Analysis of the issue of Fair Dealing / fair use as not infringing the Copyright Act using the cases: (1) Delhi High Court - Judgment 21st Aug, 2012 India TV Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd & Ors v Yasraj Films Pvt Ltd. (2) Saregama India Ltd. v Viacom 18 Motion Pictures & Ors. (March 2013)

1. Analyse the issue of Fair Dealing / fair
use as not infringing the Copyright Act
Abhishek Varughese (84)| Anu Radhakrishnan (94) | Debapriyo Banerjee (104) |
KV Saurabh Kamalakaran (114) | Nikhil Saraf (124) | R Balaje (134) | Shradha Shivnani (144) | Swati Sachdeva (154)
(1) Delhi High Court - Judgment 21st Aug, 2012 India TV Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd &
Ors v Yasraj Films Pvt Ltd.
(2) Saregama India Ltd. v Viacom 18 Motion Pictures & Ors. (March 2013)
MEDIA LAW & ETHICS
Analysis of the issue of Fair Dealing / fair use as not infringing the
Copyright Act using the cases:

2. Two suits were initiated against India TV by Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., one for using a line from a popular Hindi song in an advertisement
broadcast by the entity and the other for airing a program where Vasundhara Das, a renowned playback singer, sang nine stanzas from
songs which had made her famous.
Appellant Respondent
India TV Independent News Parties Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd.
Ms. Pratibha M. Singh with Ms. Ujjwala Jeremiah and Ms.
Chandrika Gupta
Main Advocate Mr. Pravin Anand with Ms. Geetanjali Visvanathan
• Considering the 5 factors of de minimis, the damage
done is trivial.
• If a singer in a chat show were to sing, as long as the
singing duration is limited to a minute or so at a time, it
would be a case of de minimis use and hence the
appropriation of the lyrics & sound recording would not
constitute an actionable violation of the copyright in the
sound recording.
Arguments
• Use of a part of the song “Kajra Re” (copyright owned
by Yashraj Films) in an advertisement broadcasted by
India TV
• For a programme “India Beats” on India TV the singer
performed in full or in part, nine stanzas from songs that
whose sound recording rights were not hers (7 of them
were of Yashraj Films
India TV Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd & Ors v Yashraj Films Pvt Ltd.
21st August, 2012
BRIEF SUMMARY (Case 1)
The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court had restrained India TV and opined that a derivative copyrightable work such as a sound
recording cannot be appropriated. It is against the said order of the Single Judge that India TV had filed appeal in the Division
Bench of the High Court. It is however with reference to the legal maxim de minimis non curat lex (as a defense in copyright
violation) the present case was discussed by the Court. The court held that that the party had not infringed the copyright based on
the defence of de minimis.
Analyse the issue of Fair Dealing / fair
use as not infringing the Copyright Act

3. Plaintiff Defendant
Saregama India Ltd. Parties Viacom 18 Motion Pictures
Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, Senior Advocate and Mr. S. N.
Mookerjee, Senior Advocate
Main Advocate
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate and
Mr. Tilak Kumar Bose, leaned Senior Advocate
• Saregama India Ltd. owned the copyright for the
soundtrack as well as lyrics for the movie 'Aradhana' and
by extension of the song 'Mere Sapno Ki Rani‘
• Bollywood motion picture 'Special 26' had infringed the
copyright by using the song without permission in the
movie - Anupam Kher sings the first few words (out of
tune) of the song
in one of the sequence
Arguments
• There was no infringement in the music since the
words were not narrated in the particular melody of
the original
• Nobody has copyright over those words because those
words are used very commonly all over our country
• The use of less than 7 seconds was de minimis and not
worthy of a legal claim
A few words of a famous song [Mere Sapno ki Rani, Aradhana] whose copyright lay with Saregama India Ltd. had been used in
Special 26, A bollywood movie. Saregama proceeded against Viacom on the grounds that Viacom had infringed its copyright in
the lyrics and music of the classic song.
Saregama India Ltd. v Viacom 18 Motion Pictures & Ors.
1st March, 2013
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Saregama Limited Vs. Viacom Limited denied Saregama relief on the grounds that there was
no infringement in the music since the words were not narrated in the particular melody of the original song and that there
was no originality in just the words.
BRIEF SUMMARY (Case 2)
Analyse the issue of Fair Dealing / fair
use as not infringing the Copyright Act

