SYNOPSIS ON

“CONCEPT OF ORIGINALITY IN COPYRIGHT LAW ALONGSIDE ANALYSIS OF

DOCTRINES: SWEAT OF THE BROW & MODICUM OF CREATIVITY”

Submitted By Supervised By

Himanshu Mishra Mrs. Paramita Chaudhary

1510103035 Assistant Professor

15GSOL103079 School of Law

BBA+LLB (A) Galgotias University

1|Page
“CONCEPT OF ORIGINALITY IN COPYRIGHT LAW
ALONGSIDE ANALYSIS OF DOCTRINES: SWEAT OF THE
BROW & MODICUM OF CREATIVITY”

I. INTRODUCTION
Originality is the basic yardstick used by the copyright regimes in the world to evaluate the
availability copyright protection to a particular work. The threshold of originality varies from
jurisdictions. Section 13(1) of the Indian Copyright Act 19571 states that copyright subsists in
“original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works.” However, the Act fails to give any
definition or test to determine originality of a work. This leaves the court with the duty to decide
the amount originality required for a work to claim copyright protection.

II. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The degree of creativity expected to make a work original is still a grey area. There is no clarity
as to when will the work be considered as original in the eyes of law. Especially in case of
derivative works, it is very unclear as to when a derivative work can be identified as a separate
work of art and claim legal protection of copyright.

Since there is no definite, single and unified concept of originality, there exist different doctrines
used in different jurisdictions of law, which are analyzed and compared in the following project.

III. OBJECTIVES

The basic reasons for this research are:-

I. To understand the concept of originality.

1
Sec 13(1), Indian Copyright Act, 1957- Works in which copyright subsists.- Subject to the provisions of this
section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of
works, that is to say –
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
(b) cinematograph films; and
(c) sound recordings;

2|Page
 II. To understand the concept, comparative analysis and scope of originality in context of
USA and UK.
III. To find out the present problems in this concept and to find out possible alternatives
along with analysis of Doctrines.
IV. To examine the legal framework of this concept.

IV. HYPOTHESIS
The copyright law does not mean to apply the word ‘originality’ in its literal sense. In case of
any art, or any fruit of human creativity, inevitably there must be some influence from the works
of the predecessors. Copyright law only requires existence of some creative efforts by the
creator. However, the degree of creativity expected to make a work original is still a grey area.
There is no clarity as to when will the work be considered as original in the eyes of law.
Especially in case of derivative works, it is very unclear as to when a derivative work can be
identified as a separate work of art and claim legal protection of copyright. There exist different
doctrines used in different jurisdictions of law, which will be analysed and compared in the
following project alongside judicial decisions in various countries.

V. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What is the concept of Originality?
2. Whether the “Doctrine of Sweat of the Brow” and “Modicum of Creativity” is according
to what the law wants to give?
3. Whether this concept of originality has some demerits that need to be solved?
4. Whether the concept of originality had any flaws?
5. Whether the concept of originality is in line with other countries or there are certain
changes to be brought about?
6. What can we learn by comparing it with other countries?

3|Page
VI. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Statutes

 The Copyright Act, 1957

Books

 Intellectual Property Rights in India 2nd Edition by Dr. V K Ahuja

 Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights 5th Edition by Dr. B.L. Wadehra

Articles

 Saksena, Hailshree, Doctrine of Sweat of the Brow: “Sweat Of The Brow” is one of the
well known doctrines in Copyright Law. The doctrine protects factual compilations. The
origin of this doctrine cannot be acknowledged, but through study this is clear that this
doctrine is the result of misinterpretation of earlier statutes. The rationale behind this
doctrine was to award the person who expended his sweat and effort in compiling the
facts. No one can misuse and take a gain out of it. The principle of Sweat of the brow
doctrine can also be stated in the form that one is not at liberty to avail himself of the
labour which the other has been at for the purposes of producing his work that is, in fact,
merely to take away the result of another mans labour or in other words, his intellectual
property.
 A European Invasion: The effect of Infopaq on the ‘labour, skill and judgement’ criterion
of originality within UK copyright law: This essay talks about the development and
continued relevance of the ‘labour, skill and judgment’ criteria of originality. After a
historical overview of originality, the approaches of other jurisdictions such as France
and Germany were assessed. This will highlight that although the differences between the
jurisdictions are not as pronounced as they first appear; the UK approach remains less
sophisticated. It then focuses on the European Union standard as developed
in Infopaq and applied by the UK Court of Appeal in Meltwater.

4|Page
VII. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The work will be in depth and will not be based on rational thinking. The approach is analytical
in nature. Books, articles, journals, news blogs, and other such primary data, and internet have
been searched and will be searched at large to find out the relevant data. The methodology will
not be biased in any possible manner and find out both sides i.e., positive and negative points of
the topic .No points will be included without reasonable proofs and evidences. The work will be
original and plagiarism will be avoided.

The entire work of this research is doctrinal in nature which includes both primary as well as
secondary sources. The data will be collected through reliable sources. It will be followed by
interpretation of data with examples and case studies.

VIII. SCHEME OF CHAPTERIZATION

Chapter I: Sweat of Brow Doctrine

Chapter II: Modicum of Creativity Doctrine

Chapter III: Position in English Law (UK)

Chapter IV: Position in United States of America

Chapter V: Position in India

Chapter VI: Conclusion

5|Page