UNIT II

COPYRIGHT
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF COPYRIGHT LAW IN INDIA
• The copyright law has traversed a long journey from the Guttenberg to
Information age.
• The Statute of Anne was the first law, which has set the parameters and
guidelines for the publication and exploitation of the work of an author for
economic benefits.
• The first Copyright Act of India was enacted in the year of 1957 and since then it
has been amended, to bring it in conformity with the changes times and
technology.
• The most recent being in 2012, which was not only to bring the law in conformity
with the Information age but as well to confirm to the WIPO copyright
Treaty(WCT) and WIPO Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).
 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF COPYRIGHT

Invention of Guttenberg’s Creation of a class of 1662, the Licensing Act was

printing press- 1436 intermediaries - stationer’s passed in England

Copyright law in India

happened in 1847 through The first codified law - Queen
The Copyright Acts of
an enactment during the Anne’s Statute of 1709
1814, and 1842
East India Company’s
regime
The purpose of the act was
twofold:
The Copyright Act 1911, was
The Indian Copyright Act, 1914 • To promote learning
also made applicable to all the • To give the author protection
British colonies including India against piracy

This Act has been amended five

Indian Copyright Act 1957 times i.e 1983,1984,1992,1999
and most recently in 2012.
 Idea-Expression Dichotomy
• The idea-expression dichotomy was formulated to ensure that the manifestation
of an idea (i.e. an expression) is protected rather than the idea itself.
• Copyright is a right given to or derived from works and it is not a right in novelty
only of ideas.
• There exists no copyright in ideas. Copyright subsists only in the material form to
which the ideas are translated.
• The idea-expression dichotomy poses a major challenge in distinguishing between
the two.
• Baker v Selden
• Doctrine of Merger and Scene a faire
 Case Laws

• Barbara Taylor Bradford v Sahara Media Entertainment

Ltd
• RG Anand v. Deluxe Films
• Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corporation v. Kalpakian
• Thomas Walker v. Time Life Films Inc
ORIGINALITY CONCEPT INTRODUCTION

• Under Sec 13 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957, copyright can subsist
only in “original” literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works.
However the act does not define the term ‘original’ or ‘originality’ or
the test to determine originality of a work and this leaves the court
with the duty to decide the amount of originality required for a work
to claim copyright protection.
• The copyright law does not mean to apply the word ‘originality’ in its
literal sense.
• The Copyright Act defines only two requirements for copyrightability: original
authorship (“originality”) and fixation.
• “Original” means a work created through the “fruits of intellectual labour.”
“Originality” therefore requires not only that the author has not copied the work
from another, but also that there is “at least some minimal degree of creativity.”
• For a work to be original, it is important that it should not have been copied
from another work. There must be some creative efforts by the creator.
• However, the degree of creativity expected to make a work original is still a
grey area. There is no clarity as to when will the work be considered as
original in the eyes of law. Especially in case of derivative works, it is very
unclear as to when a derivative work can be identified as a separate work of
art and claim legal protection of copyright.
• Since there is no definite, single
and unified concept of originality,
there exist different doctrines
used in different jurisdictions of
law, which are analyzed and
compared.
 SWEAT OF BROW DOCTRINE
• According to this doctrine, an author gains rights through simple diligence
during the creation of a work. Substantial creativity or “originality” is not
required. The creator is entitled to such rights on account of efforts and
expense put in by him in the creation of such a work. It relies entirely on the
skill and labour of the author, rendering the requirement of “creativity” in a
work nearly redundant.
• According to this doctrine, to secure copyright for the product, it was
necessary that the LABOUR & SKILL should have been expended sufficiently to
impart to the product some quality or character which the raw material did
not posses, and which differentiated the product from the raw material.
• This doctrine was first adopted in the UK in 1900 in the case of ‘Walter v
Lane’, where an oral speech was reproduced verbatim in a newspaper
report and the question was whether such verbatim reproduction would
give rise to copyright in the work. The court held that because the reporter
expended skill and labour to reproduce the speech, the work merited
copyright protection.
• A work may be original, if the author has applied his skill or labour even
though he has drawn on knowledge common to himself and others or has
used already existing material.
• For Example, the creator of a telephone directory or a database must have
a copyright over the product not because such a compilation of data
showcases any creativity, or the author has expressed anything original, but
merely because of the effort, time and money invested by the creator to
collect and organise all the data in a specific manner. But such a
compilation must be the work of the author himself and must not be
copied from another source.
Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House (1996) PTC 439 (Del)

