Originality In Copyright Law: A Study Of Judicial Responses
Ekta Saini, Jamia Hamdard
Dr Shariqa Mehmood, Jamia Hamdard
ABSTRACT
The idea of something being original is really important when it comes to copyright law. It is the reason why some things get protected and others do not. Even though it is so important the word "originality" is not clearly defined in the Copyright Act of 1957. This means that it is up to the courts to decide what it means.
This article looks at how the idea of originality has changed over time in India and how it compares to what other countries are doing. It talks about how courts used to think that if someone put a lot of work into something it should be protected, even if it was not very creative. It also talks about how this way of thinking has changed and now courts are looking for some level of creativity in the things they protect.
For a time courts followed the "sweat of the brow" idea, which meant that they looked at how much work someone put into something rather than how creative it was. This meant that even things that were not very innovative, like lists of facts could get protected. While this helped the people who made these things it also meant that people had access to information.
Over time things have. Now courts are looking for a little bit of creativity in the things they protect. This is called the "modicum of creativity" test. Indian courts have started to use this test in cases like Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak. They are trying to find a balance between protecting the work that people put into something and making sure that it is also creative.
The article also looks at the problems that come from having two ways of thinking about originality.
1. One way is to protect the work that people put into something, which helps the people who make things.
2. The other way is to protect things that are really creative which helps to make sure that new and innovative things are made.
The article also talks about some of the challenges that are happening now like how to deal with technology how to protect lists of information and how to handle things that are made by artificial intelligence. These things make it even harder to decide what is original and what is not.
By comparing what is happening in countries the article concludes that India is slowly starting to use the creativity-centric standard. Because there is no clear definition of originality in the law it is still not clear what is protected and what is not. This means that the government needs to make the law clearer so that it is fair, for both the people who make things and the public.
