Intellectual Property Rights MCQs for Judiciary, Page 2

Correct answer: C. Copyright does not protect the idea, theme, subject matter, or factual content underlying a work, but protects only the particular form of creative expression chosen by the author; others are free to use the same idea, theme, or information in their own original expression

The idea-expression dichotomy is a foundational principle of copyright law worldwide, including under the Copyright Act, 1957 in India. It provides that copyright protects only the particular form of creative expression in a work and does not extend to the underlying ideas, themes, facts, data, methods, concepts, or any other elements of an abstract or functional nature that the work embodies. Accordingly, one author may write a novel about a young wizard attending a magical school (the idea), and another author is free to write a different novel on the same theme, provided they do not copy the original author's specific text, plot structure, character development, or other expressive elements. The idea-expression dichotomy is what allows literature, science, and technology to progress: if copyright could protect ideas, the first person to write about a concept could prevent all subsequent exploration of that concept. In the TRIPS Agreement, Article 9(2) codifies this principle by stating expressly that copyright protection shall not extend to ideas, procedures, methods of operation, or mathematical concepts.

Source note: Section 13, Copyright Act 1957; Article 9(2), TRIPS Agreement

Correct answer: A. Importing infringing copies of a copyrighted work into India for sale or distribution, knowing that such copies would constitute infringement if made in India

Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 distinguishes between direct (primary) infringement and secondary infringement. Section 51(b) provides for secondary infringement: a person infringes copyright who (i) makes for sale or hire, or sells, hires, distributes, imports into India, or possesses for the purpose of trade any infringing copies of the work; or (ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes infringement, unless the person was not aware and had no reasonable ground to believe that such communication would be infringement. The mental element (knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe) is relevant to secondary infringement under Section 51(b). Importation of infringing copies knowing them to be infringing is therefore specifically enumerated as an act of secondary infringement. Options A, C, and D would typically fall within fair dealing exceptions under Section 52 and would not constitute infringement.

Source note: Section 51, Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: C. The facts and events of a person's life are not themselves protectable by copyright (as they are real-world occurrences, not creative expression); however, a specific creative work (novel, screenplay, documentary) that depicts those events in an original narrative form does attract copyright; accordingly, a filmmaker cannot claim copyright in real-life events themselves, but the specific expression in an original screenplay based on those events is protectable

In Dreamline Reality Movies v. Super Cassette Industries (Punjab and Haryana High Court, February 2024), the court overturned an injunction that had been granted against a film (Dear Jassi) about Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu's real-life story, holding that 'the events and details from a person's life cannot be copyrighted unless the individual claiming copyright infringement has created a work that explicitly depicts such a life story.' This ruling applies the idea-expression dichotomy to biographical material: the facts and events of a real person's life are not copyrightable (they are factual occurrences in the real world, equivalent to ideas), but an original creative work depicting those events in a specific narrative form does attract copyright. A rival production company cannot claim copyright in real-life events simply because they were the first to be associated with a story. Copyright protects the specific creative expression in a screenplay or literary work, not the underlying real-life narrative. This principle is significant for India's growing docudrama and true-crime film industry.

Source note: Dreamline Reality Movies v. Super Cassette Industries (Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2024)

Correct answer: C. The right of paternity (to claim authorship of the work) and the right of integrity (to object to any distortion, mutilation, or modification of the work that would prejudice the author's honour or reputation), which subsist even after the economic rights in the work have been assigned

Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended) codifies the author's moral rights, which are drawn from Article 6bis of the Berne Convention. The two core moral rights provided are: first, the right of paternity (to claim authorship and to prevent false attribution); and second, the right of integrity (to restrain any distortion, mutilation, modification, or other act in relation to the work that would be prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation). Critically, these rights are inalienable: they persist even after the economic copyright in the work has been assigned to another person. Section 57(1) further provides that the author may claim damages in respect of any such distortion or mutilation, even after the assignment of copyright. The 2012 Amendment strengthened moral rights to ensure that any distortion, mutilation, or modification, whether in the work itself or in the exhibition of the work, is actionable if it prejudices the author's honour or reputation. Moral rights continue after the author's death and can be exercised by the author's legal representative.

