By Parinay Gupta
Amity Law School, Delhi (Affiliated to GGSIPU)
Introduction
India has benefited greatly from electronic commerce. It has changed the way offices and workplaces function, with an increase in bytes and memory of databases and a decrease in the usage of paper bundles. A database commonly means a collection of data methodically fixed and arranged, either being recorded on paper or on any type of electronic media, such as being stored on a computer.
Even though databases, such as telephone directories, have to be collected out of a growing requirement in the natural course of corporate activity, the creators of countless electronic databases have to take on the dangers and responsibilities of accumulating a lot of raw data and then having to sort it out using a competent search engine capable of enabling easier access to information. Investing in such databases is a common practice upon which entire businesses are being built and earning profits through advertising, royalties, or subscriber fees.
Databases and a Need for Grant of Protection
These days, pirates attempting to steal databases can utilize a wide range of electronic tools to reproduce or copy any database and circulate it around the world and such users do this at a mere portion of the huge expenses needed to make such products. Such dangers can only grow as humanity becomes more reliant on digitized information and computers, and as more resourceful methods to reproduce and dispense data products are provided by advancing technologies.
Sui Generis International Treaty and the Indian Stance
During the WIPO Standing Committee’s Third Session, the need for additional protection was rejected by several countries. India also shared the same viewpoint. The delegation of India had contended that fears were surrounding probable consequences of database rights on the advancements in research, science, education, and technology and that existing domestic laws relating to copyright protection were adequate and working well.
Copyright Act, 1957 and Database Protection
In 1994, the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 was revised to provide more efficient protection to copyright owners by recognizing the distinct class of computer programs as a form of literary works and allowed for the protection of such computer-generated works. Works such as computer databases and other tables and compilations as well as computer programs were incorporated via amendments, into the definition of “literary work‟. As per Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, the meaning of “literary work” includes a “computer database”.
Manufacturers of the database are counting on Indian copyright laws as databases are viewed as compilations under literary works. Since India has ratified the TRIPS Agreement and the Berne Convention, the necessity of creativity in the arrangement or selection of the subjects of the database is mandatory to attract the protection under copyright.
Moreover, the Copyright Act also states that copyright will exist even in innovative works of authorship. However, there has been no clear-cut stance taken by the courts in India on the perception of creativity and there is no definition in the Indian Copyright Act. Usually, every situation is viewed based on the case’s own unique facts and circumstances.
The Indian courts have upheld the doctrine of “sweat of the brow” commonly considered as the test of skill, labor, and judgment when determining infringement of copyright for databases.
In multiple cases, such as Govindan v. Gopalakrishna, McMillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb, and others, the courts have stated that a compilation created by devoting capital, time, skill, and energy, even if being taken from a common source, is a literary work and is thus subject to copyright protection. The courts supported their decisions by stating that even a minor level of creativity in a compilation was protected and that no individual had the right to seize the rewards of another’s hard work for their own.
The Delhi High Court, in a more recent judgment, stated that when it comes to compilations, another individual can create a similar compilation, but does not have the right to appropriate the rewards of the previous compiler’s efforts and violate their copyright. The Court held that copyright rights must be provided to an inventive and unique method of collecting facts and not pay attention to the inventive methods utilized to realize such facts. Referring to the US Supreme Court’s Feist decision, the Court held that there needs to be a “modicum of creativity” in the coordination, selection, or arrangement of the matters involved in the database to allow for the protection of copyright.In conclusion, it must be noted that India needs to pass a law that lays down the protections enjoyed by databases given the speed at which a technological revolution seeks to establish a global environment. In the absence of additional protection for non-creative databases, only clearly defined copyright and database rights will cultivate a legal environment vital to the development of electronic commerce.