Landmark Copyright Infringement Cases

Copyright law exists to protect the original intellectual and creative efforts of individuals, granting them exclusive rights over their works. These rights cover a wide range of activities, including reproduction, adaptation, distribution, and public communication of their creations. 

However, when these rights are violated without the author’s consent, it results in copyright infringement. Over the years, numerous landmark cases, both in India and internationally, have shaped the understanding of what constitutes infringement and how the law balances protecting creators’ rights with allowing creative freedom and public interest.

Understanding Copyright Infringement

Before analysing specific cases, it is important to understand what infringement means under copyright law. Generally, copyright infringement occurs when any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner are used without permission. These rights include:

• The right to reproduce the work in any form.
• The right to create adaptations or derivative works.
• The right to distribute copies.
• The right to perform or display the work publicly.

To establish infringement, courts often apply several tests, such as proof of copying, substantial similarity between the works, and the perspective of an ordinary observer (lay observer’s test). Additionally, courts distinguish between ideas, which are free for all to use, and their expression, which is protected. This idea–expression dichotomy remains a cornerstone of copyright law worldwide.

International Landmark Copyright Infringement Cases

Marvin Gaye Estate v. Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams (“Blurred Lines”)

In 2013, the heirs of the late Marvin Gaye filed a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, alleging that their hit song “Blurred Lines” unlawfully copied elements from Gaye’s 1977 classic “Got to Give It Up.” The case gained widespread attention due to its focus on the “feel” or “groove” of the music rather than exact melodies or lyrics.

The court ruled in favour of Marvin Gaye’s estate, holding that Thicke and Williams had infringed copyright by copying the distinctive rhythm and feel of the original song. The judgement awarded the Gaye estate over $7 million in damages.

This case expanded the scope of copyright protection in music by recognising that rhythm, arrangement, and “vibe” can be protectable, not just melody and lyrics. However, it also sparked debate over the difficulty in policing musical style versus specific musical expression.

Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music (“My Sweet Lord”)

In this earlier case from the 1970s, George Harrison’s song “My Sweet Lord” was alleged to have copied the melody of “He’s So Fine” by The Chiffons. Harrison defended himself by claiming subconscious copying, insisting he did not intentionally plagiarise.

The court rejected this defence and held that even subconscious copying constitutes infringement. Harrison was found liable and ordered to pay damages.

This landmark case introduced the doctrine of subconscious copying, reinforcing that copyright infringement does not require deliberate intent; unintentional copying is equally actionable.

Gray v. Perry (“Dark Horse”)

In 2014, Marcus Gray (Flame), a Christian rapper, sued pop singer Katy Perry and producer Dr. Luke for allegedly infringing copyright in a five-note ostinato from his song “Joyful Noise” in Perry’s “Dark Horse.” Initially, a jury awarded substantial damages to Gray.

However, upon appeal, the court narrowed the scope of protectable musical elements and questioned whether such short musical phrases are entitled to copyright protection.

This case highlights the complex balance between protecting original musical expressions and avoiding monopolisation of short, common motifs or phrases.

Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (“Prince Series”)

Photographer Lynn Goldsmith sued the Andy Warhol Foundation for creating silkscreen artworks based on her 1981 photograph of the singer Prince without her permission. Warhol’s works, while artistically altered, retained much of the original image.

In 2021, the US Supreme Court ruled that Warhol’s works were not sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use. The court emphasised that mere aesthetic changes do not automatically justify unlicensed use.

This ruling tightened the standard for fair use in appropriation art, making clear that adding new expression or meaning is essential for a transformative defence.

Slater v. Wikimedia (The “Monkey Selfie”)

In a curious case, photographer David Slater claimed copyright over a selfie taken by a crested macaque using his unattended camera. Wikimedia Commons published the photograph, and Slater sued for infringement on behalf of the monkey.

The US courts held that non-human entities cannot own copyright, and thus the photograph belonged to the public domain.

This case reaffirmed the principle that copyright protection requires human authorship.