Source note: Section 57, Copyright Act 1957; Article 6bis, Berne Convention

Correct answer: D. An author can use Section 57 to restrain modifications to their work made in the course of adapting it to another medium (such as a novel adapted into a film), if such modifications prejudice the author's honour or reputation, even though the right to make the adaptation itself may have been assigned

In Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1987 Del 13), the Delhi High Court addressed the conflict between the right to make an adaptation of a literary work (which the author had assigned to the film producer) and the author's moral right of integrity under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court held that while the producer had the right to make a film adaptation of the plaintiff's novel, the modifications made to the story in the film adaptation were so substantial and distorting that they prejudiced the author's honour and reputation by misrepresenting her work. The court confirmed that Section 57 moral rights survive even the assignment of economic rights and can be exercised against an assignee who distorts or mutilates the work. This case is foundational for the proposition that authors cannot entirely surrender their moral rights through contractual assignment, and that the integrity right protects the author's artistic reputation even in the context of adaptation to another medium.

Source note: Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1987 Del 13; Section 57, Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: D. Makes a sound recording or visual recording of the performance, reproduces such a recording, broadcasts the live performance, or communicates the live performance to the public

Section 38(4) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012) specifies the acts that constitute infringement of a performer's right. Without the consent of the performer, it is infringement to: (a) make a sound recording or visual recording of the performance; (b) reproduce a sound recording or visual recording of the performance made without consent; (c) broadcast the live performance; or (d) communicate the live performance to the public otherwise than by broadcasting. The performer's right in this context is a neighbouring right (as opposed to copyright, which protects creative works), protecting the performer's economic interest in the live event and unauthorised recordings of it. The term of the performer's right is fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the performance is made (Section 38(1)). The 2012 Amendment also introduced Section 38A, granting performers the right to receive royalties in perpetuity for the commercial exploitation of their performances.

Source note: Section 38, Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: C. The intermediary had actual knowledge of the infringing content (typically through receipt of a notice from the rights holder) and failed to expeditiously remove or disable access to the infringing content ('notice and takedown'); platforms that actively participate in infringement or have general awareness of infringement without acting also lose the safe harbour

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 establish a conditional safe harbour for online platforms and intermediaries from third-party liability, including copyright liability. The safe harbour is lost when: (a) the intermediary has conspired in, abetted, aided, or induced the commission of an unlawful act; or (b) upon receiving actual knowledge through a court order or notification by a government or its agency that any information, data, or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit an unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material. The 'notice and takedown' mechanism is the practical implementation of this framework for copyright: a rights holder who notifies a platform of specific infringing content triggers the platform's obligation to remove the content promptly or lose safe harbour protection. This framework is India's equivalent of the DMCA's Section 512 safe harbour in the United States.

Source note: Section 79, IT Act 2000; IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2021; Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: B. The work must originate from the author and reflect the author's minimal degree of creativity, involving some creative choices beyond mere mechanical reproduction; pure sweat of the brow (labour and skill alone, without any creative choice) does not suffice

In Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court settled the test for originality under the Copyright Act, 1957. The court rejected the pure 'sweat of the brow' doctrine (which holds that any expenditure of labour and skill suffices for copyright, regardless of creativity), as well as the strict 'novelty' or 'creativity' standard borrowed from patent law. Instead, the court adopted a middle path, holding that: (a) the work must originate from the author (not be copied from another source); and (b) the work must involve at least a minimum degree of creativity reflecting the author's creative choices, going beyond merely mechanical or functional reproduction. Applying this test to publishers' headnotes and copy-edited versions of Supreme Court judgments, the court held that while mechanical typesetting of public domain judicial decisions would not attract copyright, additions of original headnotes, catchwords, and editorial comments that reflect genuine creative judgment do attract copyright protection. This test is broadly aligned with the US 'modicum of creativity' standard from Feist Publications.

Source note: Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1; Section 13, Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: B. Section 31A of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows the Copyright Board to grant compulsory licences for unpublished works whose author is dead, unknown, or cannot be traced, enabling publishers to publish such works of public benefit after a reasonable search for the rights holder

Section 31A of the Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended in 2012) provides a mechanism for what are effectively 'orphan works' - works that remain copyright-protected but whose authors are unknown or cannot be found. The provision allows any person seeking to publish or communicate an unpublished work, or a published work that is out of print, to apply to the Copyright Board (now Commercial Court/IP Division) for a compulsory licence if: the author is dead or unknown, or the owner of the copyright cannot be found; the work is of public benefit; and the applicant has made reasonable prior efforts to contact the rights holder without success. The Board may grant the licence on payment of royalties to be deposited in a designated account available to the rights holder if they emerge. This mechanism strikes a balance between enabling access to culturally significant but inaccessible works and preserving rights holders' interests. The 2012 Amendment expanded and improved this mechanism, recognising the importance of opening up orphan works for educational, cultural, and archival purposes.