4. Saregama India Ltd. v Viacom 18
Motion Pictures & Ors.
CASE ANALYSIS
As per our analysis the case was taken up from three other
past references:
•Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. Sudhir Bhatia
And Ors. On January 22, 2004
•R.G.Anand vs. M.S.Delux Films & Ors.
•Saregama vs. Eros International Media Ltd.
•A media content can be said to be a copy of another,
only if a substantial part of the former media content finds
place in the reproduction
•One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether
or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the
reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen
both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an
unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears
to be a copy of the original. [249 C-D]
Based on the above factors, Saregama India Ltd. was
justified in filing the case, however due to the trivial nature of
the matter, the court was correct in dismissing the case
India TV Independent News
Services Pvt. Ltd & Ors v Yashraj
Films Pvt. Ltd.
Issue of part of popular song being used in advertisement:
The court held that the party had not infringed the
copyright, finding that the purpose of the advertisement
was to create public awareness and harped on the de
minimis defence- only five words were used, which the
judges considered too trivial to warrant an actionable
claim. There was also no evidence of whether it was a paid
advertisement or whether the advertisement was made in
the context of social corporate responsibility. Also if the
purpose was commercial, the respondent would have
charged Rs10,000 and the court argued that such an
amount was trivial when compared to cost of adjudication.
Issue of a popular singer singing various songs that she
had performed as playback singer but didn’t have rights of
on a TV chat show:
The court held that the singing "consumed less than 10
minutes" of the total show time and the aim was to
highlight the achievements of her life as a singer, relying on
the de minimis defence.
Analyse the issue of Fair Dealing / fair
use as not infringing the Copyright Act

5. Saregama India Ltd. v Viacom 18
Motion Pictures & Ors.
CASE ANALYSIS
India TV Independent News
Services Pvt. Ltd & Ors v Yashraj
Films Pvt. Ltd.
Is there a development of the order?
NO, the case has not seen any development since
Is it a reinforcement of the previous order ?
In the judgement, I.P. Mukerji (Hon’ble judge) refers to
the de minimis clause on the grounds of which the
Division Bench of Delhi High Court passed the verdict
on the India TV Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd &
Ors v Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd.case.
It said that the copyright infringement is trifling or
minimal and that the Court should ignore it.
Is there a development of the order?
There has been no development of this order since.
Is it a reinforcement of the previous order ?
Yes, the case is a reinforcement of a previous order where
the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court had ruled in
favour of Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. and restrained India TV
saying that a derivative copyrightable work such as a
sound recording cannot be appropriated .
This judgement was later challenged by India TV which
led to the present case.
What differentiates the orders from each other?
The major difference between the two cases was that The Calcutta High Court did not apply the principles laid down by the
Delhi High Court to conclusively decide if the use of few words of a song could deploy the de minimis defence for the
Saregama India Ltd. v Viacom 18 Motion Pictures & Ors. Case while, The Delhi High Court gave the decision after considering
the 5 factors of the de minimis clause.
Analyse the issue of Fair Dealing / fair
use as not infringing the Copyright Act

6. TEAM ANALYSIS
Fair Use / Fair Dealing
• Indian Context According to Section 52 of the Copyright
Act 1957, certain acts are not to be infringement of
Copyright
• Fair Use is not defined in the Copyright Act, 1957. Further
Section 52 (1) deals with, fair dealing as a defense
applies only to literary, dramatic musical or artistic work. It
should be noted that fair dealing applies only with
respect to work and not to reproduction of the work
The Copyright Act, 1957:
• Copyright is a form of intellectual property that gives the
author of an original work exclusive right for a certain
time period in relation to that work
• A copyrighted work my be used under certain conditions:
• Public Domain
• Permission
• Legal Exception
• Fair Use
Arguments FOR de minimis
The fair use concept is a bad theoretical fit for trivial violations
Fair Dealing and Fair Use in the context of Section 52, The
Copyright Act, 1957
A de minimis analysis is much easier
A de minimis determination is the least time consuming and it is in
the interest of the parties and the courts to use it. Again this is a
valid point since litigations involving fair use have dragged on for
ages in the past.
De minimis Definition
De minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal
things, normally in the locutions de minimis non
curat praetor ("The praetor does not concern himself
with trifles") or de minimis non curat lex ("The law does not
concern itself with trifles)
Analyse the issue of Fair Dealing / fair
use as not infringing the Copyright Act

7. TEAM ANALYSIS
Fair Dealing and Fair Use in the context of Section 52, The
Copyright Act, 1957
The development in technological infrastructure and the multifunctional character of the information and
communication technology eases copyright violation which may lead to rise in trivial disputes. Clarification
regarding the aims and mechanism of the maxim have therefore assumed significance. The courts and
copyright office have to carefully analyse the loopholes existing in the law prevailing in relation to de minimis
and copyright law in India so that minimum standards are set on the grounds of which the size of legal violation
and subsequently the size of harm caused due to the same can be measured.
What quantity of copying is below the threshold of actionable copying?
Under what circumstances the maxim should be applied?
What can be considered as trifling, unimportant and insufficient?
Questions raised against de minimis
CONCLUSION
Analyse the issue of Fair Dealing / fair
use as not infringing the Copyright Act