AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 809 ::2008 AIR SCW 49 ::2008 AIHC NOC 873 ::2008 (1) JKJ 41 ::2007 (2) CopyTR 487 ::(2008) 1 CivilCourtC 553 ::2008 (1) SCC 1 ::2008 (1) RecCriR 415 ::(2008) 1 RecCivR 599 ::(2007) 14 Scale 191 ::2008 CorLA(BL Supp) 129 SC ::(2008) 1 CalLT 69 ::(2008) 1 Andh LT 670 ::(2008) 2 ICC 206 ::(2008) 2 Mad LW 278 ::2008 (1) MadLJ361 ::2008 (36) PTC 1 ::2008 (2) Andh LD 1

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 2002 (101) DLT 205)

Hon'ble Judge(s): B. N. Agrawal, P. P. Naolekar , JJ

(A) Copyright Act (14 of 1957) , S.13, S.52(1)(q)(iv)— Copyright - Law Journal - Copy-edited judgments - Claims for copyright - Merely establishing amount of skill, labour and capital put in production of copy-edited judgment - Not sufficient to claim copyright - Innovative thoughts and creativity necessary to claim copyright - Derivative work produced must be some- thing different than original. The judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court would be in the public domain and its reproduction or publication would not infringe the copyright. That being the position, the copy-edited judgments would not satisfy the copyright merely by establishing amount of skill, labour and capital put in the inputs of the copy-edited judgments and the original or innovative thoughts for the creativity are completely excluded. Accordingly, original or innovative thoughts are necessary to establish copyright in the author's work. The principle where there is common source the person relying on it must prove that he actually went to the common source from where he borrowed the material, employing his own skill, labour and brain and he did not copy, would not apply to the judgments of the Courts because there is no copyright in the judgments of the Court, unless so made by the Court itself. To secure a copyright for the judgments delivered by the Court, it is necessary that the la....