Source note: Section 31A, Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: B. The Delhi High Court held that Section 31D applies only to 'broadcasting' in the traditional radio and television sense and not to on-demand internet streaming services (ott platforms); on-demand streaming is an interactive service where a user selects specific content to play, which is fundamentally different from broadcasting to a general audience; ott platforms must therefore obtain individual licences from copyright holders or collecting societies rather than relying on Section 31D statutory licensing

In Tips Music v. Wynk Music (Delhi High Court, 2019), the court addressed whether Wynk Music (a music streaming app operated by Airtel) could avail of the statutory licensing regime under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957 without obtaining separate licences from record labels. The court held that Section 31D applies only to 'broadcasting organisations' within the meaning of Section 2(dd) of the Copyright Act, which refers to bodies that communicate works to the public by radio or television transmission (traditional broadcasting). On-demand internet streaming services (OTT) like Wynk, Spotify, Gaana, and Apple Music are interactive services - users specifically choose which songs to listen to - and this fundamental difference from one-to-many broadcasting takes them outside the definition of 'broadcasting organisation.' The practical consequence is that OTT music streaming platforms must negotiate and obtain individual licences from record labels, publishers, and collecting societies (IPRS, PPL) for streaming rights, and cannot unilaterally invoke Section 31D to impose a statutory licence at rates determined by the Copyright Board.

Source note: Tips Music v. Wynk Music (Delhi High Court, 2019); Section 31D, Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: C. Parody or satire of a work may qualify as fair dealing for criticism or review if: it genuinely comments on or critiques the original work (not merely using it for entertainment purposes unrelated to criticism); the amount used from the original is no more than is necessary for the parodic comment; and it does not cause unreasonable prejudice to the copyright owner's legitimate interests; however, India does not have a specific statutory parody exception unlike some other jurisdictions, so parody is assessed within the existing fair dealing framework

India's Copyright Act, 1957 does not contain a specific parody exception, unlike Canada (Section 29.21), Australia, or the UK (Section 30A CDPA). Parody must therefore be assessed within the existing fair dealing framework, principally Section 52(1)(a) (fair dealing for criticism or review). The key enquiry is whether the parody genuinely engages in criticism or review of the original work (as opposed to merely borrowing elements of the original for comic effect unrelated to commentary). If the parody takes the original work as its subject of comment - critiquing its themes, style, or content - it is more likely to qualify as fair dealing. If it merely uses recognisable elements of the original for entertainment without genuine commentary, it is less likely to qualify. The moral rights dimension (Section 57) adds complexity: a parody that distorts or modifies the work in a way that prejudices the author's honour or reputation might also violate moral rights, adding a potential claim beyond copyright infringement.

Source note: Section 52(1)(a), Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: B. The emerging personality rights doctrine (rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution read with common law), which recognises that a person's name, voice, likeness, and persona have commercial value in which the individual has a protectable property interest; courts have granted injunctions against ai-generated deepfakes using a celebrity's likeness without consent on the basis of this doctrine combined with Section 51 of the Copyright Act where original works are involved

Indian courts have increasingly recognised personality rights (right of publicity) as a distinct intellectual property right protecting a person's commercial interest in their name, voice, likeness, image, and persona. Rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution (right to privacy and dignity) and developed through common law, personality rights protect against the unauthorised commercial exploitation of a celebrity's identity. In 2024, both the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court granted emergency injunctions against AI-generated deepfakes: the Delhi High Court issued a sweeping injunction covering present and future infringers for misusing an actor's persona, and the Bombay High Court recognised a singer's voice as a protectable personality right. These rights are distinct from copyright (which requires originality) and trade mark (which requires commercial source identification): personality rights protect the individual's intrinsic commercial identity. Section 51 of the Copyright Act may also apply where the deepfake incorporates original copyrighted footage or sound recordings, adding an additional layer of protection.