Landmark Indian Copyright Infringement Cases

R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978)

One of the foundational cases in Indian copyright law, this case involved playwright R.G. Anand alleging that the Bollywood film New Delhi infringed upon his play Hum Hindustani. The defendant argued that the film only shared a general theme of “provincialism,” which cannot be protected.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the defendant in R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, holding that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. The court introduced the “idea–expression dichotomy” and stated that only when an average viewer perceives substantial copying of expression can infringement be established.

This case remains a cornerstone for determining infringement in India, providing guidance on differentiating ideas from their expression.

Ratna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. v. Trisea Publications (1996)

In Ratna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. v. Trisea Publications case, Ratna Sagar alleged that the defendants copied their children’s science books titled Living Science in their competing series Unique: Science. Both parties derived content from common scientific facts, but the question was whether the defendants copied the unique presentation.

The Delhi High Court held that while facts are free for all, the original selection, arrangement, and presentation of facts are protected. It found substantial similarity in expression and granted an injunction.

This case reinforced the protection of literary expression even when dealing with factual information.

Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Vipul Amrutlal Shah (2009)

Producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah was accused of copying scenes and plot elements from the Hindi film Namastey London in the Bengali film Poran Jaye Joliya Rae. The Calcutta High Court granted an injunction, holding that copyright infringement extended beyond mechanical reproduction to copying of substantial parts of plot, sequence, and characterisation.

The court emphasised a broad interpretation of “copy” under the Copyright Act, including adaptations or substantially similar works.

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Entertainment Network India Ltd. (2008)

Super Cassettes, the owner of T-Series, sued the radio broadcaster ENIL for airing their songs without a licence. The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Super Cassettes, holding that public broadcasting of songs requires prior authorisation from the copyright owner.

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Entertainment Network India Ltd. case underscored the exclusivity of broadcasting rights and the necessity of obtaining licences, affirming the importance of contractual compliance in the music industry.

Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005)

The sculptor Amarnath Sehgal’s mural was removed from Vigyan Bhawan without his permission. The Delhi High Court recognised his moral rights under Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, ordering restoration of the mural and damages for violation of his right to integrity.

This was a milestone in Indian jurisprudence, highlighting the protection of artists’ personal rights in their work beyond economic interests.

Tests Applied in Copyright Infringement

Indian courts, in line with global principles, generally rely on the following tests to establish infringement:

• Proof of Copying: Evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the defendant copied the plaintiff’s work.
• Substantial Similarity: Evaluating both the quantity and quality of the copied portion. It focuses not just on how much is copied, but how important the copied part is to the work.
• Lay Observer’s Test: Whether an ordinary person, without expert knowledge, would find the two works substantially similar.
• Idea–Expression Dichotomy: Only the unique expression of an idea is protected, not the idea itself.
• Fair Use / Fair Dealing Exceptions: Certain uses for criticism, research, or private study are permitted without infringement.

Remedies for Copyright Infringement

Indian copyright law provides for a mix of civil, criminal and administrative remedies:

• Civil Remedies: Courts can grant injunctions to stop further infringement, award monetary damages, order an account of profits, and impose costs on the infringer.
• Criminal Penalties: Section 63 prescribes imprisonment ranging from six months to three years and fines up to ₹2 lakhs for intentional infringement.
• Administrative Actions: The Registrar of Copyrights can prohibit importation of infringing copies, safeguarding against grey market goods.

Challenges in the Digital Age

The digital revolution has posed new challenges for copyright enforcement:

• Internet Piracy: Easy copying and distribution online have increased infringement cases exponentially.
• Technological Protection Measures: Laws now protect digital locks and penalise circumvention.
• User-Generated Content: Platforms must balance takedown obligations with user rights.
• Artificial Intelligence: The question of whether AI-generated works qualify for copyright is still evolving.

Amendments to Indian copyright law in 2012 aligned the statute with international treaties, such as those by WIPO, to address these issues.

Conclusion

Landmark copyright infringement cases, whether involving George Harrison’s subconscious copying or Indian films’ storyline similarities, have continually shaped the contours of copyright law. They reaffirm fundamental principles like protecting expression over ideas, recognising moral rights, and adapting legal tests to new mediums.