This is a ppt on different copyright law case studies in India. They vary from movies to shows to books, etc.

1. Copyright Act
Case Studies
Ashpak Khan - 01
Joel Amana -030
Shenelle Dcosta - 033
Tanishtha Kotian -034
Shreenidhi Ramesh - 044
Deanna Fernandes- 051
Mohammad Rizvi - 079

2. Copyright
Act of 1957
The Copyright Act, 1957 protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and
cinematograph films and sound recordings from unauthorized uses. Unlike the case with patents,
copyright protects the expressions and not the ideas. There is no copyright in an idea.

3. Super Cassettes Industries Limited (T - Series)
vs YouTube and Google
( Ashpak khan :- 001 )
● Background: Super Cassettes Industries Limited (SCIL)
also known as T-Series, an Indian music company, filed a
lawsuit against YouTube and its parent company,
Google, in 2007.
● Claim: SCIL alleged that YouTube and Google were
hosting copyrighted material owned by SCIL without
proper authorization.
● Copyright Violation: SCIL claimed that users were
uploading copyrighted songs and music videos owned
by SCIL onto YouTube's platform without permission.
● Argument: SCIL argued that YouTube and Google were
responsible for monitoring and removing copyrighted
content uploaded by users.

4. ● YouTube's Defense: YouTube argued that it was a
platform for user-generated content and claimed
protection under the safe harbour provisions of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
● Court Ruling: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor
of SCIL in 2010, holding YouTube and Google liable
for copyright infringement.
● Order: The court ordered YouTube and Google to
implement measures to prevent copyrighted
material owned by SCIL from being uploaded and
shared on their platforms.

5. Twentieth Century Fox Copyright Infringement Case
● Background: In 2004, Twentieth Century Fox and
Marvel Enterprises, the creator of numerous popular
comic book characters, were embroiled in a
copyright infringement lawsuit over the film “X-Men:
The Last Stand.”
● Fox had obtained the rights to produce and
distribute films based on Marvel’s X-Men characters
in the 1990s and had already released two successful
movies in the franchise.
● Claim: The dispute arose when Fox claimed that
Marvel was interfering with its exclusive rights by
collaborating with another studio, Sony Pictures, to
produce a film featuring the Marvel character
Spider-Man, which would include appearances by
X-Men characters.
(Joel Amana 30)

6. ● Argument: Fox argued that this would violate
their exclusive rights to the X-Men characters
and sought an injunction to prevent the
release of the Spider-Man film with X-Men
characters.
● Marvel’s Defence: Marvel countered that their
agreement with Fox only covered specific
X-Men characters and not the entire X-Men
universe.
● They also argued that the appearance of X-Men
characters in the Spider-Man film would not
harm Fox’s franchise, as the characters would
only have minor roles.
● Conclusion: Trial is yet to be determined

7. Chetan Bhagat vs. Anvita Bajpai
Shenelle Canice Shayne D’Costa- 033
● Background:Around April, Anvita Bajpai filed a lawsuit
against Chetan Bhagat.
● Claim: Anvita Bajpai accused Chetan Bhagat of copying
portions from her book "Life, Odds & Ends" in his novel "One
Indian Girl."
● Copyright violation: Allegations focused on similarities in
plot, characters, and specific passages. Widespread
discussions arose on plagiarism and intellectual property
rights in the Indian publishing industry.

8. ● Argument: Focuses on proving substantial parallels,
sparking broader discussions on intellectual property
rights and creativity within the Indian publishing
industry.
● Court ruling: Bangalore Court- Asked to withdraw all
copies.
● Reason behind the ruling : The Supreme Court ruled
that literary merit is not necessary for a work to be
protected. Courts should assess whether the skill,
labor, and capital invested in creating the work are not
trivial or negligible. Resolution of the legal dispute
may vary based on jurisdiction and case-specific
details.
● Conclusion: Both Bajpai and Bhagat’s books meet
this low threshold and qualify for copyright protection.

9. Yash Raj Films vs Sri Sai Ganesh Productions
Tanishtha Kotian 034
● Background: After the plaintiff sending three notices
for cease and desist in 2012, the defendant never
responded and released the film instead. The film
named ‘Jabardasth’ was released in February 2013.
● Claim: The Plaintiff (YRF Studios) filed a case of
copyright infringement of the movie Band Baaja
Baaraat (2010) against the defendants (Sri Sai Ganesh
Productions and the director and distributor of the
Telugu film).
● Copyright Violation: The plaintiff claimed that the
defendants copied the script, screenplay, music,
characters, plot, etc. which was owned fully by the
plaintiff.

