Copyright in compilations protects creative selection, arrangement, and expression — not underlying facts or public records. The "modicum of creativity" standard applies.

The Legal Question Before the Court

Eastern Book Company (EBC) is the publisher of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC) series — India's most widely used law report. EBC's editors add significant value to the bare judicial text: they write headnotes summarising legal points, draft catchwords, add cross-references, and make copy-editing corrections. The defendant (Softpro) had created a database of Supreme Court judgments using EBC's edited version, copying certain additions made by EBC's editors. EBC claimed copyright infringement; Softpro argued that judicial decisions are public records and not subject to copyright.

The Court's Decision

The court held that the bare text of Supreme Court judgments — being public records and part of public domain — is not protected by copyright. It belongs to the public. However, the specific creative additions made by EBC's editors — the headnotes, catchwords, editorial notes, and cross-references — do attract copyright protection, provided they reflect an original creative expression and not merely mechanical selection or reproduction of the judgment's own language.

The standard of originality required is not high originality or artistic merit, but it is more than zero: there must be a "modicum of creativity." EBC's headnotes and editorial notes, reflecting the editors' intellectual judgment about the legal propositions a case stands for, satisfied this standard. Softpro's copying of these additions without attribution or license constituted infringement.

The Court's Reasoning

The court adopted the "modicum of creativity" standard from US copyright law — specifically the Feist Publications decision of the US Supreme Court — in preference to the English "sweat of the brow" doctrine, which had extended copyright to mere labour and effort without creativity. The court held that copyright in India, under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, requires an element of creative expression — a spark of originality in the selection, arrangement, or expression of ideas.

Mere compilation of facts or reproduction of public records without creative input does not qualify. A telephone directory, a list of cricket scores, or a bare reproduction of court judgments lacks the creative authorship that copyright is designed to protect. But a compilation in which the compiler makes meaningful creative choices — what to include, how to categorise, what propositions to attribute to each case — reflects protected creative expression.

Practical Implications — What This Means Today

Eastern Book Company is the foundational copyright decision for the digital knowledge economy in India. It defines what is and is not protected in databases, compilations, and legal publications. For technology companies creating databases from publicly available government records, judicial decisions, or statutory texts, the ruling is clear: the bare public record is not protectable, but creative curation of it is.

For content and publishing businesses, the "modicum of creativity" standard defines the minimum threshold of originality required. The standard is not demanding, but it is real: a person who simply copies another's database — even a database of public records — may be infringing copyright if the arrangement and selection reflect the original creative choices of the first compiler. Legal research platforms, case law aggregators, and statutory databases in India must be built with this framework in mind.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

  • Section 13, Copyright Act, 1957 — Works in which copyright subsists — literary, artistic, etc.
  • Section 2(o), Copyright Act, 1957 — Definition of "literary work" — includes compilations and tables
  • Section 51, Copyright Act, 1957 — When copyright is infringed
  • Section 52, Copyright Act, 1957 — Acts not constituting infringement — fair dealing

Analysis by Vinode V. Luka, Advocate | Published: May 2026 | Last reviewed: May 2026