• The court in this case held that the word ‘original’ in sec 13 of the
Copyright Act 1957 did not imply any originality of ideas but merely meant
that the work in question should not be copied from some other work and
should originate from the author being the product of his labour and skill.
Thus the term original in reference to a work means that the particular
work ‘owes its origin’ to the author. It simply means that the work has
independently been created by the author and has not been copied from
someone else’s work.
 University of London Press Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd (1916) 2 Ch
D 601

In this case, the question arose with regard to certain mathematics question
papers that were formulated by the University of London.
University Tutorial Press was engaged in the work of collecting question
papers and publishing them in the form of a book. And they issued a publication
containing a number of question paper including the three question papers set by
the two examiners of the University of London who were co-plaintiff.
Now, the University of London claimed that such act was violating the
copyright of the University and the professor employed with them and
therefore the Tutorial Press should desist from the publication of the question
papers.
On the other hand, Tutorial Press claimed that the questions of the question paper were
drawn from an existing body of knowledge; hence there existed no originality. As a consequence, they held that the
college's claim that there exists copyright in the question papers holds no water. The Court, however, held that despite
the fact that the questions have been drawn from an existing body of knowledge, the formulation of questions into a
question paper requires the exertion of effort and skill and this qualifies the question paper for protection under
copyright law. The Court held that originality does not mean that the work has to be original; it only means that some
effort has to be put in for it to be deemed as original.
 MODICUM OF CREATIVITY DOCTRINE
• The concept of “originality” has undergone a paradigm shift from the “sweat of the brow” doctrine
to the “modicum of creativity” standard put forth in Feist Publication Inc. v. Rural Telephone
Service Co Inc. 499 US 340 (1991).
• In Feist’s case, the US Supreme Court totally negated the previous doctrine and held that in order
to be original, a work must not only have been the product of independent creation, but it must
also exhibit a “modicum of creativity”. The Supreme Court prompted ‘creative originality’ and laid
down the new test to protect the creation on basis of the minimal creativity. This doctrine
stipulates that originality subsists in a work where a sufficient amount of intellectual creativity and
judgment has gone into the creation of that work. The standard of creativity need not be high but
a minimum level of creativity should be there for copyright protection. The sine qua non of
copyright is originality.
• The court held that Rural's directory was nothing more than an alphabetic list of all subscribers to
its service, which it was required to compile under law, and that no creative expression was
involved. That Rural spent considerable time and money collecting the data was irrelevant to
copyright law, and Rural's copyright claim was dismissed.
 Skill and Judgment
Test
• The Canadian Supreme Court in the case, CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper
Canada has developed a mid-way approach between the two doctrines. The
Canadian standard of copyright is based on skill and judgment and not merely
labour. The skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial
that it could be characterized as purely mechanical exercise. This approach is
sometimes known as the “skill and judgment” test.
• They explicitly rejected labour alone as a basis for copyright protection, and
rejected the higher standard of “creativity”.
 Eastern Book Co V. D B Modak

