Citation: (2008) 1 SCC 1; 2008 (36) PTC 1 (SC)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice P.P. Naolekar
Date of Judgment: 12 December 2007
Relevant Laws: Sections 13, 14, and 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (India)
Background and Facts
The appellants, Eastern Book Company (EBC), a registered partnership firm, and EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., were engaged in publishing legal books in India. One of their flagship publications was the law report titled “Supreme Court Cases” (SCC), which began in 1969. SCC published reportable and non-reportable judgments, short judgments, orders, practice directions, and records of proceedings of the Supreme Court of India. The appellants obtained raw judgments from the Registrar of the Supreme Court and subjected them to a detailed editorial process, which included:
Copy-editing: Correcting grammatical and typographical errors, standardizing punctuation, and formatting the text.
Paragraphing and numbering: Breaking judgments into paragraphs with internal numbering for ease of reference.
Headnotes, footnotes, and long notes: Adding summaries, cross-references, citations, and editorial notes to enhance user-friendliness.
Cross-citations: Including references to other cases and legal provisions.
Indicating judicial opinions: Marking concurring or dissenting opinions of judges.
This editorial process was led by Surendra Malik (Appellant No. 3), and the appellants claimed that their efforts involved significant skill, labor, and judgment, making SCC an original literary work under the Copyright Act, 1957.
In 2001, the respondents, Spectrum Business Support Ltd. and Regent Datatech Pvt. Ltd., released software products named “Grand Jurix” and “The Laws” on CD-ROMs. These products reproduced Supreme Court judgments, including the appellants’ copy-edited versions from SCC, with identical formatting, paragraph numbering, and editorial additions. The appellants alleged that the respondents had copied their work verbatim, infringing their copyright. The respondents countered that the judgments were in the public domain, and the appellants’ copy-edited versions lacked sufficient originality to warrant copyright protection, as they were derivative works based on public domain material.
Procedural History
Delhi High Court (Single Judge Bench):
The appellants filed a suit for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from publishing their copy-edited judgments.
The Single Judge denied the injunction, holding that the copy-edited judgments did not constitute original works under the Copyright Act, as they were merely edited versions of public domain judgments.
The respondents conceded that the appellants held copyright over the headnotes and agreed not to copy them.
Delhi High Court (Division Bench):
The appellants appealed the Single Judge’s decision.
The Division Bench upheld the lower court’s ruling, stating that the editorial changes did not materially alter the character of the original judgments and thus did not meet the threshold for originality. The respondents were allowed to continue selling their CD-ROMs.
Supreme Court of India:
Dissatisfied, the appellants filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, raising the question of whether their copy-edited versions of Supreme Court judgments qualified as original literary works eligible for copyright protection.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:
What is the standard of originality required for a derivative work to qualify for copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957?
Does the entire copy-edited version of the judgments in SCC constitute an original literary work, or is copyright limited to specific editorial additions (e.g., headnotes, footnotes)?
Did the respondents infringe the appellants’ copyright by reproducing the copy-edited judgments in their software products?
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
The appellants did not claim copyright over the raw Supreme Court judgments, which were in the public domain, but over their copy-edited versions published in SCC.
The editorial process involved significant skill, labor, judgment, and capital, transforming the raw judgments into a user-friendly format. This included formatting, paragraphing, cross-referencing, and adding headnotes, footnotes, and long notes.
The respondents had copied the entire SCC module, including the exact sequence, arrangement, and editorial inputs, constituting copyright infringement.
The appellants relied on the “sweat of the brow” doctrine, arguing that their labor and effort entitled them to copyright protection.
Respondents’ Arguments:
Supreme Court judgments are in the public domain, and no one can claim copyright over them, as per Section 52 ( 1 ) ( q ) ( iv ) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which excludes government works from copyright protection.
The appellants’ copy-edited versions were derivative works that lacked sufficient originality, as they merely reproduced the judgments with trivial changes.
The respondents argued that they had independently sourced the judgments and that their products did not infringe any copyright, as the appellants’ work did not meet the threshold of creativity required for protection.
The respondents conceded that headnotes were original but denied copying other editorial inputs.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment, balancing the principles of copyright law with the public interest in accessing judicial decisions. The key points of the Court’s reasoning and findings are as follows:
Standard of Originality:
The Court rejected both the “sweat of the brow” doctrine (which grants copyright based solely on labor and effort) and the “modicum of creativity” standard (used in the U.S., requiring a minimal degree of creativity).
