By Prakhar Dubey, Intern Lex Maven
College- UPES Dehradun
In India, architectural work is covered under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 19571. It refers to any work which is of any artistic craftsmanship. While Section 13 mention in what work copyright subsists and copyright can be granted to different work including artistic work,2 while Section 22 of the Act, mentions copyright work protection being given to any author for lifetime plus 60 years.3Thus the architectural designs, including “building, structure or the design of such model”, will be protected in copyright law under the artistic work category. However, it becomes important to note that any protection awarded under copyright law protection, under artistic works, is provided only to original works and thus, the designs, in this case, must not be plagiarized.
The architectural design of the author is having moral rights bestowed under Section 57 of the Act.4 Henceforth, the architect has the right to claim authorship over the work and prevent the work from getting distorted. The author can claim for an injunction so that the infringement can be stopped from using his creative work but on the other hand, protection would not be possible for an architect when there is the application of Section 59 of the Act, i.e., in case the building or any architectural structure is already protected under the Specific Relief Act.5 The only option through which relief can be claimed is filing suit for damage or any criminal prosecutors against the infringers.
Besides, this is under Section 52 of the Act which mentions about the fair use doctrine may apply to architectural designs. Thus, whenever any photos of the protected building are taken directly or the background of any cinematograph film, the architect cannot approach the court for seeking infringement in such cases.6 However, the architect has the option to register their original creative work under the Copyright Registration System. While registration is not mandatory criteria in copyright law but it is better if the author can register their work to make their case robust as India is a signatory to the Berne Convention. The Universal Copyright Convention will be a guiding spirit in helping the person to protect his works under the Berne Signatory countries, in India.7
Thin protection- A safeguard mechanism under Designs Act, 2000
On one hand, we have the Copyright Act, 1957 on the other side we have the Designs Act, 2000 which provides a mechanism for registration of any Architectural work under clauses 25- 03 and 25-99. Thus, in case of conflict, it can come on whether architectural work will be protected under the Copyright Act, 1957, or under the Designs Act, 2000.
When there is such a situation of conflict and if the owner who has created the artistic work makes an application for the registration of the design of the work under the Designs Act, 1911 or under the statute of the Designs Act, 2000, then, in that case, the owner would not be protected under the copyright law to such design. Similarly, it is possible to register the created design under the Designs Act, but in the case where the registration is not done then that case, copyright of that design shall continue to cease in force till the time such article to which such design has been applied has further been reproduced more than fifty times by the original owner of the work which is copyrighted or through his licence.
The puzzle which needs to be solved is that while analyzing whether any design can be registered under the Copyright Act, 1957, whether any copyright which is claimed can arise under the definition of design under Section 2(5) of the Designs Act, 1911.8 Thus, the design needs to be of the quality which can be registered under the Copyright Act besides being new and original.
A paradox under the Design Act and Copyright Act
It becomes important to understand that the mischief rule would be applied in understanding the interpretation of the statute when there is a conflict between the two statutes or provisions of law. So, it becomes the responsibility of the court to interpret in such a way that can give clarity and faster solution when there is a matter of application procedure. The apex court in Microfibers Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. & Anr9, saw that there was a major dispute was whether fabrics’ ‘artistic work’ must be protected under the Copyright Act or the Designs Act. The apex court while applying the mischief rule of interpretation said this mischief needs to be prevented is not the mischief of copying but the larger monopoly which is claimed by the design proponent though there is commercial production and thus after looking all the matter carefully the apex court held that if any design has been registered under the Designs Act, then such kind of design will lose its copyright protection but in case of design is not registered under the design act so, in that case, the design enjoyment can be continued under the copyright protection as long its application does not cross the 50 times as more than the set limit the copyright protection would not be given.
In the case of Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels Private Limited10, wherein the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has dismissed the Plaintiff’s contention regarding the claim of copyright infringement on account of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The Court stated that in the present case the Defendant is producing the dress through the industrial process for the application used as drawing or sketch and has not taken any of the copyrighted work produced by the plaintiff as it fixed in the dresses and thus there is no copyright infringement.
