Area: Copyright Law / Intellectual Property Law
Jurisdiction: India (If unavailable, consider US or EU law for substantiation)
Issue: Whether the news aggregator app, by reproducing and publishing proprietary news
articles of other news agencies without authorization or subscription, had infringed PTI’s
copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Statute: Section 14 (a) (i) and Section 51 and 52 (m) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Section 14 (a) (i)
14. Meaning of Copyright.— For the purposes of this Act, “copyright” means the exclusive right
subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in
respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely:—
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer programme,—
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by
electronic means;
(ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;
(iii) to perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public;
(iv) to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work; (v) to make any
translation of the work;
(vi) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in
relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (vi);
Section 51.
When copyright infringed.— Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed— (a) when
any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of
Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any
condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act—
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the
copyright, or 1
(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where
such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not
aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would
be an infringement of copyright; or
(b) when any person—
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or
hire, or (ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect
prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports into India, any infringing copies of the work:
[Provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work for
the private and domestic use of the importer.]
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic,
musical or artistic work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an
“infringing copy”
Section 52 – Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright.— (1) The following acts shall not
constitute an infringement of copyright, namely,—
(m) the reproduction in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical of an article on current
economic, political, social or religious topics, unless the author of such article has expressly
reserved to himself the right of such reproduction;
Precedent: The Press Trust Of India Limited vs Navbharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd.) and anr.
2012 SCC OnLine Del 1685
“The news articles as published in the newspaper of the defendants are verbatim copies and/or
colourable imitation of works/news articles, copyrights in which vests with the plaintiff. A
comparison of plaintiff's works and the subsequently published news articles by the defendants
in their newspapers “Central Chronicle” and “Navbharat” clearly bring out that the
defendants' publications are verbatim copy and/or colourable imitation of the works, copyrights
in which vests with the plaintiff, thus infringing plaintiff's exclusive copyrights in the said
works.”
I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and have also gone through the affidavit in ex
parte evidence of the plaintiff, as well as the documents placed on the record. In evidence, the
plaintiff has proved the averments made in the plaint and has also exhibited the relevant
documents in support of its case. As no cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses was carried
out, therefore, the evidence filed by the plaintiff has gone unrebutted. Therefore, the averments
made by the plaintiff in the plaint are taken as correct deposition.
Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the plaintiff is
entitled to a decree for a permanent injunction.
Conclusion:
Copyright law protects the expression of news reports and articles, and this protection does not
diminish merely because time has elapsed. Reproducing such articles, even after two days,
without the author’s authorization amounts to infringement of the exclusive rights granted under
the Copyright Act, 1957. The Delhi High Court in Press Trust of India Ltd. v. Navbharat Press
confirmed this by holding that unauthorized reproduction of PTI’s reports constituted
infringement and warranted both injunction and punitive damages. Thus, both legal principle and
judicial precedent make clear that delayed reproduction of news articles without consent is
unlawful. However, if the author has not reserved the rights of the reproduction, then in such
cases such acts of reproduction are not considered infringement of copyright.
