Ownership Under Copyright Act
To understand the ownership under Copyright Act,1957 we need to understand that what does an “Author” mean under the copyrights Act,1957.
According to section 2(d) of the copyrights Act,1957 “Author” Means:
i. In case of the literary or dramatic work the author of the work,
ii. In case of a musical work, the composer of such work,
iii. In case of artistic work, but photograph, the artist of work,
iv. In case of the photograph, the one who captures the photograph,
v. In case of the cinematograph film or sound recording the producer,
vi. In case of any work whether, literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic, which is computer generated the person who causes the work to be created.
SECTION 17 – FIRST OWNER OF COPYRIGHT
Section 17 of the copyrights act provides for the first owner of the copyright. According to section 17 of the copyrights Act ,1957 the author of the work shall be considered as the first owner of the copyright. Section 17 has some exceptions, when the first owner of the copyright is not the author of the work, they are:
Section 17(a) provides that in case where a work is literary, dramatic and artistic, is made in the course of the employment under a contract of service to the owner of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, for the purpose of publication, then unless there is an agreement contrary, the owner of such newspaper, magazine and similar periodical will be the first owner of the copyright.
Section 17(b) provides that, in case of a photograph taken, or painting drawn or an engraving, or a cinematograph film made, for a valuable consideration, then the person who is giving such valuable consideration in lieu of such photograph taken, or painting drawn, or an engraving, or a cinematographic film, unless there is an agreement contrary, will be considered as the owner of the copyright.
This clause provides for the ownership of the copyright in cases where someone hired an artist for taking a photograph, drawing a painting, or making a cinematographic film and making payment in return then the person who hired for such work will be considered as the first owner of the copyright.
Section 17(c) provides that in case of work made by a person in the duration of his employment, then in such case the employer would be considered as the first owner of the copyright, unless there is an agreement contrary.
Section 17 (cc) provides that in case of a person delivering speech on behalf of other person that other person would be the first owner of the copyright. However, the person who is giving such address or speech not on behalf of any other person then such person would be the first owner of the copyright.
Section 17(d) provides that in case of government work, the government will be considered as the first owner of the copyright unless there is an agreement contrary.
Section 17(dd) provides that when a work is created according to the public undertaking then such public undertaking would be considered as the first owner f the copyright.
CASE STUDY
Diljeet Titus v. Alfred A. Adebare & Ors. 2006 (32) PTC 609
Facts :
The plaintiff Dilijeet Titus and the defendant Alfred A. Adebara both were lawyers. The plaintiff established his own law firm M/s Titus & Co. in 1997 and the defendants and plaintiff were working together.
Then one day the defendants decide to leave the firm and there parting was not amicable. A couple of days before leaving the defendants ask the guard of the office to provide him with the key so that he can download some information related to the projects handled by defendants.
The plaintiff claims that the defendants have obtained some privileged information and there has been an infringement of copyright.
The plaintiff said that the defendants were only associates and was paid renumeration in the form of fee while the defendants claim that he has worked as the partner in the firm.
Issue
Whether the confidential information can be protected post-employment period also?
Decision
The Hon’ble high court of Delhi held that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case.
The defendants are free to carry on any business but are restrained from using the material which are confidential and has ownership of the plaintiff.
With reference to sec 17(c) the court held that the work done by the defendants was under the contract of service and hence, there is a breach of confidentiality on the part of defendants.
