Copyright in common religious artwork depends on skill and labour; substantial copying established infringement.
Copyright may subsist in an artistic picture even when it depicts a common religious subject, because protection depends on original skill and labour in execution rather than novelty of theme; the appellants' work was therefore protected. Infringement is made out where the respondent's work reproduces a substantial part of the protected work so that the original is suggested to the observer, and minor variations do not avoid liability; the respondents' picture was held to be an infringing copy and colourable imitation because its face, ornaments, peacock, background and overall impression substantially reproduced the appellants' work. The appeal succeeded, injunctive relief and damages were granted, and accounts were refused.
Issues: (i) Whether copyright could subsist in an artistic picture depicting a common religious subject; (ii) Whether the respondents' picture amounted to a copy or colourable imitation of the appellants' picture.
Issue (i): Whether copyright could subsist in an artistic picture depicting a common religious subject.
Analysis: Copyright in an artistic work does not depend on originality of thought or novelty of subject. What is protected is the exercise of original skill and labour in execution. A picture based on conventional ideas may still be the product of artistic labour if the artist has applied skill in its composition and treatment.
Conclusion: Copyright was held to subsist in the appellants' picture.
Issue (ii): Whether the respondents' picture amounted to a copy or colourable imitation of the appellants' picture.
Analysis: In determining infringement, the proper inquiry is whether the respondent's work reproduces a substantial part of the protected work so as to suggest the original to the mind of the observer. Minor differences do not avoid infringement if the overall effect shows substantial copying. On comparison, the face, ornaments, peacock, background elements and overall impression disclosed reproduction of the substantial features of the appellants' work, showing intelligent copying rather than independent creation.
Conclusion: The respondents' picture was held to be an infringing copy and colourable imitation of the appellants' picture.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the dismissal of the suit was set aside, and the appellants were granted injunctive relief and damages, while the claim for accounts was refused.
Ratio Decidendi: An artistic work may be protected by copyright even where the subject is common, provided it reflects original skill and labour, and infringement is established where the respondent's work reproduces a substantial part of the protected work so that the original is suggested to the eye of the observer.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
