Extending the Horizons of Copyright Protection to Storytelling Platform: The Lens of Substantial Variation in Light of Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. V. People of India Pvt. Ltd.
Keywords:
Storytelling platform, idea-expression dichotomy, substantial variation, originality, copyright.Abstract
Copyright protection provides exclusive rights to the author of literary content on a storytelling platform to prevent others from replicating or copying their work without authorised access. The skill, labour, and investment of capital accord the creative touch to the copyrighted work and provide originality in the form of images, photographs, videos, literary content, and the manner of presentation and publication of the work. These are the protectable elements of the storytelling platform outside the public domain and possess exclusive rights for the author. The idea of a storytelling platform cannot be copyrighted, but the expression of such ideas with the help of protectable elements provides a unique character to the platform. This idea-expression dichotomy provides for originality and creativity which are protectable under the Copyright Act of 1957. There should not be any substantial imitation of the copyrightable elements in the storytelling platform. The fundamental similarities, which cannot be avoided, are legally permitted. However, there has to be substantial variation in the subsequent works of storytelling platforms to fulfil the criteria of originality and creativity. The Delhi High Court, in its recent judgement of Humans of Bombay v. POI Social Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., has dealt with the copyrightability of storytelling platforms and provided legal standing as to how the platforms would be governed under the copyright law, taking into consideration the interests, of the authors and those of the public to avoid replication of similar content on different storytelling platforms in line with the purpose of the Copyright Act of 1957.
References
Humans of Bombay v. POI Social Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2023 SCC Online Del 6390.
Mohammad Javad Bakhtiary, Maryam Behzadi. Digital storytelling: Unleashing the power of narrative in the digital age. 2023. pp. 1–33.
Melisaa Mendoza. (2015). The evolution of storytelling. Reporter Magazine. [Online] Available at: https://reporter.rit.edu/tech/evolution-storytelling.
Psu.edu. (2023). Library guides: Digital storytelling: Home. [Online] Available at: https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/digitalstorytelling.
Elizabeth Heck, Mimi Tsai. Sharing therapeutic experiences of place: Co-creative digital storytelling as a way to explore connection to place. Emotion, Space and Society. May 2022; 43: 100879.
Ibid.
Arunima. Humans of Bombay cannot claim copyright on images, photographs or videos; Delhi High Court refuses injunction against People of India. SCC Times. 2023. Available from: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/10/16/delhi-high-court-refuses-injunction-people-of-india-humans-of-bombay-cannot-claim-copyright-legal-news/
Ibid.
Singh Justice Prathiba M. Evolution of copyright law: The Indian journey. Indian Journal of Law and Technology. 2020; 16(2): 38.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 § 13, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 2012.
Srivastava Charu, Udapudi Shobhlata. Fanciful similarity or substantial similarity: A perspective on requirement of originality in the light of copyright infringement of a cinematograph film under Indian copyright law. Mukt Shabd Journal. 2020; 9(6): 586–598.
Feist Publications Inc. v Rural Telephone Service Corporation, 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
Steven L Young. Originality requirement in reproductions of public domain works. St. John’s Law Review. 1977; 51(2): 363–374.
Ibid.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 § 14, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 2012.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 § 17, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 2012.
Alok Kumar Yadav. Copyright in digital media. Journal of Intellectual Property Right. 2014; 12.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 § 2(o), No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 2012.
Ibid.
Supra at 16.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 § 2(c), No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 2012.
Ibid.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 § 2 (d) (iv), No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 2012.
Howard B Abrams. Originality and creativity in copyright law. Duke Law Repository. 1992; 55.
CCH Canadian Ltd v. Law Society of Upper Canada. (2004) 1 SCR 339.
Ateliers Tango Argentin Inc. v Festival d’Espange & d’ Amerique Latine Inc, 84 C. P. R. (3d) 56 (1997).
Cippic.ca. (2024). Copyright and privacy in photography | Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC). [Online] Available at: https://cippic.ca/en/FAQ/Photography_Law.
Supra at 10.
Humans of Bombay. (2023). About-Humans of Bombay. [Online] Available at: https://www.humansofbombay.in/about/.
ICSE MEMES on Instagram. Instagram. 2023. Available from: https://www.instagram.com/icse_ toughest_of_all_existing/p/CydQ1R-y6RU/
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 2012.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 § 14, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 2012.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 § 2 (c), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 2012.
Craig Carys. Transforming total concept and feel: Dialogic creativity and copyright’s substantial similarity doctrine.2021.
Id.
Craig Carys. Transforming total concept and feel: Dialogic creativity and copyright’s substantial similarity doctrine. Cardozo Arts & Ent. LJ. 2020; 38: 603.
Alan Latman. Probative Similarity as proof of copying: Toward dispelling some myths in copyright infringement. Columbia Law Review. Jun 1990; 90(5): 1187–1214.
Warner Bros. Inc. v American Broadcasting Companies, 720 F.2d 231, 245 2d Cir. (1983).