Source note: Personality rights doctrine; Delhi HC and Bombay HC 2024 deepfake injunctions; Article 21, Constitution of India

Correct answer: C. Sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the photograph is published

Section 25 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that in the case of a photograph, copyright subsists until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the photograph is published. This fixed term (calculated from publication, not from the death of the photographer) is the same approach applied to cinematograph films (Section 26) and sound recordings (Section 27), reflecting the view that these are primarily products involving industrial investment rather than purely personal creative expression. The sixty-year term for photographs contrasts with the life-plus-sixty-years term applicable to other original works (literary, dramatic, musical, and non-photographic artistic works). The rationale is that photographs, even when highly creative, are often commercially produced and rapidly superseded; a publication-based term (rather than a death-based term) avoids the difficulty of determining when an unknown photographer died. The 2012 Amendment aligned the Indian term with the TRIPS Agreement minimum of fifty years, and India chose the higher sixty-year term consistent with life-plus-sixty-years for other works.

Source note: Section 25, Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: C. Reproducing or publishing a legislative enactment, a judicial decision, or an order of a governmental body, or a translation of such enactment or decision, for the purpose of criticism, commentary, or educational use

Section 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that it is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce or publish any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette, except an Act of a legislature, or to produce or publish a translation of any such matter in any Indian language. More significantly, Section 52(1)(q) also provides that reproduction of legislative enactments, judicial decisions, and orders of governmental bodies (which are government works) is free for purposes of criticism, commentary, and educational use, reflecting the public interest in ensuring access to law and public governance documents. This provision aligns with the broader principle that legal materials (statutes, court judgments, government orders) must be freely accessible to all citizens in a democratic society. The EBC v. D.B. Modak case confirmed that while the bare text of judicial decisions is freely reproducible, publishers' original editorial additions (headnotes, catchwords) attract independent copyright. Option A would be excessive reproduction for commercial purpose, which is not protected.

Source note: Sections 17 and 52(1)(q), Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: B. Injunction, damages (including additional damages in cases of flagrant infringement, having regard to the benefit accruing to the defendant and the flagrant nature of the infringement), accounts of profits, and delivery up of infringing copies

Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides the civil remedies available to copyright owners in an infringement action. These comprehensive remedies include: (a) injunction (both interlocutory/interim and permanent) to restrain further infringement; (b) damages, which may include additional damages where the infringement is particularly flagrant, with the court directed to have regard to the benefit accruing to the defendant from the infringement and all the circumstances of the case; (c) accounts of profits (as an alternative to damages, where the plaintiff elects to claim the infringer's profits instead of their own losses); and (d) delivery up and destruction of infringing copies. The statutory regime does not fix damages at a predetermined sum per infringing copy; damages are assessed on the facts of each case. Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides for the separate criminal remedy of prosecution for copyright infringement, where the infringer can be imprisoned for a minimum of six months and fined. Civil and criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously.

Source note: Sections 55, 63, Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: A. The assignment of copyright in a literary or musical work (or the underlying work in a sound recording) to a film producer does not deprive the author or composer of the right to receive royalties for exploitation of their work in films; they retain the right to royalties that must be shared equally between the assignee and the author

Section 19(8) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (as introduced by the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012) is a landmark provision that sought to remedy the historical exploitation of authors and composers by film and music producers. It provides that the assignment of copyright in any work to a film producer shall not affect the right of the author to receive a share of royalties from the commercial exploitation of the work in films, whether through cinema exhibition, broadcasting, streaming, or other media. The producer retains the exclusive right to exploit the work in films, but the composer and lyricist receive an equal share of all royalties from such exploitation. Furthermore, under Section 18(1), the author of a literary or musical work used in a film or sound recording shall, notwithstanding any assignment of copyright, have the right to receive royalties from any mode of exploitation other than those initially agreed upon with the producer. These provisions were welcomed as a significant step toward ensuring fair remuneration for the creative contributors to Indian cinema and music.

