Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008)

This case tells us when an edited version of a court judgment can get copyright. The Supreme Court said that simple labour or money is not enough, and asking for high creativity is also not right. The middle rule is the skill-and-judgment test: the editor’s choices must show real, non-trivial skill and legal judgment.

• Copying bare judgments is not restricted, but copying editorial features that reflect skill and judgment is restrained.
• Paragraphing, cross-references, and notes can be protected if they show independent, thoughtful input.
• The Court stopped the respondents from using EBC’s internal paragraphing and editorial views.

What is the correct standard of originality for edited Supreme Court judgments so that the edited version qualifies for copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957?

• Business & Publication: EBC and EBC Publishing produced Supreme Court Cases (SCC), printing reportable and non-reportable judgments, orders, and proceedings.
• Editorial Additions: They released copy-edited versions with formatting, numbering, cross-references, headnotes, and other user-friendly features.
• Alleged Copying: Respondents launched legal databases (“The Laws” and “Grand Jurix”) and were accused of copying SCC’s content onto CD-ROMs.
• Litigation Path: EBC sought an interim injunction in the High Court (denied), then appealed to the Supreme Court.
• Legal Standard: Originality requires more than effort alone; the work must show independent skill and judgment that is not trivial.

The Supreme Court restrained the respondents from copying EBC’s internally created paragraphing and editorial indications (like views on concurring or dissenting opinions). The Court held that the right test is skill and judgment—higher than sweat-of-the-brow, but lower than creativity. Editorial choices that reflect legal expertise and discretion can get protection.

Originality lies in expression, not ideas. For derivative works (like edited judgments), copyright protects the parts that show independent skill and judgment. Choices about how to break or combine paragraphs, add cross-references, and present opinions require legal understanding and are protectable if they are not trivial.

• Practical for Publishers: Encourages quality editorial work, not just data dumping.
• Balanced Access: Public judgments remain free; only value-adding edits gain protection.
• Student-Friendly Standard: A clear middle path—look for thoughtful choices, not mere effort.

Mnemonic: EBC = Edit Brings Copyright

1. Spot the Edit: Is there paragraphing/cross-referencing/opinion tagging?
2. Weigh the Skill: Do the edits show legal discernment, not just typing?
3. Grant Protection: If non-trivial skill and judgment exist, protect those parts.

Derivative Work

A new work based on an existing one, adding new expression.

Skill and Judgment

Non-trivial choices reflecting expertise and discretion.

Sweat-of-the-Brow

Protection based only on effort; rejected as too low.