In the case dealt by the Bombay High Court11, where the question was pertinent to the protection of work under the Copyright Act and the Designs Act, the court held that the nature of an article is different from the original artistic work. The court then stated that the original work will continue to enjoy the protection under the domain of the Copyright Act irrespective of any form in which the work has been reproduced but the moment the same work is applied to industrial design which is other than the artistic work presented in the form of the two dimensional or three-dimensional work it will fall within the category of the Design Act and the protection granted for the period would also be reduced. With that being said under the Section 15(2)12 of the Copyright Act, if the design has not been registered as per the Design Act, the copyright in such design will cease once the 51st article is reproduced but still the original artistic work will have copyright protection in the industrial application for production of an article.” In the case that came before the Delhi High Court, Holland L.P. & Anr. v. A.D. Electro Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd.,13 which had a similar question as that of the Microfibre case and here in the present case it was contented under Section 2(c)14 and Section 1315 of the Copyright Act, Plaintiff gets the right where can convert the two-dimensional work into a three-dimensional construction and it was stated that Copyright Protection will be given to drawing under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act16, thus Plaintiff will be granted copyright protection but the court went on to reject the Plaintiff’s contention and it was held that while drawing could be rejected from getting the protection under the Design Act, and the copyright will be lost as soon as the design is reproduced more than 50 times on any industrial process once it falls under the public domain.
Concluding remarks
In the case on which reliance was placed Value Group, Inc. v. Mendham Lake Estates, L.P17., where it was stated that in a dynamic society several intellectual property protections have recognized construction and design professional investments, and all of this is a result of the patience, time, energy, creativity, money, hard work, etc which is spent in creating the original architectural work and apart from giving allowance to the competitors so that they can make profit from another competitors creativity and hard work and thereby causing the original creator sententiously. However, in case of a country like India is yet to reach a stage that is sophisticated and articulate because the issue with the arrangement in Indian laws is that it needs to articulate the overall mechanism in such a way that is robust to understand the panoramic view so that all rules can be read in a manner which does not take away actual protection from the work. As of now when we gain the protection under the Copyright Law; but when the matter comes to seeking the remedy there is a conflict with the Designs Act; and thus, there comes a need to streamline the whole mechanism so that the whole issue can be dealt under one umbrella. To understand the idea behind we can take an illustration where we can see that the major use of spaces such as doors and windows, and other rudimentary additions to any building’s structure, will not be given any kind of protection in the copyright law but in the case of MRF Limited. V. Metro Tyres Limited 18the Delhi High Court has held a harmonious construction between the Copyright Act and the Design Act must be created to create a balance in solving the present issue. It would be perfect to suffice that we need to build an in-depth understanding of the field of architecture and the two corresponding laws (Design and Copyright Act) need an hour to avoid any confusion in extending the protection.
1 THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 (14 OF 1957), Sec. 2(c).
2 THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 (14 OF 1957), Sec. 13.
3 THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 (14 OF 1957), Sec, 22.
4 THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 (14 OF 1957), Sec., 57.
5 THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 (14 OF 1957), Sec., 57.
6 Ishan Sambhar, Concept OF Fair Use And Fair Dealing In Copyright, 13/05/2020, https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/930556/concept-of-fair-use-and-fair-dealing-in-copyright, Last Accessed on 16/04/2022.
7 Berne Notification No. 108, Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/berne/treaty_berne_108.html Accessed on 16/04/2022
8 THE DESIGNS ACT, 1911. Sec. 2(5).
9 Microfibers Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. & Anr 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1647.
10 Ritika Pvt Ltd v Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd. 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1979.
11 Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Ors vs Aarya 24K And 5 Ors, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 958
12 THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 (14 OF 1957), Sec. 15(2).13 Holland L.P. & Anr. v. A.D. Electro Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8068
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Value Group, Inc. v. Mendham Lake Estates, LP, 800 F. Supp. 1228 (D.N.J. 1992
18 MRF Limited. V. Metro Tyres Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine De
