text of judgments of the Supreme Court as published in their law report — Tenability of claim — Held, no doubt the appellants have collected the material and improved the readability and user-friendliness of the judgment and arranged it in their own style, but that does not give the flavour of minimum requirement of creativity — The various inputs set out in para 13 (other than the ones listed in Shortnote B, above) put in by the appellants in the copy-edited judgments do not reach the standard of creativity required for copyright — The aforesaid inputs would enjoy copyright protection if the principle had been accepted (which principle has not been accepted) that anyone who by his independent skill and labour creates an original work of whatever character, shall enjoy an exclusive right to reproduce that work

D. Intellectual Property — Copyright Act, 1957 — Ss. 52(1)(q)(iv) and 13 — Principle that “no man is entitled to steal or appropriate for himself the result of another man’s brain, skill or labour”, held, is inapplicable in case of judgments of courts as there is no copyright therein — Hence, resorting to common source i.e. obtaining the certified copy of the judgment is not required for publishing or reproducing judgments

E. Intellectual Property — Copyright Act, 1957 — S. 13 — Works in which copyright subsists — Facts — Held, there is no copyright in the facts per se

F. Intellectual Property — Copyright Act, 1957 — S. 13 — Works in which copyright subsists — Facts/expression dichotomy — Discovery/ expression dichotomy — Ideas/expression dichotomy — Expression of facts or discoveries or ideas — When not protected — Unique/limited ways of expressing the fact, discovery or idea

G. Intellectual Property — Copyright Act, 1957 — S. 13 — Literary works — Classes of — Primary or prior works distinguished from secondary or derivative works

H. Intellectual Property — Copyright Act, 1957 — Ss. 13, 14, 17 and 52 — Acquisition/subsistence of copyright — Requirement of — Held, in the first place the work should qualify as “original” under the provisions of S. 13 for subsistence of copyright

I. Intellectual Property — Copyright Act, 1957 — Ss. 13, 14, 17 and 52 — Nature and scope of copyright in India — Held, copyright is purely a creation of statute under the 1957 Act — What rights the author has in his work by virtue of his creation, are defined in Ss. 14 and 17 — Though referred to as exclusive rights, there are various exceptions listed in S. 52

J. Intellectual Property — Copyright — Meaning of “copyright” — Copyright Act, 1957, S. 14

K. Intellectual Property — Copyright — Object and justification of copyright — Balancing of public and private interests — Role of the requirement of “originality” in — Copyright Act, 1957, S. 13

L. Intellectual Property — Copyright Act, 1957 — Object of, held, is to protect the author of the copyright work from an unlawful reproduction or exploitation of his work by others