• The plaintiff in this case was the publisher of the CD ROM on SCC. The
plaintiff not only claimed copyright in this work but also in head notes of
the cases and in the copy edited full text of the cases as published by them.
The plea of the plaintiff was that judgments were copy edited before they
were published. Copy editing included correcting typo graphic errors,
paragraph numbering, including comas and full stops, adding citation of
cases, footnotes, etc., which involved skill, labour and judgment necessary
to constitute original literary work.
• The plaintiff alleged infringement of copyright in their work by their
competitors- ‘the Laws’ and ‘Grand Jurix’. According to the plaintiff, the
defendants had copied the full text of the judgments and a number of head
notes from the plaintiff’s CD ROM SCC online.
• The defendants contended that there was no copyright on the full text of the
judgments of courts and the modification made by the plaintiff in the form of
copy-editing was too trivial to claim copyright.
• The notion of “flavour of minimum requirement of creativity” was introduced in
this case. It was held that to establish copyright, the creativity standard applied is
not that something must be novel or non-obvious, but some amount of creativity
in the work to claim a copyright is required
• The court held that there was no copyright in judgments and they were in
public domain once published. The court further held that the changes
consisting of elimination, changes of spelling, correction of typographical
error are trivial and hence no copyright exists therein.
• However in respect of head-notes, the court was of the opinion that unlike
copy-editing, there could be copyright protection if the plaintiff could show
that there was originality and the intellectual input in the creation of
head-notes.
• The Supreme Court has discussed in detail the “Originality Test” in Eastern Book Co v. D B
Modak ( AIR 2008), and adopted the Indian-Canadian test of “skill and judgment with
flavour of creativity” and held that to claim copyright in a derivative work, the author
must produce the material with exercise of his skill and judgment with a flavour of
creativity which may not be creativity in the sense that it is novel or non-obvious, but at
the same time it is not a product of merely labour and capital.
• The derivative work produced by the author must have some distinguishable features
and the flavour to raw text of the judgments delivered by the court. The trivial variation
or inputs put in the judgment would not satisfy the test of copyright of an author.
 Author and ownership of Copyright
• Sec 2(d) “author’’ means,—
(i) in relation to a literary or dramatic work, the author of the work;
(ii) in relation to a musical work, the composer;
(iii) in relation to an artistic work other than a photograph, the artist;
(iv) in relation to a photograph, the person taking the photograph;
(v) in relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording, the producer; and"
(vi) in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is
computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created.
• The author is the first owner of the copyrighted work.
 Joint Authorship
• Sec 2 (z) states “work of joint authorship” as a work produced by
the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution
of one author is not distinct from the contribution of the other
author or authors.
• Donoghue Vs. Allied Newspapers Ltd.
• Najma Heptulla Vs. M/s Oriental Longman Ltd.
 • Sec 17 states about first owner of copyright
Sec 17(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author
in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or
similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, for the purpose
of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, the said
proprietor shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first
owner of the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to the
publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to
the reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published, but in all
other respects the author shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work;
Sec 17(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph
taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film
made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person
shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the
copyright therein;
• V.T Thomas & Ors. Vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd
• Gee Pee Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pratik Chowdhury and others
Sec 17(c) in the case of a work made in the course of the author's
employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, to which clause
(a) or clause (b) does not apply, the employer shall, in the absence of any
agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;
Sec 17(cc) in the case of any address or speech delivered in public, the
person who has delivered such address or speech or if such person has
delivered such address or speech on behalf of any other person, such other
person shall be the first owner of the copyright therein notwithstanding
that the person who delivers such address or speech, or, as the case may
be, the person on whose behalf such address or speech is delivered, is
employed by any other person who arranges such address or speech or on
whose behalf or premises such address or speech is delivered;
• Walter Vs. Lane
Sec 17(d) in the case of a Government work, Government shall, in the absence of
any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein.
• Sec 2 (k) “Government work” means a work which is made or published by or
under the direction or control of:
(i) the Government or any department of the Government;
(ii) any Legislature in India;
(iii) any Court, Tribunal or other judicial authority in India
Sec 17(dd) in the case of a work made or first published by or under the direction
or control of any public undertaking, such public undertaking shall, in the
absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright
therein.
Sec 17(e) in the case of a work made or first published by or under the direction
or control of any international organization, the international organization
concerned shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.
 Rights conferred by copyright
• Economic Rights:
a) In the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer
programme,—
I. to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by
electronic means;
II. to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;
III. to perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public; (Harms Vs. Martans Club)
IV. to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work;
V. to make any translation of the work;
VI. to make any adaptation of the work;
VII. to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in
b) in the case of a computer programme,—
I. to do any of the acts specified in clause (a);
II. to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for commercial rental any copy of the computer
programme.
Provided that such commercial rental does not apply in respect of computer programmes where the
programme itself is not the essential object of the rental.
c) in the case of an artistic work,—
I. to reproduce the work in any material form including depiction in three dimensions of a two dimensional
work or in two dimensions of a three dimensional work;
II. to communicate the work to the public;
III. to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;
IV. to include the work in any cinematograph film;
V. to make any adaptation of the work;
VI. to do in relation to an adaptation of the work any of the acts specified in relation to the work in
sub-clauses (i) to (iv);
d) in the case of a cinematograph film,—
I. to make a copy of the film including a photograph of any image forming part thereof;
II. to sell or give on hire or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the film, regardless of whether such
copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier occasions;
III. to communicate the film to the public;
(e) in the case of a sound recording,—

I. to make any other sound recording embodying it;

II. to sell or give on hire, or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the sound recording, regardless of
whether such copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier occasions;
III. to communicate the sound recording to the public.
• A copy which has been sold once shall be deemed to be a copy already in circulation.
 • Moral Rights:
a) Right to Paternity
b) Right to Integrity
Case Laws:
• Mannu Bhandari Vs. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd.
• Amar Nath Sehgal Vs. Union of India
 Rights of Broadcasting Organisation and
Performers Rights
• Sec 37: Broadcast reproduction right.—

1. Every broadcasting organisation shall have a special right to be known as

‘‘broadcast reproduction right’’ in respect of its broadcasts.

