Reaction paper on Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak for Test of Originality
A basic principle of copyright law is the idea of originality. It decides if a piece of work qualifies for copyright protection. But courts used to face difficulty in defining or deciding the term originality. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in “Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 (“Modak”)”, the definition of “wrong” in copyright law has undergone a significant change. Modak stands out as one of the most ground-breaking judicial pronouncements of the past ten years if the significance of a decision can be determined by its effect on succeeding trends in the same area of law. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been a lot of inquiry into how this ruling has resulted in a methodical approach to obtaining injunctions for copyright infringement, with a focus on the copyrightability issue. This case has set the standard of originality under copyright law to a higher degree than the “sweat of the brow” doctrine.
In this case, the Eastern Book Company (EBC) contended that they had put their labour, time, and effort into publishing the Supreme Court judgements, and that is why the copyright vests with them. But the court ruled against them. EBC was relying on the sweat of the brow doctrine, according to which a person gains rights just by applying his effort and expense to the creation of the work. This is like John Locke’s Labour Theory, where Locke says that “a person deserves the fruit of his labour”. According to this theory, when a person mixes his labour with a resource, it becomes his property, and he has the right to it. In this case, no one else has a superior or conflicting claim to it. Here only the person’s effort is relevant, and it does not matter if he has put his own creativity into it. I do not agree with this theory in the case of copyright and therefore agree with the court’s decision to not provide EBC copyright protection. I agree with the court’s ruling that a judgement’s unaltered language is not protected by copyright. The Supreme Court’s rulings are public records that are intended for general public access. It would be against the public interest to grant copyright protection to the unaltered text of a judgement because that would effectively stop other publications from publishing the judgements. The Court’s justification for concluding that the copy-edited and annotated versions of the judgements are ineligible for copyright protection is one with which I also agree. These versions don’t contain enough original content to be entitled to copyright protection because they are only derivative works of the original rulings.
The respondents attempted to rely on rulings made by American courts about what they specifically referred to as “derivative works.” The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the “sweat of the brow” approach in one of its most significant judgements, Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), (“Feist”), on the grounds that copyright protection could not apply to facts themselves. The appellant’s copy-edited judgements lacked basic originality to qualify for copyright protection; the Supreme Court of India agreed with the respondent’s argument and held A derivative work must be sufficiently original to be regarded as a new work, according to the Court, which reasoned that copyright only protects original works of authorship. I think the Supreme Court made a just and reasonable ruling in this case. It is inappropriate to grant copyright protection to works that lack sufficient originality because copyright is meant to safeguard writers’ creative works. Because of the court’s ruling, only works that accurately depict the author’s creative expression are granted copyright protection. The minimal creativity standard’ must be considered when granting copyright protection, as it makes one’s work distinguishable from others. When a person adds his own creativity, his personality is reflected in his work, and as per Hegel’s personality theory, copyright protection can be granted. According to this theory, any work becomes the property of its author or creator because it is a manifestation of the creator’s personality. Labour and expense with no creativity should not be entitled to copyright protection.
In deciding the case, the Supreme Court relied on the Canadian approach. This approach is based on the ‘skill and judgement test’. It was discussed in the case of ‘CCB Canadian Limited v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 (1) SCR 339’. I agree with the court’s decision. According to the court, law reports are just collections of judicial rulings, which are works in the public domain. The Court ruled that although legal publishers may enhance the value of these works by editing, formatting, and adding headnotes and other editorial notes, these contributions do not equal original works of authorship. The court’s ruling is noteworthy since it has increased the public’s access to legal reports. The Court has made it simpler for anybody to publish and disseminate law reports by denying copyright protection to law publishers for their legal reports. The emergence of law reports as a result has made it simpler for lawyers and other legal practitioners to do legal research in India. The Court has made it simpler for citizens to comprehend and defend their legal rights by making law reports more readily available to the general public. Law reports are a crucial instrument for legal study. Some law publishers, however, have criticised the court’s ruling as undermining their investment in producing legal reports. Law publishers contend that it will be challenging for them to recover their expenditures and turn a profit as a result of the Court’s ruling. They contend that the Court’s ruling will deter companies from making investments in fresh legal research and raising the calibre of their current output. I feel that everyone ought to have access to the law, irrespective of their income or social status. The Court’s ruling has made it simpler for lawyers and other legal experts to investigate the law and for individuals to comprehend and defend their legal rights. Although I understand the worries of law publishers, I think they may still turn a profit without copyright protection for legal publications. Offering supplementary services, such as legal analysis, case commentary, and research aid, will help law publishers stand out from the competition. Additionally, they can concentrate on releasing legal reports in specialised fields with little rivalry.
The court held that Eastern Book Company’s actions, which included breaking up the original text into separate paragraphs, adding internal paragraph numbers, and indicating judges’ agreement or disagreement with the text using specific words like “concurring” or “dissenting,” were permissible under copyright laws. The court claimed that these activities showed discernment, ability, judgement, and a thorough comprehension of the law.
I feel that the Eastern Book Company v. DB Modak ruling elevates the bar for originality under copyright law beyond the “sweat of the brow” standard. The “sweat of the brow” doctrine sets a low bar for creativity. It asserts that a work is copyrightable regardless of whether the author used creativity or innovation if they invested time, labour, and expertise into producing it. The ‘modicum of creativity’ standard is a stricter requirement for originality. It asserts that a work can only be protected by a copyright if it exhibits the bare minimum of creativity. The Indian Supreme Court’s decision adopts a standard for originality that is somewhere between the ‘sweat of the brow’ and ‘modicum of creativity’ standards. A work is only copyrightable, according to the Court, if the author creates something that is “original in the sense that by virtue of selection, coordination, or arrangement of pre-existing data contained in the work, a work somewhat different in character is produced by the author.” Because it calls for the author to create a work that is “somewhat different in character” from the pre-existing data, this requirement is higher than the “sweat of the brow” standard. It falls short of the “modicum of creativity” criteria, though, as the author is not required to produce an original or creative piece of writing.
I believe the originality requirement set down by the Indian Supreme Court strikes a good compromise between the demands of preserving authors’ creative works and advancing the public domain. The rule permits authors to copyright works that are the result of their diligence and expertise, even if those works lack much originality or creativity. It also makes sure that there are still plenty of resources in the public domain that may be used by other people to produce new works. The Indian Supreme Court’s requirement for originality in law reports is particularly significant. The public should have access to law reports since they are crucial resources for legal research. The Court’s originality requirement permits law publishers to copyright their legal analyses while preventing them from controlling the law. Overall, I think that the ruling in Eastern Book Company v. DB Modak by the Indian Supreme Court is good news for India’s copyright laws. The originality requirement set forth by the Court strikes a good compromise between the necessity to safeguard the creative works of authors and the imperative to advance the public domain.
Author Bio