Mark A Lemley. Our bizarre system for proving copyright infringement. J. Copyright Soc’y USA. 2009; 57: 719.
Kevin J Hickey. Reframing similarity analysis in copyright. Wash. U. L. REV. 2016; 93(3): 681. Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol93/iss3/6.
Umich.edu. (2023). Research Guides: Substantial similarity: Glossary. [Online] Available at: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/substantial-similarity/glossary#:~:text=The%20%E2%80%9Ctotal%20concept%20and%20overall,coordination%20and%20arrangement%20of%20expressions.
Amstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 467 2d Cir. (1946).
Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1164 9th Cir. 1977.
Research Guides: Substantial Similarity: Glossary. Umich.edu. 2023. Available from: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/substantial-similarity/glossary#:~:text=The%20%E2%80%9Ctotal%20concept%20and%20overall,coordination%20and%20arrangement%20of%20expressions.
Ibid.
Khurana and Khurana. (2021). Scrutinizing substantial similarity in copyright law. Mondaq.com. [Online] Available at: https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1132284/scrutinizing-substantial-similarity-in-copyright-law.
Digital Law Online: Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison. Digital-law-online.info. 2024. Available from: https://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html
Moon Hee Lee. Seeing’s Insight: Toward a Visual Substantial Similarity Test for Copyright Infringement of Pictorial, Graphic, and Sculptural Works. Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. 2017. Available from: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol111/iss3/6/
Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 589 (1985).
Esheetaa Gupta. Idea expression dichotomy in copyright law. (Nov 2023), [Online] Available at https://www.lakshmisri.com/Media/Uploads/Documents/WHITE_PAPER_IP_article_idea_expression_dichotomy_esheeta-REVISED.pdf.
Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879). Justia Law. 2024. Available from: https://supreme.justia.com /cases/federal/us/101/99/
Idea Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law By Esheetaa Gupta. Available from: https://www.lakshmisri.com/Media/Uploads/Documents/WHITE_PAPER_IP_article_idea_expression_dichotomy_esheeta-REVISED.pdf
Chaitanya Joshi, SP Rathor. Critical analysis of idea expression dichotomy in the context of conceptual art. Journal of Critical Reviews. 2020; 7(4): 4181–4186.
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films & Ors (1978) 4 SCC 118.
Anuja Saraswat. Analysis of R.G. Anand V. M/S Deluxe Films and its relevance in recent times. MONDAQ (Nov 18, 2023). [Online] Available at: https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1149674/analysis-of-rg-anand-v-ms-deluxe-films-and-its-relevance-in-recent-times.
Article 2(2), Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1979.
Humans of Bombay v. POI Social Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2023 SCC Online Del 6390.
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films & Ors [(1978) 4 SCC 118.
Anuja Saraswat. Analysis Of R.G. Anand V. M/S Deluxe Films and Its Relevance In Recent Times. Mondaq.com. Khurana and Khurana; 2022. Available from: https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1149674/analysis
-of-rg-anand-v-ms-deluxe-films-and-its-relevance-in-recent-times
Supra 52n.
Vaibhavi Pandey. The relevance of Doctrine of Scène À Faire in copyright law. MONDAQ (Nov 18, 2023). [Online] Available from: https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/365210/the-relevance-of-doctrine-of-sc%C3%A8ne-%C3%A0-faire-in-copyright-law.
Ibid.
Humans of Bombay v. POI Social Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, 2023 SCC Online Del 6390.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 § 51, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 2012.
Eastern Book Company v. D.B Modak, 2008 (1) SCC 1.
Humans of Bombay v. POI Social Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2023 SCC Online Del 6390.
Mohammad Javad Bakhtiary, Maryam Behzadi. Digital Storytelling: Unleashing the Power of Narrative in the Digital Age. Research Gate. 2023.
Singh, Justice Prathiba M. Evolution of Copyright Law: The Indian Journey. IJLT. 2020; 16 (2).
Steven L. Young. Originality Requirement in Reproductions of Public Domain Works. ST. John's Law Review. 1977; 51.
Howard B. Abrams. Originality and Creativity in Copyright Law, DLR 1992; 55.
Mark A. Lemley. Our Bizarre System for Proving Copyright Infringement Journal of the Copyright Society 2010; 57: 719.
Kevin J. Hickey. Reframing Similarity Analysis in Copyright. Wash. U. L. REV. 2016; 93: 681.
Moon Hee Lee. Seeing’s Insight: Toward A Visual Substantial Similarity Test for Copyright Infringement of Pictorial, Graphic, And Sculptural Works, North Western University Law Review. 2017; 111(3).
Chaitanya Joshi, Prof. Dr S.P. Rathor. Critical Analysis of Idea Expression Dichotomy in The Context of Conceptual Art. journal of critical review. 2020; 7.
Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison. Legal Protection of Digital Information (Nov 10, 2023), https://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html.
Craig, Carys. Transforming Total Concept and Feel: Dialogic Creativity and Copyright’s Substantial Similarity Doctrine. 2021.
