Scribd
Upload
71 views4 pages

EBC v. DB Modak Case (IPR Assignment)

The Supreme Court of India ruled in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak that judicial pronouncements are public domain and not subject to copyright, but the original editorial materials created by EBC, such as headnotes and summaries, are protected. The court found that the defendants infringed EBC's copyright by reproducing these original works without permission. This case clarified the distinction between the copyrightability of judicial judgments and the supplementary content added by publishers.

Uploaded by

tinusharma9896
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
71 views4 pages

EBC v. DB Modak Case (IPR Assignment)

The Supreme Court of India ruled in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak that judicial pronouncements are public domain and not subject to copyright, but the original editorial materials created by EBC, such as headnotes and summaries, are protected. The court found that the defendants infringed EBC's copyright by reproducing these original works without permission. This case clarified the distinction between the copyrightability of judicial judgments and the supplementary content added by publishers.

Uploaded by

tinusharma9896
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

JECRC UNIVERSITY

ASSIGNMENT- 2
COPYRIGHT LAW

CASE ANALYSIS OF
EASTERN BOOKS COMPANY & ORS.
v.
D.B. MODAK & ORS.

BATCH: 2020
BRANCH: B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.)

Submitted to: Submitted


by:
Ms. Apoorva Kaur, Priyanka Sharma
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law Reg. No.: 20BSLN016
JECRC University
Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak
(AIR 2008 SC 809)
This is a notable case in Indian copyright law decided by the Supreme Court of India.
The case centered around the copyrightability of judgments delivered by Indian courts
and the extent to which they could be reproduced by third parties. The facts, legal
provisions, issues and the decision are given as under:

Facts:
EBC is a publisher of law books and journals, including the well-known "Supreme
Court Cases" (SCC) series, which publishes judgments of the Supreme Court of India
with headnotes, editorial notes, and cross-references. D.B. Modak and other
defendants were accused by EBC of copying and reproducing judgments published in
SCC without permission. EBC claimed that the defendants infringed their copyright
by reproducing judgments that contained EBC's headnotes, editorial notes, and other
editorial elements.

Legal Issues:
The main issues before the court were:
1. Copyright in Judicial Pronouncements: Whether judgments delivered by the
Supreme Court of India are subject to copyright?
2. Originality: If the editorial materials (headnotes, summaries, cross-references)
added by EBC to the judgments are original and thus protected by copyright?
3. Infringement: Whether the reproduction of these judgments by the defendants
constituted copyright infringement?

Legal Provisions involved:


Indian Copyright Act, 1957:
1. Section 2(k) - Definition of "Government Work":
This section defines "government work" to include works made or published by or
under the direction or control of the government or any court, tribunal, or other
judicial authority.
Relevance: Judicial pronouncements fall under the definition of "government work"
and are, therefore, in the public domain.

2. Section 13 - Works in Which Copyright Subsists:


This section outlines the types of works eligible for copyright protection, including
literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works.
Relevance: The court considered whether the headnotes, editorial notes, and other
supplementary materials added by EBC to the judgments could be classified as
literary works deserving copyright protection.

3. Section 52(1)(q) - Fair Dealing:


This section includes specific acts that do not constitute an infringement of copyright,
such as the reproduction of any judgment or order of a court, tribunal, or other judicial
authority.
Relevance: It clarifies that the text of the judgments themselves can be freely
reproduced, but this does not extend to additional original content created by
publishers.

4. Section 17 - First Owner of Copyright:


This section establishes the general rule that the author of a work is the first owner of
the copyright, with certain exceptions.
Relevance: EBC claimed ownership of the copyright in the original supplementary
materials they created, like headnotes and editorial notes.

5. Section 14 - Meaning of Copyright:


This section defines the exclusive rights granted by copyright, such as the right to
reproduce the work, issue copies, perform the work in public, etc.
Relevance: The court examined whether EBC's rights to reproduce their original
editorial content were infringed by the defendants.

Court's Decision:
The Court decided the issues as:
1. Copyright in Judicial Pronouncements:
The Supreme Court held that judicial pronouncements, being works of the
government, fall under the category of "government work" as per Section 2(k) of the
Indian Copyright Act, 1957. These works are in the public domain and cannot be
copyrighted by any entity.
However, the court acknowledged that the effort and skill involved in creating
headnotes, summaries, and cross-references by the editors at EBC can be considered
original works eligible for copyright protection.

2. Originality:
The court ruled that the originality requirement under Indian copyright law is met if
the work involves a minimum amount of creativity, known as the "modicum of
creativity" standard. The court recognized that EBC's headnotes, editorial notes, and
other additions to the judgments constituted original literary works.

3. Infringement:
The court found that the defendants had indeed copied the headnotes, editorial notes,
and other materials created by EBC. This copying constituted copyright infringement
as it involved unauthorized reproduction of EBC's original works.

Outcome:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Eastern Book Company, affirming that while
judicial pronouncements themselves are not protected by copyright, the
supplementary materials created by EBC are protected. The defendants were
prohibited from reproducing these copyrighted materials without permission.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's decision in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak was
grounded in these legal provisions, balancing the public domain status of judicial
pronouncements with the protection of original editorial content created by
publishers. The case established that while the judgments themselves could be freely
reproduced, the original editorial work by publishers, which involves creativity and
effort, is protected under copyright law.

You might also like