Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. Kirubakaran, F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.
K. Veeramani - Appellant
Versus
T.S. Mani and Others - Respondent
Original Suit Appeal No's. 232 of 2009 and 23 of 2010
Decided On : 09-06-2010
COPYRIGHT - INFRINGEMENT - COMPILATION OF LITERARY WORKS - OWNERSHIP - ASSIGNMENT - EXEMPTION - COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 - SECTIONS 17, 18, 52(1)(m) - INDIAN COPYRIGHT ACT, 1914 - SECTION 5(2) - Held, the appellant failed to establish ownership of the copyright in the compilation of Thanthai Periyar's literary works. The respondents were protected by the exemption under Section 52(1)(m) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which permits the reproduction of articles on current topics without the author's express reservation of reproduction rights.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public charitable society founded by Thanthai Periyar, claimed copyright ownership of the compilation of Thanthai Periyar's literary works published in the Weekly Kudiyarasu between 1925 and 1949. The respondents intended to publish the compilation, and the appellant sought an injunction to restrain them. The appellant also filed an application for impleading a third party who assisted in compiling the literary works.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant failed to establish ownership of the copyright in the compilation. The Memorandum and Articles of Association and the Rules and Regulations of the appellant society did not specifically refer to the literary works of Thanthai Periyar. The appellant did not produce any written assignment from Thanthai Periyar transferring the ownership of the copyright to the society. The court also held that the respondents were protected by the exemption under Section 52(1)(m) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which permits the reproduction of articles on current topics without the author's express reservation of reproduction rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant established ownership of the copyright in the compilation of Thanthai Periyar's literary works? 2. Whether the respondents were protected by the exemption under Section 52(1)(m) of the Copyright Act, 1957?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. To establish copyright ownership, the appellant needed to show that it was the author of the work or had acquired ownership through an assignment from the author. The appellant failed to produce any evidence of authorship or a written assignment from Thanthai Periyar. 2. Section 52(1)(m) of the Copyright Act, 1957, exempts the reproduction of articles on current topics from copyright infringement unless the author has expressly reserved the right of reproduction. The literary works in question were articles on current topics, and the appellant did not produce any evidence that Thanthai Periyar had reserved the right of reproduction.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed. The interim order of status quo granted while entertaining the O.S.A. was vacated.
JUDGMENT :
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
(Appeal against the order and decree dated 27.07.2009 made in Original Application No.940 of 2008 in C.S. No.814 of 2008 on the file of this Court.
Appeal against the order and decree dated 29.01.2009 made in Application No.4331 of 2008 in C.S. No.814 of 2008 on the file of this Court.)
1. O.S.A. No.232 of 2009 has been preferred challenging the order dated 27.07.2009 passed in Original Application No.940 of 2008 in C.S. No.814 of 2008. O.S.A. No.23 of 2010 has been preferred against the order dated 29.01.2009 passed in Application No.4331 of 2008 in C.S. No.814 of 2008. By order dated 29.01.2009 passed in A.No.4331 of 2008, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application of the appellant in O.S.A. No.23 of 2010 for getting itself impleaded in the suit for infringement of copy rights laid by the appellant in O.S.A. No.232 of 2009. By order dated 27.07.2009, in the application of the appellant in O.S.A. No.232 of 2009 seeking an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents in the said suit from in any manner infringing the copyrights of the appellant relating to Kudiyarasu and other scripts, books, publications pending suit, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application. As the issues involved in both these appeals are interconnected, both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. According to the appellant in O.S.A. No.232 of 2009, (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"), it is a Public Charitable Society (Trust) registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, that Thiru. Erode Venkatanaickar Ramasamy, popularly known as Thanthai Periyar, was the founder and member of the appellant-trust, which was registered on 23.9.1952, that he was the Life President of the appellant trust, that Thanthai Periyar endowed his literary works and as its original owner along with other properties endowed them to the appellant trust, that he was also carrying on the paper publication, that by operation of law, the appellant trust became the copyright owner of all the literary works of Thanthai Periyar. It is claimed by the appellant trust that as per the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the appellant trust and also its Rules and Regulations, the appellant trust became an exclusive and absolute owner of all the literary works of late Thanthai Periyar. It is claimed that the speeches, writings and other literary works of Thanthai Periyar were periodically published in the Weekly called Kudiyarasu owned by Thanthai Periyar from the year 1925. It is further claimed that the literary works of late Thanthai Periyar from 1925 was arranged chronologically and subject wise by a team of persons nominated by the appellant trust on 02.05.1983 headed by one Thiru. G.Imayavaramban which team carried the work of compiling the literary works of Thanthai Periyar which was later on transferred into compact Disc as well as in book form, to which the appellant-trust became an exclusive owner and consequently, possessed copyrights from the original owner late Thanthai Periyar. It is stated that the respondents in OSA.No. 232 of 2009, (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents'), by collecting the compilation made by the appellant trust, intended to publish the same on 17.9.2008 and since the said attempt of the respondents would infringe the exclusive copyrights of the appellant trust, it had come forward with the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain them and any one acting on their behalf from in any manner infringing the copyrights of the appellant trust relating to Kudiyarasu and other scripts, books, publications etc.
3. The cause of action, according to the appellant trust was an interview published in a bi-weekly called "Kumudam Reporter" dated 21.08.2008. It was published under the caption 'Periyar Yaaruku Sontham', wherein it was disclosed that they intended to publish the Kudiyarasu on 17.09.2008. As such, the appellant sought for permanent injunction in t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