Source note: Section 19(8), Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: D. Potentially violate Section 65A because regional coding on dvd players constitutes an 'effective technological protection measure' within the meaning of Section 65A(1); however, where the purpose of circumvention is personal, non-infringing use (such as watching legitimately purchased foreign DVDs on one's own player), courts may consider whether such circumvention falls within permitted purposes under Section 65A(2)

Section 65A of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that any person who circumvents an effective technological protection measure applied for the protection of any copyright work shall be punishable with imprisonment and fine. Section 65A(2) provides exceptions: circumvention for the purposes of research, education, security testing, government purposes, and certain other specified purposes does not violate Section 65A. The question of whether DVD region coding (which prevents playback of region-2 DVDs on region-1 players) constitutes a TPM within the scope of Section 65A has not been definitively decided by Indian courts. Globally, this issue has been contested: the US DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions have been applied to region coding in some contexts but not others. The principle that TPM protection is tied to the protection of copyright (not merely access control unrelated to copyright) is relevant: section 65A is intended to protect copyright, not to enable geo-segmentation of markets for commercial reasons unrelated to copyright protection.

Source note: Section 65A, Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: A. Knowingly removing or altering any rights management information without authority, and distributing works knowing that their rights management information has been removed or altered; this protects metadata (such as author name, title, ownership data, and terms of use) that enables rights holders to identify and control use of their works in digital environments

Section 65B of the Copyright Act, 1957 implements India's obligations under Article 12 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Article 19 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty regarding rights management information (RMI). The section prohibits: (a) knowingly removing or altering any rights management information without the authority of the rights holder; and (b) knowingly distributing, importing for distribution, broadcasting, or communicating to the public copies of works whose rights management information has been removed or altered, without authority. Rights management information includes any information identifying the work, the author or performer, the owner of any right in the work, and any terms and conditions of use. In practice, RMI includes digital watermarks, metadata embedded in digital files (EXIF data in photographs, ID3 tags in audio files), and blockchain-based provenance records. Stripping metadata from photographs before distributing them online is a common violation of Section 65B. The provision complements the TPM protection of Section 65A: together, they protect both the digital locks (Section 65A) and the identifying information (Section 65B) that rights holders use to protect works in digital environments.

Source note: Section 65B, Copyright Act 1957; Article 12, WIPO Copyright Treaty

Correct answer: B. Make any other sound recording embodying the recording, sell or give on hire copies of the sound recording, and communicate the sound recording to the public

Section 14(1)(e) of the Copyright Act, 1957 specifies the rights comprised in copyright in a sound recording. These include: (a) making any other sound recording embodying the original sound recording; (b) selling or giving on hire, or offering for sale or hire, any copy of the sound recording; and (c) communicating the sound recording to the public. The copyright in a sound recording is distinct from the copyright in the underlying musical work and literary work (lyrics) embodied in the recording: the recording copyright protects the producer's investment in making the particular recording, while the musical and literary copyrights protect the composer and lyricist's creative works respectively. Section 27 provides that the term of copyright in a sound recording is sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year of publication. The 2012 Amendment importantly provided that authors of literary and musical works used in sound recordings retain the right to receive royalties for the commercial exploitation of those underlying works, regardless of any assignment to record companies.

Source note: Sections 14(1)(e) and 27, Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: D. A non-original database (one in which the selection and arrangement lack the minimum creativity required for copyright) does not attract any intellectual property protection in India; it is in the public domain, and others may freely extract and use the data it contains; the only protection available to database owners is through contract law (access restriction terms) and technological protection measures

India does not have a standalone database protection law equivalent to the EU's Sui Generis Database Right under the Database Directive (1996/9/EC), which provides a fifteen-year protection for substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting data in a database, regardless of whether the database is an original work. In India, copyright protection for databases under Section 13 read with Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957 requires the database to be an original intellectual creation by reason of selection or arrangement, as confirmed by EBC v. D.B. Modak. A database compiled mechanically without creative selection (such as a telephone directory or a raw data aggregation) does not attract copyright. Without a sui generis protection regime, such databases can only be protected through contractual access restrictions (Terms of Use limiting what subscribers can do with data), technological barriers, and trade secret law (where appropriate). This creates a protection gap: significant commercial investment in data collection and maintenance may not be rewarded by any IP protection, potentially discouraging investment in data infrastructure.

