Civil Remedies Against Copyright Infringement

Coverage of this Article

Key Takeaways

The concept of ‘copyright infringement’ as per the Copyright Act, 1957 and the definition of the ‘owner of copyright’ under the Act.

Introduction

-What is ‘copyright infringement’? The answer to this question lies in the Copyright Act itself. The copyright works include original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. In India, these works are protected under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Provisions for the Civil Remedies Available Under the Copyright Act, 1957

Civil Remedies for Infringement of Copyright

-Section 55 of the Copyright Act provides remedies for the copyright infringement:

Protection of Separate Rights

-Section 56 of the Act provides that:

Author’s Special Rights

-Section 57 of the Act provides:

Rights of Owner Against Persons Possessing or Dealing With Infringing Copies

-Section 58 of the Act provides:

Remedy in the Case of Groundless Threat of Legal Proceedings

-Section 60 of the Act provides:

Jurisdiction of Court Over Matters Arising Under This Chapter

-As per Section 62 of the Act, for any matters arising out of the copyright infringement under this Act, the suit or any other civil proceedings regarding such infringement of copyright shall be instituted in the District Court having jurisdiction over the matter.

Important Case Laws

SAJEEV PILLAI V. VENUKUNNAPALLI & ANR. [ FAO. No. 191 of 2019]

-The basic issue, in this case, was whether the original author of the work, even after its assignment, has got the special rights to claim authorship under Section 57 (1) of the Copyright Act? The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the concerned case, referring to Section 57 (1) of the Act, held that the said Section provides the right to the author to restrain third parties and claim damages from them in case of distortion or modification.

YRF V. SRI SAI GANESH PRODUCTIONS [CS (COMM) 1329/2016]

-The issue before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was whether the expression ‘make a copy of the film’ under section 14 only includes physical copying.

Conclusion

-The copyright is a part of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) that needs to be protected as it is concerned with the owner’s novel ideas. 

Key Takeaways

• The concept of ‘copyright infringement’ as per the Copyright Act, 1957 and the definition of the ‘owner of copyright’ under the Act.
• Certain acts that can result in copyright infringement and those acts that do not constitute copyright infringement, along with their statutory backup.
• Various provisions mentioned in the Act, that provide for the civil remedies against copyright infringement and some landmark judgments.

Introduction

What is ‘copyright infringement’? The answer to this question lies in the Copyright Act itself. The copyright works include original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. In India, these works are protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. For the infringement of the copyrighted work, there are few requisites as the illegal use of the original work and copyright subsists in that work. Thus, the use of original work must be made without the prior permission of the ‘owner of the copyright’ to constitute copyright infringement. Section 51 of Chapter XI of the Copyright Act provides for various criteria that define the copyright infringement like if any person without a license from the owner or the Registrar, does something, for which the exclusive rights are with the owner of the copyright; or makes for sale or hire, distributes for the purpose of trade, exhibits in public by way of trade, the infringing copies; then he is said to have infringed the copyright of the owner. However, there are certain acts that do not pertain to copyright infringement. As per Section 52 of the Act, a fair dealing with any work for the purpose of private or personal use (research included), criticism or review of that work, reporting of the current news or lecture delivered in public, etc shall not be deemed to be infringing the copyright of the owner. Now, another question that arises here is who is deemed to be the ‘owner of copyright’? Section 54 of Chapter XII must be referred to answer this question. As per that Section, the following persons can be said to be the owner of the copyright:

“(a) an exclusive licensee;

(b) in the case of an anonymous or pseudonymous literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work, the publisher of the work, until the identity of the author or, in the case of an anonymous work of joint authorship, or a work of joint authorship published under names all of which are pseudonyms, the identity of any of the authors, is disclosed publicly by the author and the publisher or is otherwise established to the satisfaction of the [Appellate Board] by that author or his legal representatives.”

Provisions for the Civil Remedies Available Under the Copyright Act, 1957

Civil Remedies for Infringement of Copyright

Section 55 of the Copyright Act provides remedies for the copyright infringement:

“(1) Where copyright in any work has been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, be entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts, and otherwise as are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right: Provided that if the defendant proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that copyright subsisted in the work, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any remedy other than an injunction in respect of the infringement and a decree for the whole or part of the profits made by the defendant by the sale of the infringing copies as the court may in the circumstances deem reasonable.”

Various civil remedies have been provided under the Copyright Act as it provides for injunctions, damages, and accounts as per Section 55 of the Act. However, if the defendant is able to prove that he had no knowledge of the fact that the work was a copyrighted work and the Court finds the grounds to be reasonable, then the plaintiff will have only the remedy of the injunction for the same. Other remedies in such a case shall not be available to him.

Protection of Separate Rights

Section 56 of the Act provides that:

“Subject to the provisions of this Act, where the several rights comprising the copyright in any work are owned by different persons, the owner of any such right shall, to the extent of that right, be entitled to the remedies provided by this Act and may individually enforce such right by means of any suit, action or other proceeding without making the owner of any other right a party to such suit, action or proceeding.”

