Trisea\nPublications and ORS Vs. Ratna Sagar Private Limited<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nIn this case, the petitions, a renowned publisher\nof books of children \u201cLiving Science\u201d,<\/em><\/strong> such respondent,\nwho published the book \u201cUnique Science<\/em><\/strong>\u201d for the Copyright\nViolation. As per the petitioner, the content available in the book of the\ndefendant or respondent is confusingly similar to theirs. After inspecting\neither publication, the Court held the defendant guilty of Copyright Violation\nand charged the uninterrupted injunction on such an act as per Section 14 &\n19 of the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n- Orient\nLongman Limited Vs. Najma Heptulla<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The plaintiff was the legitimate heir of Maulana\nAbdul Kalam Azad, who has given this work to Professor Humanyun Kabir for its\nnarration & translation. The petitioner of the plaintiff has provided the\nCopyright to the publisher and had rejoiced 50% of the royalty for the next\nthirty years. Hence, the Court held the petitioner under no condition to\ndiscourage the publisher from publishing the book after finishing the said\nterm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- D.B.\nModal and Another Vs. Easter Book Company and Others<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
This matter was itself bewildering because of the\nway deal with the idea of Copyright in India. It also questioned of\ndistinctiveness required to Copyright of a certain work. This case came to\nlight when a petitioner, Eastern Book Company, file the petition in the Court\nfor the supposed infringement done by the defendant, viz Regent Datatech\nPrivate Limited and Spectrum Business Support Limited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The plaintiff, a recognised publishing house,\nclaimed that the proposed respondents violated its work in an appropriate way.\nThe defendant, in reply, claimed that such actions could not be considered as\nCopyright because for the following reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- The fair alteration & publication of Supreme Court order seeks an enormous level of legitimate knowledge and skilled labour;<\/li>
- There has been a negligible level of creativity involved in such a work nature, thereby making it liable for Copyright Registration.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
Hence, the petitioner has no right to influence\nlegal proceedings on the grounds of Copyright Registration. The petitioners had\ndifficult times with these facts as these prevented them from winning the case\nin the lower and High Courts. But, Supreme Court rolled the dices for the\npetitioners by declaring the Copyright Judgement in their favour based on the\nabove ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Piyush\nAgarwal & Ors V. Star India (P) Limited<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The Delhi High Court believed that while the\nperformance and sound or visual recordings of the supposed performance are\ncovered under Copyright Registration, the facts from the broadcast were not.\nAfter the broadcast of the match, it is impractical for any party to claim that\nsuch information marked by the performance is not in the public domain.\nTherefore, the agreement between the BCCI and the petitioner is not practical\nsince Copyright protection is not obtainable for information in the public\ndomain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Rameshwari\nPhotocopying Services and Anr. Vs. The Chancellor, Master & Scholars of the\nOxford University & Ors.<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The petitioner sued the Rameshwari Photostat and\nthe University of Delhi for the supposed copyrighted work infringement that is\ncourse material. After inspecting the case, the Court temporary the respondent\nfrom reproducing considerable parts of the works of original publishers that is\nCambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and Taylor & France.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Copyright Judgement seems to challenge the\nprovision of Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, which states that\ndistributing, or reproducing or using parts of a safeguarded works without\noffering any payment to the proprietor can be permissible. In a legitimate\npurview, this is known as the essence of \u201cFair Dealing\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But, the plaintiff had a dissimilar thought on that\nas they highlighted the fact that duplication of course material through\nphotocopying was not covered under the idea of fair dealing for private\nresearch or use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n