LAW OF

COPYRIGHT:
ECONOMIC RIGHTS
Name: Avantika Palit
Course: LLMIPL
Reg no.: 2457206
Table of contents
01 Introduction
02 Pillars of economic rights in copyright
03 Case Laws
04 Conclusion
01
INTRODUCTION
What are economic rights under copyright
law?
❏ Section 14 of the Indian Copyright Act, grants the creator a set of rights through
which he may ensure that he is not deprived of any benefits arising out of his work.
❏ Covers the financial aspect of creative works, emphasizing the creators’ ability to
derive income.
❏ Often transferable or assignable allowing the copyright holder to sell or license these
rights.
❏ Has a limited duration expiring after a certain. Allowing works to enter the public
domain.
02
PILLARS OF ECONOMIC
RIGHTS IN COPYRIGHT
 ● EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
REPRODUCTION
01 COPY OR DUPLICATE
RIGHT
WORK

● AUTHORITY TO
RIGHT OF
02 DISTRIBUTE, SELL OR
DISTRIBUTION
LEND.

RIGHT TO RENTAL ● CONTROL OVER RENTING

03
AND LENDING AND LENDING OF WORK
 ● EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
AUTHORIZE THE PUBLIC
RIGHT OF PUBLIC
04 PERFORMANCE OF A WORK
PERFORMANCE
FOR LITERARY, DRAMATIC
AND MUSICAL

● NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC AND

RIGHT TO MAKING THE WORK AVAILABLE
05 COMMUNICATE TO THROUGH VARIOUS MEDIA,
THE PUBLIC SUCH AS BROADCASTING,
WEBCASTING, ETC.

● COVERS SEVERAL RIGHTS,

RIGHT OF INCLUDING CONVERSION,
06
ADAPTATION CHANGE, AND
REORDERING
 ● TRANSLATE A WORK INTO
RIGHT TO OTHER LANGUAGES
07
TRANSLATE BELONGS TO THE
COPYRIGHT OWNER
03
CASE LAWS
Star India (P) ltd. V. Leo Burnett
(India) private limited 2003(27) PTC81
(BOM)
Facts
❏ Star India Pvt. Ltd. is involved in acquiring copyrights for films, TV serials, and
programs.
❏ Agreement with Balaji Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. to produce "KYUNKI SAAS BHI KABHI
BAHU THI.“
❏ Since then Balaji has produced episodes of the serial and their services were engaged
by way of contract of service and as such the plaintiffs are the first copyright owners
under Section 17 of the Copyright Act.
❏ Balaji has devised the original artistic work depicting inter alia the logo and the title in
a peculiar stylized font and containing as its essential features the words “KYUN KI
SAAS BHI KABHI BAHU THI” and as per the agreement plaintiffs have become the
owner of the said artistic work.
❏ In February 2002, Dispute over Tide Detergent’s advertisement titled “KYONKI
BAHU BHI KABHI SAAS BANEGI.”
Issues
❏ Whether the defendants have infringed the plaintiff’s Copyright in the T.V. serial and
artistic work by copying their work for making a commercial film?
❏ Whether there is substantial copying of plaintiff’s film by the defendant?
❏ Whether the defendants are guilty of passing off their reputation and goodwill by
misrepresenting to the public that they are authorized to make use of original artistic
and musical work in the serial?
❏ Whether the defendants have defeated plaintiff’s character merchandising?
Judgment
❏ The Bombay High Court while dealing with the first issue denied the contentions of
the plaintiffs and coined the term ‘Originality’. Originality merely means effort
expanded or that it involves skill, labour and judgment in its creation.
❏ The court while dealing with the second issue observed that for the second film to
infringe the copyright of the first film it has to be the exact copy of that film which is
not the case here. Under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, copy meant a physical copy.
However, the plaintiffs in this case made a separate work.
❏ The court while dealing with the third issue of passing-off their reputation and
goodwill held that the defendants are not guilty of passing off as they do not satisfy the
essentials of passing off per se.
❏ Finally, the court while dealing with the fourth issue of character merchandising held
that since the plaintiff have failed to establish anything special in any of the characters
of which it can be said that they have gained any public recognition for itself with an
independent life outside the serial.
Penguin books limited v India book
distributors and others (AIR 1985 Delhi
29)
Facts
❏ In this case the plaintiffs had the exclusive right and license for printing, publishing
and marketing of 23 copyrighted works in India.
❏ The defendants imported lawful copies of these books from America and sold it in
India. The plaintiffs sought to prevent this.
❏ The question was whether the copies imported by the defendants are infringing copies
as per the Copyright Act and whether they are violating any right exclusively
conferred on the plaintiff by virtue of the Act.
Issues
 Whether or not the consent decree was a bar to the assertion of Penguin’s statutory
rights under the Copyright Act, 1957 of India?
 Whether Penguins being the exclusive licensees, can restrain India Book Distributors
from importing the parallel American editions of these 13 titles in India?
 Whether temporary injunction can be granted?
Judgment
❏ The Court here held that if any person without the license of the copyright owner,
imports into India for the purpose of trades any literary work, the copyright over the
same is infringed. Any importation of infringing copies is therefore an infringement
unless it is for the importers own use.
❏ The Court came to this conclusion on the basis of a combined reading of the then
Sections 2(m)26, 5127 and 53.
❏ The Court moreover held that ‘the exclusive right to import into India would extend to
the exclusive right to import copies into India for the purpose of selling or by way of
trade offering or exposing sale of the books in question.’
Conclusion
❏ Economic rights under copyright are fundamental in protecting the financial
interests of creators, enabling them to control and monetize their work.
These rights allow authors to exploit their creations in various ways,
including reproduction, distribution, public performance, and adaptation. By
granting these exclusive rights, copyright law incentivizes creativity and
ensures that creators and rights holders receive fair compensation for their
work.
THANKYOU