Instead, it adopted the “skill and judgment” test from Canadian jurisprudence (CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada). This test requires that a work demonstrate a substantial degree of skill, judgment, and intellectual effort, beyond trivial or mechanical changes, to qualify as original under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Court held that originality does not require literary merit or novelty but must reflect the author’s independent intellectual contribution.
Copyrightability of SCC:
The Court recognized that raw Supreme Court judgments are in the public domain, and the government is the first owner of copyright in such works. However, derivative works based on public domain material can be protected if they involve original intellectual effort.
The appellants’ editorial inputs—such as paragraphing, numbering, cross-referencing, indicating concurring or dissenting opinions, and adding headnotes, footnotes, and long notes—required substantial skill, judgment, and understanding of legal principles. These inputs transformed the raw judgments into a distinct, user-friendly work.
The Court held that the copy-edited versions of judgments in SCC constituted an original literary work under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, entitled to copyright protection under Section 14.
Scope of Copyright Protection:
The copyright extended to the appellants’ editorial additions and arrangements, not the raw text of the judgments. Specifically, the Court protected:
Headnotes, footnotes, and long notes.
Paragraph numbering and internal referencing.
Formatting and arrangement of the judgments.
Indications of judicial opinions (e.g., “concurring” or “dissenting”).
The Court clarified that the respondents could reproduce raw judgments but could not copy the appellants’ editorial inputs without permission.
Infringement by Respondents:
The Court found that the respondents had reproduced the appellants’ copy-edited judgments verbatim, including paragraph numbering, formatting, and other editorial inputs, in their software products (“Grand Jurix” and “The Laws”).
This reproduction constituted an infringement of the appellants’ copyright, as it exploited their original contributions without consent.
Public Interest and Copyright Balance:
The Court emphasized that copyright law balances the rights of authors with public access to information. While Supreme Court judgments are public domain material, the appellants’ editorial efforts added value, justifying copyright protection for their contributions.
The ruling ensured that law publishers could protect their intellectual investments while allowing others to use raw judgments freely.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, overturning the Delhi High Court’s decisions.
The respondents were restrained from copying the appellants’ editorial inputs, including paragraph numbering, formatting, and indications of judicial opinions.
The Court clarified that the respondents could use raw judgments but must create their own editorial content to avoid infringement.
Key Legal Principles Established
Test of Originality:
The “skill and judgment” test is the standard for determining originality in derivative works under Indian copyright law. A work must involve substantial intellectual effort, beyond mere labor or trivial changes, to qualify for protection.
This test strikes a balance between the labor-based “sweat of the brow” doctrine and the creativity-focused “modicum of creativity” standard.
Copyright in Derivative Works:
Derivative works based on public domain material can be protected if they involve original intellectual contributions, such as editing, formatting, or annotations.
Copyright extends only to the original additions, not the underlying public domain material.
Protection of Legal Publications:
Editorial enhancements in legal publications, such as headnotes, cross-references, and formatting, are protectable as original literary works if they demonstrate skill and judgment.
This encourages investment in high-quality legal publishing while preserving public access to raw judicial decisions.
Public Domain and Copyright:
Court judgments are in the public domain, but value-added versions created through intellectual effort can be copyrighted, ensuring a balance between public access and private rights.
Significance and Impact
The Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak case is a landmark decision in Indian copyright law, particularly for legal publishing. Its significance includes:
Clarification of Originality: The adoption of the “skill and judgment” test provided a clear standard for assessing originality in derivative works, moving away from the outdated “sweat of the brow” doctrine.
Protection for Legal Publishers: The ruling incentivized law publishers to invest in high-quality editorial processes by granting copyright protection to their contributions.
Public Interest: By limiting copyright to editorial inputs, the Court ensured that raw judgments remain accessible to the public, supporting legal research and transparency.
Precedent for Derivative Works: The decision has influenced subsequent cases involving copyright in compilations, databases, and other derivative works in India.
Global Relevance: The adoption of the Canadian “skill and judgment” test aligned Indian copyright law with international standards, fostering consistency in intellectual property jurisprudence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak resolved a critical dispute over copyright in legal publications, affirming that copy-edited versions of Supreme Court judgments, enriched with editorial inputs, qualify as original literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957. By adopting the “skill and judgment” test, the Court established a balanced approach to originality, protecting the appellants’ intellectual efforts while preserving public access to raw judgments. The decision remains a cornerstone for copyright law in India, particularly in the context of derivative works and legal publishing.