Copyright protection is however given for a work which is having originality it should be however from the author and it also must have the minimum degree of creativity. So it is thus the author who is, however, the real creator of the work thereby the first owner of the copyright and also the  Indian law recognizes the author as the first owner of the copyright.But by the term ‘ownership’ it, however, means that it, however, includes not only the author ut also the assignee and it can however even a legal entity even though not it is defined in the Act. In Bern convention the term Author is however not defined, instead, it, however, says that the person under whose name the work is disclosed ,wh ich however  implies that it is thus  not necessary that always the author should however  be the owner. However the  Indian copyright Act defines the term ‘Author’ with respect to the  various works, but it however still leaves some of the  problems. It however  becomes more complex in the context of the  changing technologies, ie the cinematographic works, the sound recording ,bro adcasting etc which is thus  a combination of the  different works, and however  also when the  author does the work in the course of his employment. When the new technologies however  emerge, the different mode of communication which thus  simultaneously arise and the exploitation of the copyright  by the way of the  assignment & the licensing would however  add economic benefits to the copyright owner and the provisions of the  assignment and the  licensing however  becomes crucial. By the  amendments , the Indian Copyright Act has  however taken care of such kind of  provisions, but thus still leaving  lacunae & the role of judiciary becomes crucial in interpreting of such provisions for the  effective  protecting of the rights of these authors.

 Ownership of copyright 

The  owner of the copyright however means the  person who however  possess and also  enjoys the legal right. The definition is however  given to the author in the context of the  and the  copyright protection thus depends on the nature of the work  & s.2(d ) defines ‘author’. The creator of the work can however  also be joint authors, but a  dilemma however  lies in determining the criteria for such  joint authorship, S. 2(z) of the Copyright Act however defines the  work of joint authorship .Such an issue however came before the court in Najma Heptulla v.Orient longman Ltd in which there was a question before the Court as to whether a person who however  gives form to the narration would  become the joint author of the book India Wins freedom’. Eventhough the  work was however  composed by  Kabir the material for the book was thus  supplied by  Azad however  with a clear understanding that kabir would however  describe those thoughts & the  conversations and also write the same in English language and Kabir’s function  was only to record Azad’s findings and however not to let his views  colour the narrative . The preface however  itself showed  It that it was  Azad who had however decided as to which 30 pages of the book were not to be publish and also which of his views should however  be there  in his book and also  read every word of manuscript and also  made the alterations additions, omissions and also the correction.

In U.S. the condition  in order  to satisfy the joint authorship has to prove (a) in what part of expression of the work the owner has however significantly and substantially collaborated and that it is however originated from him. (b)contribution must however be the original expression to the work (c) contribution of the joint author to the work should also need not be equal but however has to be substantial or significant  (d) what constitutes  significant and substantial contribution which however  involves his contribution to the original expression, qualitatively and also  quantitatively, either equally or significantly or substantially pursuant to a common goal.

Another  kind of complexity which however lies when the work is a combination of the  different works eg  cinematographic works, sound recordings etc & however the lack of clarity in the definition of “producer” which however  adds to it . Such a question thus  came before the court in GeePee Films(p) ltd. Vs. Pratik Chowdhary .  The question which however was  before the court was  that  by taking the financial responsibility of the  sound recording whether one would fall under the definition of ‘producer’. Even though the plaintiff had  paid all the expenses of recording  and also  the  hire charges of the  studio and the  remuneration of  the musicians   it would however  not amount to taking the  responsibility of such  kind of recording and it  thus cannot be held to be a producer,  since the ‘responsibility’ which is  appearing in sec 2(uu) does nor really  refer to the financial responsibility but also the “consequential legal liability” for such kind of  recording.

Also in order to decide the ownership of the copyright when the author does the work at the instance of  any person for some valuable consideration, or in the case of the course of the  employment under any kind of contract of service , however faces some kind of  complexity and thus  what amounts to the  contact of service however  also depends on the  facts of each case & the judiciary has thus  laid down different tests in order  to determine it. An author may however  however create a work independently, or he may create a work under a contract of service or contract for service

The modern approach has however  been in order  to abandon the search for a single test, and however  instead take a multiple or ‘ pragmatic ‘ approach, weighing upon all the factors for and against a contract of employment and then determining as to   on which side the scales however eventually settle. Factors which are however  usually of importance are as follows – the power in order  to select and dismiss, the direct payment of some kind of  form of the  remuneration, deduction of the PAYE and the national insurance contributions, the organisation of the workplace, the supply of the  tools and the  materials (though there can however  still be a labour-only sub- contract) and also  the economic realities (in particular who bears the risk of loss and has the chance of profit and whether the employee could be said to be ‘in business on his own account’). Also , a  further development in the recent case-law which was  (particularly concerning atypical employments) has thus  been the idea of mutuality of obligations ‘ as a possible factor i.e. whether the course of the  dealings between the parties however  demonstrates the  sufficient such mutuality for there to be an overall employment relationship .

However for the purpose of protection , the Copyright of “works” of the foreign nationals, whose countries area  however  member of the Convention Countries to which India is a signatory, are however protected against any kind of  infringement of their “works” in India through the International Copyright Order, 1999. The Indian Courts however  have also been pro-active for the protection of the  Copyright of the  foreign authors/owners, which also  includes the software, motion pictures including the screen play of the  motion pictures and its database.

The Government of India is however  also taking an  initiative in order to combat piracy in the software industry, motion pictures and the music industry along with players in the industry through their associations and the  organizations such as  NASSCOM (National Association of Software and Service Companies), NIAPC (National Initiative Against Piracy and Counterfeiting) etc.

Copyright in any kind of work, either at present or in  future, can however  only be assigned or can be licensed in writing by the copyright owner or his duly authorized agent.