IN THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT COURT AT NEW DELHI, DELHI

Civil Suit No. ____ / 2018

KASHMIR SINGH … PLAINTIFF

Versus

RAVINDER SINGH … DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

I
 TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS VII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES VIII

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE “FAIR USE” RULE APPLY TO THE NEW BOOK?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT ANY HISTORICAL FACT CAN BE COPYRIGHED?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER OR NOT THE DERIVATIVE TEST APPLIES TO THE NEW

BOOK?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS IX

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

CONTENTION 1: THAT THE “FAIR USE” RULE IS APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT

CASE …1

CONTENTION 2: THAT HISTORICAL FACT CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED …9

CONTENTION 3: THAT THE DERIVATIVE TEST DOES NOT APPLY IN THE

PRESENT CASE …13

PRAYER … 17

II
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad
Del Delhi
Sec Section
Vs Versus

III
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

1. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)
2. Gupte and Dighe, Criminal Manual, (7th Ed. 2007)
3. Harris, Criminal Law, (22nd Ed. 2000)
4. II, Mitra, B.B., Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (20th ed. 2006)
5. II, Nandi, Criminal Ready Referencer, ( 2nd Ed. 2007)
6. II, Princep’s Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (18th ed. 2005)
7. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)
8. Lal, Batuk, The Law of Evidence, (18th Ed. 2010)
9. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
10. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 22nd Ed. (2006)

CASES

Indian Cases

1. Feist Publications Inc. vs Rural Tel. Serv. Co

2. Garrold vs Heywood
3. Kartar Singh Giana vs Ladha Singh
4. Maltz vs Witterick
5. Mansoob Haider vs Yash Raj Films
6. Matthew vs Stockdale
7. R G Anand vs Deluxe Films

STATUTES

1. Copyright Act, 1957

WEBSITES

1. https://www.intepat.com/blog/copyright/idea-expression-dichotomy-copyright-law/
2. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/copyright/historical-book.htm

IV
3. https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/blogs/snipits/historical-facts-and-copyright-maltz-v-
witterick-case
4. https://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/ii_what_can_and_can%E2%80%9
9t_be_copyrighted
5. https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/699307/ratna-sagar-pvt-ltd-vs-trisea-publications
6. http://www.rkdewan.com/articledetails.php?artid=131
7. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html
8. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copyright

V
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Defendant submits to the jurisdiction invoked by the Plaintiff under Section 62 of the
Copyright Act, 1957.

According to Section 62 –

Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this Chapter –

(a) Every suit or other civil proceeding arising under this Chapter in respect of the
infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right
conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction.
(b) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a “district court having jurisdiction” shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908),
or any other law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other
proceeding, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or, where there are
more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on
business or personally works for gain.

VI
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. Ravinder Singh a professor in Delhi University by profession wrote a book

named “Dassam Guru”. The book revolved around the life and achievements of the
tenth Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh.
2. In 2010, the copyright for the same book was assigned to Mr. Kashmir Singh.
3. In 2017, Mr. Ravinder Singh published another book by the name “Dasham Prakash”.
This book also revolved around the life and achievements of Guru Gobind Singh.
4. In order to write this book, Mr. Ravinder Singh travelled to places where Guruji has
spent his life. He travelled to Patna, Amritsar and Gurudwara Anandpur Sahib.
5. He also referred to book by various eminent authors from India as well as abroad.
6. This new book mentioned certain incidents which had not been covered in the
previous book.
7. The new book had taken certain paragraphs from the previous work “Dassam Guru”.
8. Mr. Kashmir Singh then filed a suit before the Hon’ble District Court for infringement
of his copyrights.

VII
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT WHETHER OR NOT THE “FAIR USE” RULE

APPLY TO THE NEW BOOK

ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT ANY HISTORICAL FACT CAN BE COPYRIGHED

ISSUE 3: WHETHER OR NOT THE DERIVATIVE TEST APPLIES TO THE NEW

BOOK

VIII
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

CONTENTION 1: That the “Fair Use” rule applies to the present case.
Under the “Fair Use” rule defense, another author may make limited use of the original
author's work without asking permission. Certain uses of copyrighted material "for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." The fair use is
based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials
for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most
significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Therefore, in the present case where the Defendant used only historical facts from his
previous work makes this rule applicable in the present case.

CONTENTION 2: That any historical fact cannot be copyrighted

In regards to copyright on religious works, it is not always clear who the right holder is.
Under the provisions of the Berne Convention, copyright is granted to the author on creation
of the work. Several religions claim that all or some of their works were authored (written or
dictated) by their god or gods. The life of Guru Gobind Singhji is in itself facts that are open
to public They are not protectable under copyright law. The public has the right to discover
facts and exchange ideas freely.

In the present case the subject-matter of both the books namely “Dasam Guru” and
“Dashmesh Prakash” are similar in nature, however, both have very less similarities and the
latter is an elaborate and detailed version of the life of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Historical facts
are facts considered to be in the public domain.

CONTENTION 3: That the Derivate Test does not apply in the present case
The basic principle of the Derivative Test is –
“If any part of the work complained of is a transcript of another work or with colourable
additions and variations and prepared without and real independent literary labour such

IX
portion of the work is piratical. But it is impossible to establish a charge of piracy when it is
necessary to track mere passages and lines through hundreds of pages or when the authors of
a work challenged as piratical have honestly applied their labour to various source of
information.”

Therefore, since the Defendant has put in the right labour and changed the material borrowed
according to his thoughts, it is not an infringement in any manner.