10. ● Argument: Following this the plaintiff filed for a
copyright infringement suit against the defendant
for copying the plot, theme and character-sketch of
the movie.
● Conclusion: The Court held that a cinematography film
is greater than just a combination of its works like
literary, dramatic or musical works, hence making
copyright in a cinematograph film subsisting to be
independent of its underlying works.
● Court Ruling: This established this as a case of
copyright infringement and passed a permanent
injunction against the defendants, restraining them
from infringing the copyrights of the plaintiff.

11. Anil Gupta VS Kunal Das Gupta [2002]
● Background: Anil Gupta, a media consultant claimed to have
conceived the reality television show concept called
“Swayamvar” in 1996.
● Claim: Anil Gupta argued that his concept for "Swayamvar" was
original and protected by copyright. He learned in 2001 that
Kunal Dasgupta planned to launch a similar reality show called
"Shubh Vivah."
● Copyright Violation: Anil Gupta believed "Shubh Vivah" copied
his core concept of a matchmaking show with a woman
selecting a spouse.
● Argument: Gupta likely argued that the "Swayamvar" concept,
while inspired by a historical practice, had unique elements like
real people and a televised format. Dasgupta might have
countered that the matchmaking concept itself wasn't
copyrightable and their show would have distinct variations.
Shreenidhi Ramesh - 044

12. ● Kunal Das Gupta’s Defense: Kunal Dasgupta, the
defendant, argued that his planned reality show "Shubh
Vivah" was not a copy of Anil Gupta's concept
"Swayamvar." He claimed to have informed Gupta about
a similar program in development during a meeting in
2000.
● Court Ruling: The Delhi High Court sided with Anil
Gupta. The court recognized "Swayamvar" as a novel
concept protected under copyright law. The judge
highlighted the unique elements like a real-life
matchmaking show with a woman choosing a spouse
from suitors, all presented before a television audience.
● Order: The court granted an injunction in favor of Anil
Gupta. This meant Kunal Dasgupta was prohibited from
launching his "Shubh Vivah" program as it could infringe
upon the copyright of "Swayamvar.

13. ● Background: Star India accuses Leo Burnett of using
elements from the TV series "Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi
Bahu Thi" in a Tide detergent commercial without
permission.
● Claim:Star India alleges copyright infringement, citing
similarities between the Tide ad and the TV show's
climax, potentially confusing viewers about Star's
endorsement.
● Arguments: Star India argues core elements of the TV
show were copied, constituting infringement. Leo
Burnett claims independent creation of the ad, arguing
ideas aren't copyrightable.
STAR INDIA
VS
LEO
BURNETT
DEANNA FERNANDES- 51
Star India vs Leo Burnett Case Overview (2003)

14. ● Court Ruling:The High Court differentiates between the TV
show and the ad, analyzing their similarities. Concludes
viewers wouldn't confuse the two, dismissing copyright
infringement claim.
● Order: Copyright infringement claim dismissed. Passing off
action rejected due to lack of evidence connecting the ad
to the TV show.
● Conclusion: Court ruling underscores the importance of
distinguishing between original works and derivative
creations, providing clarity on copyright infringement in
television commercials.

15. Sanjeev Pillai VS Venu Kunnappilly
(M.T Rizvi - 079)
● Background - The legal matter involves 'Mamankam', a
film depicting a grand festival held every twelve years
along Kerala's Nila river. Sajeev Pillai researched and
scripted it since 1999.
● Claim - Pillai, both a director and scriptwriter, asserted
that he secured a directorial position with Kavya Film
Company, tied to Kunnapalli, but was replaced after two
shoots. Subsequently, the film was completed with
alterations to his script.
● Copyright Violation - Pillai initiated legal action,
requesting relief and a temporary injunction to prevent
the respondents from distributing or promoting
'Mamankam'. He also demanded proper accreditation in
line with industry norms.

16. ● Argument - The debate focused on
whether the original creator maintains
specific rights to assert authorship, as
outlined in Section 57 (1) of the
Copyright Act, despite transferring
copyright ownership.
● Court Ruling - The Kerala High Court
recognized Pillai's case against the
respondent, affirming his ongoing rights
to claim authorship despite copyright
assignment.
● Order - The court's decision upheld the
author's legal right to protect his
intellectual property and claim
authorship even after selling his rights.

17. Ashpak Khan - 001
Joel Amana - 030
Shenelle Dcosta - 033
Tanishtha Kotian - 034
Shreenidhi Ramesh - 044
Deanna Fernandes - 051
Mohammad Rizvi - 079
Thank you!