Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak

Originality in copyright lies in creative input, not mere labour or effort.

Summary

This landmark judgment redefined the standard of originality under Indian copyright law. The Supreme Court examined whether law report headnotes, paragraph numbering, and editorial inputs added to court judgments could qualify for copyright protection. In doing so, the Court rejected the traditional “sweat of the brow” doctrine and adopted a more creativity-based test aligned with international standards.

Facts of the Case

Eastern Book Company (EBC), a well-known legal publisher, claimed copyright over its law reports containing Supreme Court judgments. EBC argued that its editorial enhancements—such as headnotes, internal paragraph numbering, cross-references, and formatting—were original works. D.B. Modak and others were accused of copying these elements while reproducing judgments electronically. The defendants contended that court judgments are public documents and that minimal editorial work cannot create copyright.

Findings / Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that judgments of courts are not copyrightable, as they are public records. However, it recognized that editorial contributions may attract copyright protection if they reflect a minimal degree of creativity. The Court expressly rejected the “sweat of the brow” approach, stating that mere labour, skill, or investment is insufficient. Instead, there must be some intellectual creation beyond routine or mechanical work. Headnotes and editorial notes may qualify if they involve original expression, but simple formatting and paragraph numbering generally would not.

Suggestions / Observations

The judgment brought Indian copyright law closer to global norms by balancing public access to legal information with protection for genuine creative effort. Publishers were encouraged to rely on originality rather than volume of labour. The decision also ensured that access to judicial decisions remains free while protecting value-added editorial work where creativity is present.

Judgment & Date

The Supreme Court held that only editorial work showing minimal creativity is copyrightable, while judgments themselves remain in the public domain.

Judgment Date : 7 February 2008