Source note: Section 13, Copyright Act 1957; Article 10(2), TRIPS Agreement; EBC v. D.B. Modak

Correct answer: A. Internet Service Providers (ISPs), routers, and network infrastructure from liability for automatically created temporary copies of copyrighted content that arise as a necessary part of transmitting data across a network

Section 52(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (introduced by the 2012 Amendment) codifies the concept of 'transient or incidental copies,' primarily to shield Internet intermediaries from copyright liability for the temporary copies of data that are inevitably created during the process of transmitting digital content across networks. When data (including copyrighted content) is transmitted over the Internet, multiple intermediate copies are necessarily created in routers, switches, servers, and RAM buffers as an integral part of the technological process of transmission. Without this exemption, every internet transmission would technically constitute copyright infringement. This provision is India's equivalent of the 'mere conduit' safe harbour for ISPs found in the EU E-Commerce Directive and the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) in the United States. The exemption applies only where the copy is transient (not stored beyond immediate need), forms an integral and essential part of the transmission process, and serves no independent purpose beyond enabling the transmission.

Source note: Section 52(1)(b), Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: B. For the specific categories of portraits, photographs, and engravings that are commissioned for valuable consideration, the commissioning party (not the creator) is the first owner; this affects only those specific categories listed in Section 17(b) and does not extend to all commissioned creative works such as commissioned music, software, or literary works, where the general rule (copyright vests in the author) applies unless the work-for-hire provisions or an explicit assignment applies

Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 contains specific provisos that modify the general rule of author-as-first-owner. Section 17(b) (the second proviso) addresses the commissioning of portraits, photographs, and engravings: it provides that where any portrait is made by an artist or any photograph is taken or any engraving is made by any engraver, at the instance of a person and for a valuable consideration (payment or other consideration), the person giving the commission (not the artist or photographer) is the first owner of the copyright in the work, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. This limited commissioning rule applies specifically to these three categories. It does not apply to commissioned software, musical works, literary works, or audiovisual works, where the general rule (copyright vests in the human author) applies unless the work is created by an employee in the course of employment (Section 17(a)), in which case the employer is the first owner. Freelance composers, writers, and software developers who are commissioned for a fee are the first owners of their work absent a contractual assignment.

Source note: Section 17, Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: B. Copyright subsists in both the architect's plans and drawings (as artistic works) and in the building itself as a work of architecture; both are independently protected as artistic works

Section 2(c)(v) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines 'artistic work' to include 'a work of architecture.' Section 2(b) defines 'architectural work' as any building or structure having an artistic character or design, or any model for such building or structure. Therefore, copyright subsists in two distinct elements: first, the architect's original plans, drawings, and models as artistic works under Section 2(c); and second, the building or structure itself as a work of architecture under Section 2(b). The first owner of copyright in the plans is typically the architect (or their employer under the work for hire doctrine). Section 52(1)(u) provides an important limitation: it is not an infringement of copyright in a work of architecture for any person to make or publish a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of a work of architecture if the building or structure is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. This ensures that photographing or sketching buildings in public spaces does not constitute infringement.

Source note: Sections 2(b), 2(c)(v) and 52(1)(u), Copyright Act 1957

Correct answer: C. Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that where a design is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000 and is applied to more than fifty articles by an industrial process, copyright protection in the underlying artistic work ceases; once an industrial design is in commercial production exceeding fifty units, the Designs Act replaces copyright as the mode of protection

In Crocs Inc. USA v. Bata India Ltd. (CS(COMM) 772/2016, Del HC 2018), one of the important issues addressed by the Delhi High Court was the applicability of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides a critical limitation on the overlap between industrial design protection and copyright protection. Section 15(2) provides that once an artistic work is applied to any article by an industrial process, the copyright in the artistic work (which would otherwise last for the author's life plus sixty years) ceases when more than fifty such articles have been manufactured. At this point, the design can only be protected through the Designs Act, 2000 (for a maximum of fifteen years). This provision is designed to prevent manufacturers from using the much longer copyright term to protect what are in substance industrial designs, and to funnel such protection through the shorter-term Designs Act regime that is more appropriate for industrial products. The Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited (2008) 37 PTC 1 (SC) case also addressed the overlap between design copyright and artistic copyright.

Source note: Section 15(2), Copyright Act 1957; Crocs Inc. USA v. Bata India Ltd., 2018; Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd., (2008) 37 PTC 1 (SC)