The Section says that in a case where the several rights comprising the copyright in any work are owned by different persons, then any one of those persons having any of the rights shall, to the extent of his right in such work be entitled to the remedies in case of infringement. He can individually enforce his right by means of suit, action, or proceedings even without the involvement of the owner of any other right in his suit.

Author’s Special Rights

Section 57 of the Act provides:

“Independently 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 right—

(a) to claim authorship of the work; and

(b) to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the said work if such distortion, mutilation, modification or other act would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation.”

The Section says that even after the author of a work has assigned his copyright either wholly or partially, he still shall have the right to claim authorship of such work or claim damages in case there is any distortion, mutilation or modification, etc. of such work which may prove to be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. Such rights conferred upon the author may be exercised even by his legal representatives.

Rights of Owner Against Persons Possessing or Dealing With Infringing Copies

Section 58 of the Act provides:

“All infringing copies of any work in which copyright subsists, and all plates used or intended to be used for the production of such infringing copies, shall be deemed to be the property of the owner of the copyright, who accordingly may take proceedings for the recovery of possession thereof or in respect of the conversion thereof:

Provided that the owner of the copyright shall not be entitled to any remedy in respect of the conversion of any infringing copies, if the opponent proves—

(a) that he was not aware and had no reasonable ground to believe that copyright subsisted in the work of which such copies are alleged to be infringing copies; or

(b) that he had reasonable grounds for believing that such copies or plates do not involve infringement of the copyright in any work.”

The Section says that all the infringing copies, in which the copyright subsisted, shall be deemed to be the property of the owner of that copyrighted work. However, if the defendant anyhow proves, providing the reasonable grounds for his belief that he did not have the knowledge that the work he copied was a copyrighted work and copying it would result in the copyright infringement; the owner of such work will have no remedy available to him in respect of the conversion of such infringing copies.

Remedy in the Case of Groundless Threat of Legal Proceedings

Section 60 of the Act provides:

“Where any person claiming to be the owner of copyright in any work, by circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens any other person with any legal proceedings or liability in respect of an alleged infringement of the copyright, any person aggrieved thereby may, notwithstanding anything contained [in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963)], institute a declaratory suit that the alleged infringement to which the threats related was not, in fact, an infringement of any legal rights of the person making such threats and may in any such suit—

(a) obtain an injunction against the continuance of such threats; and

(b) recover such damages, if any, as he has sustained by reason of such threats”

If any person is threatened by the person who claims himself to be the owner of the copyright with any legal proceedings or liability for an alleged infringement of copyright; then the aggrieved person may institute a declaratory suit, and obtain an injunction against the continuance of such threats and recover the damages, if any, incurred by him due to such threats. However, if the person who makes such threats, commences and prosecutes an action for infringement of the copyright claimed by him then, the said Section shall not apply to such a case.

Jurisdiction of Court Over Matters Arising Under This Chapter

As per Section 62 of the Act, for any matters arising out of the copyright infringement under this Act, the suit or any other civil proceedings regarding such infringement of copyright shall be instituted in the District Court having jurisdiction over the matter.

Important Case Laws

SAJEEV PILLAI V. VENUKUNNAPALLI & ANR. [ FAO. No. 191 of 2019]

The basic issue, in this case, was whether the original author of the work, even after its assignment, has got the special rights to claim authorship under Section 57 (1) of the Copyright Act? The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the concerned case, referring to Section 57 (1) of the Act, held that the said Section provides the right to the author to restrain third parties and claim damages from them in case of distortion or modification. Hence, the Hon’ble Court granted the interim relief to the plaintiff and ruled that even after the assignment of the original work the author’s rights over his authorship shall not be exhausted.

YRF V. SRI SAI GANESH PRODUCTIONS [CS (COMM) 1329/2016]

The issue before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was whether the expression ‘make a copy of the film’ under section 14 only includes physical copying. The Hon’ble Court, relying on Section 14 (d) of the Copyright Act ruled that the said Section does not only covers physical copying by duplication. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court concluded that the alleged movie was blatantly copied in its very essential, fundamental, and distinctive features of the original movie.

Conclusion

The copyright is a part of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) that needs to be protected as it is concerned with the owner’s novel ideas. Copyright, trademarks, and patents maintain fair competition in the commercial world. If people’s ideas or business is not protected, it will lead to the demotion of the innovations made by them. Everyone is entitled to reap the benefits of their work and for whatever efforts they have put in. Thus, the IPRs help to protect such rights of individuals. We come across various brands, articles, blogs, books, magazines, and various other innovations daily from day till night, out of which many are registered under the concerned Act like the Copyright Act, Patent Act, etc., whereas many are not registered. Many of the brands or works are even copies of the original ones and they are able to sustain only till no legal proceedings are initiated against them. However, in order to ensure legal protection, there needs to be some proof of ownership. Therefore, it is highly recommended, that one should emphasize the registration of his work under the Copyright Act to avoid any sort of discrepancy in the future related to the ownership of such work and invoke the remedies available to him/her under the said Act.