2. The broadcast reproduction right shall subsist until twenty-five years

from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which
the broadcast is made.
3. During the continuance of a broadcast reproduction right in relation to any broadcast, any person
who, without the licence of the owner of the right does any of the following acts of the broadcast or
any substantial part thereof,—
a) re-broadcasts the broadcast; or
b) causes the broadcast to be heard or seen by the public on payment of any charges; or
c) makes any sound recording or visual recording of the broadcast; or
d) makes any reproduction of such sound recording or visual recording where such initial recording
was done without licence or, where it was licensed, for any purpose not envisaged by such licence;
or
e) sells or gives on commercial rental, or offers for sale or for such rental, any such sound recording or
visual recording referred to in clause (c) or clause (d), shall, subject to the provisions of section 39,
be deemed to have infringed the broadcast reproduction right.
 Performer’s Right
• Sec 38: Performer’s right.—
I. Where any performer appears or engages in any performance, he shall have a special right to
be known as the “performer’s right” in relation to such performance.

II. The performer’s right shall subsist until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year
next following the year in which the performance is made.

• Section 38A provides for performer’s right as an exclusive right to do or authorize the doing of
any of the acts in respect of the performance without prejudice to the rights conferred on
authors. The proviso to the section enables performers to be entitled for royalties in case their
performances are subjected to commercial use.

• Sec 38B provides for performer’s moral right: Right to Paternity and Right to Integrity.
Sec 39: Acts not infringing broadcast reproduction right or performer’s right.—
No broadcast reproduction right or performer’s right shall be deemed to be infringed by:
a) the making of any sound recording or visual recording for the private use of the
person making such recording, or solely for purposes of bona fide teaching or
research; or
b) the use, consistent with fair dealing, of excerpts of a performance or of a broadcast in
the reporting of current events or for bona fide review, teaching or research; or
c) such other acts, with any necessary adaptations and modifications, which do not
constitute infringement of copyright under section 52.
Fortune Films International v. Dev Anand [AIR 1979 Bom
17]
 Term of copyright
• Sec 22- Term of copyright in published literary, dramatic, musical and artistic
works — Except as otherwise hereinafter provided, copyright shall subsist in
any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (other than a photograph)
published within the lifetime of the author until sixty years from the beginning
of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies.
• Sec 23 states about term of copyright in anonymous and pseudonymous works
• Sec 24 states about term of copyright in posthumous work.
• Sec 26 term of copyright in cinematograph films— In the case of a
cinematograph film, copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the beginning
of the calendar year next following the year in which the film is published
• Sec 27. Term of copyright in sound recording.— In the case of a sound recording copyright shall subsist until
sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the sound recording is
published.
• Sec 28. Term of copyright in Government works.— In the case of a Government work, where Government is
the first owner of the copyright therein, copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the
calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published.
• Sec 28A. Term of copyright in works of public undertakings.— In the case of a work, where a public
undertaking is the first owner of the copyright therein, copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the
beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published.
• Sec 29. Term of copyright in works of international organisations.— In the case of a work of an international
organisation to which the provisions of section 41 apply, copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the
beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published.
Monkey Selfie Case
 Infringement of Copyright

• Sec 51- When copyright infringed:

Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed—
a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or
the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions
of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority
under this Act—
i. does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the
owner of the copyright, or
ii. permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to
the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the
copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground
for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement
of copyright; or
b) when any person—
i. makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or
offers for sale or hire, or
ii. distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect
prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
iii. by way of trade exhibits in public, or
iv. imports into India," any infringing copies of the work:
Provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of
any work, for the private and domestic use of the importer.
 Case Laws
• V Govindan Vs. Gopalakrishna
• Zee Telefilms Ltd Vs. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd
• Anil Gupta Vs. Kunal Dasgupta
• R G Anand Vs. Delux Films
• R Madhavan Vs. S K Nayar
• Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. Vs. American Broadcasting Co, Inc.
• Reoti Saran Sharma Vs. Numero Uno International
• Gramophone Company of India Ltd Vs. Super Cassette Industries Ltd
 Case Laws
• Sanjeev Pillai vs. VenuKunnapalli & Anr
• Raj Rewal Vs. UOI & Ors
 Test to Determine Copyright Infringement
• Conceptually speaking, copyright infringement analysis in a given
factual scenario involves three basic steps – (i) establishing that the
work is protected under copyright, exists; (ii) the alleged infringing act
falls within the scope of exclusivity offered for that work; and (iii) the
act is actually infringing in nature.
• Copying and improper appropriation
• Total concept and feel test
• Extrinsic-intrinsic test
 International Copyright
• Sec 40- Power to extend copyright to foreign works.
• Sec 40A- Power of Central Government to apply Chapter VIII to
broadcasting organisations and performers in certain other countries.
• Sec 41- Provisions as to works of certain international organisations
• Sec 42- Power to restrict rights in works of foreign authors first
published in India
• Sec 42A- Power to restrict rights of foreign broadcasting organisations
and performers
• Sec 43- Orders under this Chapter to be laid before Parliament
 Remedies for Infringement
Civil Remedies
• Preventive Civil Remedies
a. Interlocutory Injunction
b. Mareva Injunction
c. Anton Piller Orders
d. John Doe Order
• Compensatory Civil Remedies
a. Damages
b. Account of Profits
Sec 55: Civil remedies for infringement of copyright.—
(1) Where copyright in any work has been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall, except as
otherwise provided by this Act, be entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction, damages,
accounts and otherwise as are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right:
Provided that if the defendant proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware and
had no reasonable ground for believing that copyright subsisted in the work, the plaintiff shall
not be entitled to any remedy other than an injunction in respect of the infringement and a
decree for the whole or part of the profits made by the defendant by the sale of the infringing
copies as the court may in the circumstances deem reasonable.
(2) Where, in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a name purporting to be
that to the author or the publisher, as the case may be, appears on copies of the work published,
or, in the case of an artistic work, appeared on the work when it was made, the person whose
name so appears or appeared shall, in any proceeding in respect of infringement of copyright in
such work, be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the author or the publisher of the
work, as the case may be.
(3) The costs of all parties in any proceedings in respect of the infringement of copyright shall
be in the discretion of the court.
 Offences
• Sec 63: Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act.—

Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of— (a) the copyright in a work,
or (b) any other right conferred by this Act except the right conferred by section 53A, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which
may extend to two lakh rupees.

Provided that where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business
the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand
rupees.
• Sec 63A: Enhanced penalty on second and subsequent convictions-
Imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with
fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees.
Provided that where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business the court
may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment
for a term of less than one year or a fine of less than one lakh rupees.
• Sec 63B. Knowing use of infringing copy of computer programme to be an offence.—
Any person who knowingly makes use on a computer of an infringing copy of a computer programme shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven days but which may extend
to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two
lakh rupees.
Provided that where the computer programme has not been used for gain or in the course of trade or
business, the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, not impose any
sentence of imprisonment and may impose a fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.
 • Sec 64: Power of police to seize infringing copies.—
(1) Any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, if he is satisfied that an offence under section 63 in
respect of the infringement of copyright in any work has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, seize without
warrant, all copies of the work, and all plates used for the purposes of making infringing copies of the work,
wherever found, and all copies and plates so seized shall, as soon as practicable be produced before a Magistrate.
(2) Any person having an interest in any copies of a work , or plates seized under sub-section (1) may, within fifteen
days of such seizure, make an application to the Magistrate for such copies , or plates being restored to him and the
Magistrate, after hearing the applicant and the complainant and making such further inquiry as may be necessary,
shall make such order on the application as he may deem fit.
• Sec 65: Possession of plates for purpose of making infringing copies.—
Any person who knowingly makes, or has in his possession, any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of
any work in which copyright subsists shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall
also be liable to fine.
• Sec 66. Disposal of infringing copies or plates for purpose of making infringing
copies.—
The Court trying any offence under this Act may, whether the alleged offender is
convicted or not, order that all copies of the work or all plates in the possession of the
alleged offender, which appear to it to be infringing copies, or plates for the purpose of
making infringing copies, be delivered up to the owner of the copyright or may make
such order as it may deem fit regarding the disposal of such copies or plates
• Sec 70: Cognizance of offences.—
No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first
class shall try any offence under this Act.