Case Study: Najma Heptulla v. M/s. Orient Longman Ltd.

By Harish Khan 12 Minutes Read

“Authorship in copyright law is determined by intellectual contribution to the creation of the literary work. Both the person who provides the original ideas and the one who expresses those ideas in a tangible form can be considered joint authors if they collaborate with a pre-conceived joint design to create the work. Additionally, the conduct of the parties and the terms of their agreement play a critical role in determining authorship and rights to the work.”

Citation: AIR 1989 Del 63

Date of Judgment: 19^th August, 1988

Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: B.N. Kirpal (J)

Facts

• Prof. Kabir and Orient Longman Ltd. entered into an agreement for the publication of the book “India Wins Freedom”. Maulana Azad agreed to narrate his life story, which Prof. Kabir transcribed and composed into a book.
• The manuscript was completed and approved in 1957. However, Maulana Azad agreed to a restriction that 30 pages of the book should not be published for 30 years after his death.
• After 30 years, the publishers sought to release the previously withheld pages. Najma Heptulla, as Maulana Azad’s legal representative, opposed this, claiming that Maulana Azad was the true author of the book and hence filed a suit against the defendant.
• The plaintiff argued that Maulana Azad was the true author of the book because he provided the content and the ideas for the same. Prof. Kabir’s role was merely to transcribe and compose, thus he should not be considered the author.
• However, the defendant contended that Prof. Kabir, while transcribing and composing, was a co-author due to his substantial intellectual contribution. They relied on the Donoghue v. Allied Newspapers Ltd.[1] case, which suggested that the person who physically writes the text is the author.

Decision of the Delhi High Court

• The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of the defendant, Orient Longman Ltd. The court held that both Maulana Azad and Prof. Kabir should be regarded as joint authors of the book. The judgment emphasized that intellectual contribution from both parties was crucial to the creation of the work. The court recognized that both the intellectual contribution (ideas and content) and the physical transcription (writing) were integral to the creation of the book. The court also noted that the preface of the book acknowledged the collaboration between Azad and Kabir, and the agreement between the parties stipulated royalty sharing, reinforcing the joint authorship.
• The court upheld the agreement and restriction. It determined that since Najma Heptulla’s predecessors (Maulana Azad’s legal representatives) had accepted royalties from the book for 30 years, they had effectively consented to the terms of the agreement.
• Although Prof. Kabir lacked the authority to independently execute the agreement with Orient Longman, the principles of equitable estoppel applied. Petitioner’s acceptance of royalties implied acquiescence to the agreement.
• The court concluded that Najma Heptulla, as the legal representative of Maulana Azad, could not challenge the validity of the agreement after 30 years, given the acceptance of royalties by Maulana Azad’s legal representatives for that period. The restriction on the 30 pages was valid for 30 years, after which the publishers were permitted to release those pages.
• Since Maulana Azad intended to publish the complete book eventually and considering the plaintiff had already received royalties, the court found that the balance of convenience was against granting the injunction. The interim injunction was vacated, but Orient Longman was required to provide security of Rs. 100,000 before publishing the complete book.

Key legal issues discussed

1. Who is considered the author of a literary work if the work is a product of collaboration between two parties, with one providing the material or ideas and the other transcribing it?

Both parties can be considered joint authors if their contributions are integral and collaborative.

The material provided and the expression of that material both contribute to authorship. The Court considered the definition of an author provided in Section 2(d) and 55(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was observed that although Maulana Azad was the owner of the book, he was not its sole owner, since Professor Kabir had contributed greatly to the work. It was decided that Maulana Azad and Professor Kabir were joint authors of the book.

The Court in Para 27 held that“A literary work consists of matter or material or subject which is expressed in a language and is written down. Both the subject matter and the language are important. It is difficult to comprehend, or to accept, that when two people agree to produce a work where one provides the material, on his own, and the other expresses the same in a language which is presentable to the public then the entire credit for such an undertaking or literary work should go to the person who has transcribed the thoughts of another. To me it appears that if there is intellectual contribution by two or more persons pursuant to a reconverted joint design, to the composition of a literary work then those persons have to be regarded as joint authors.”

2. Can an agreement that restricts publication for a specific period be challenged after the agreed period if the parties have accepted the terms?

Yes

Generally, the agreement is enforceable if the terms were accepted and acted upon by the parties. The legal representative cannot challenge the agreement’s validity after the stipulated period if they have accepted benefits under that agreement. According to Section 18 of the Act, the owner has the right to assign their copyright to another person, and Section 19 of the Act outlines the method of assignment, which could be in written form. When there are joint authors and one of the authors is deceased, the consent of the legal representatives of the deceased author is necessary. In this case, evidence shows that petitioner ratified the agreement and the publication of the books at the time of the agreement.

3. Is the reasoning in Donoghue v. Allied Newspapers Ltd. applicable in determining joint authorship in the context of intellectual collaboration?

No

The reasoning in Donoghue v. Allied Newspapers Ltd., which focused on the physical act of writing, was not applicable here. The court held that intellectual contribution is more significant than merely writing down the ideas, and both contributors are considered authors if they collaborated on the work.

In Para 22, the Court referenced the case, noting that “apart altogether from what one may call merely the embellishments, which were undoubtedly supplied wholly by Mr. Felstead, the ideas of all these stories, and, in fact, the stories themselves, were supplied by the plaintiff; but, in my judgment, upon the evidence, it is plain that the particular form of language by which those stories were conveyed was the language of Mr. Felstead and not that of the plaintiff. Although many of the stories were told in the form of dialogue, and to some extent Mr. Felstead no doubt tried to reproduce the story as it was told to him by the plaintiff, nevertheless the particular form of language in which those adventures of stories were conveyed to the public was the language of Mr. Felstead, and not the language of Mr. Donoghue.”

This case underscores the importance of recognizing both intellectual and physical contributions in determining authorship and the enforceability of contractual terms agreed upon by the parties involved.

4. Does equitable estoppel apply in this case?

Yes

Equitable estoppel applies because petitioner’s acceptance of royalties from Orient Longman indicated ratification of the publishing agreement, despite the lack of express ratification.

In Para 36, the Court noted that “It is her conduct of accepting the royalty, payable by Orient Longman under the agreement dated 2nd September, 1957, which must have led Orient Longman to, rightly, believe that the said agreement had the consent of the legal representatives of Maulana Azad. Having enjoyed the fruits of the said agreement for all these years, the legal representatives of Maulana Azad are estopped from challenging the validity of the said agreement.”

[1] (1937) 3 All. E.R. 503.

Harish Khan

This is Harish Khan, Enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi. Currently, working as Legal Manager at Blackbull Law House. Pursued B.B.A. LL.B (Hons) Specialised in Business Laws from Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla [H.P]. completed LL.M Specialised in Business Laws from Amity University, Lucknow [U.P].