Sample Questions on New Pattern of CLAT PG

(Excerpted from the judgment of Vinay Vats Vs. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.)

On its face, the plot essentially revolves around a suitcase, carrying money, being lost, and various persons, including gangsters, chasing to get hold of it. The plot idea is as old as the hills, and, without meaning any disrespect to the ingenuity of the plaintiff as a scriptwriter, it can hardly be said, prima facie, that the script of the plaintiff’s screenplay – which has been placed on record but the details of which this Court, for obvious reasons, deems it appropriate not to reveal – can lay claim to any such novelty as could be said to have been filched by the defendant. In fact, a comparison of the salient features of upcoming ―Lootcase, as manifested from the aforesaid trailer, vis-a-vis plaintiff’s script, reveal that there are considerable features in the plaintiff’s script, which are missing in the trailer, and there are certain elements of the story as reflected in the trailer, which are not to be found in the script of the plaintiff. The mere fact that certain plot points, between the plaintiff’s script and the story of the upcoming film ―Lootcase as reflected in the trailer, released on YouTube, may be common, cannot be the basis to lay a claim to copyright, as the plaintiff has chosen to do. The plot points, on which the plaintiff relies, such as persons losing bags of money, claiming the same and such bags being sought by members of the underworld, are plot points, which may figure in more than one cinematographic film and cannot, therefore, be said to be the exclusive province of the plaintiff. That apart, no copyright exists, in a mere idea, plot or theme, as authoritatively held in R. G. Anand. It is clear, from a reading of very first principle, set out in the aforesaid paragraph, that there is no copyright in any idea, subject matter, theme or plot, and violation of copyright is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and the expression of the idea by the author of the copyright at work. In the present case, there is no earlier film, based on the script of the plaintiff, which could for the basis of a claim to copyright. The plaintiff, as Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul correctly points out, bases his cause of action on a script, which never came in the public domain, and public knowledge of which is being sought to be attributed on the basis of a trailer, for a film which never saw the light of day. The cause of action, on the basis whereof the plaintiff premises his case, therefore, essentially remained inchoate. The trailer was not made by the plaintiff and the makers of the trailer have not ventilated any claim for violation of copyright. It is prima facie questionable, in the circumstances, whether any claim of copyright can be laid by the present plaintiff at all, in such circumstances.

Questions

A. The judgement in the given passage has been pronounced by

a. Delhi High Court

b. Chennai High Court

c. Maharashtra High Court

d. Gujarat High Court

Ans. a

B. The locus classicus, regarding copyright claims in the context of cinematograph films, in this country, is generally regarded as

a. G.Anand v. Delux Films and Ors.

b. Fraser v. Thames Television Ltd

c. Urmi Juvekar Chiang v. Global Broadcast News Limited

d. Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Publishing Co

Ans. a

C. Copyright law applies to forms of expression contained in-

a. Song lyrics and musical compositions

b. Sculptures and paintings

c. Dramatic and literary works

d. All of the above

Ans. d

D. The duration of protection of copyright in relation to literary and dramatic works is?

a. 70 years

b. 10 years

c. Life of the creator

d. The life of the creator plus 70 years

Ans. d

E. Which of the following would NOT allow protection through copyright?

a. Ideas

b. Music and broadcasts

c. Typological arrangements of published editions

d. Dramatic productions

Ans. a

F. In relation to copyright, time-shifting refers to which of the following?

a. Altering the time of registering copyright of a product

b. Removing the time of the copyright protection

c. A protection for persons with disabilities to circumvent copyright laws relating to recordings

d. To enable individuals to record a broadcast and view/listen to it at a later time

Ans. d

G. Which one of the following actions is not a breach of copyright?

a. To import copied CDs.

b. To make a copy of a CD and sell it.

c. To borrow a CD from a friend and copy it to your laptop for your own private use.

d. To purchase a CD and copy it to your laptop for your own private use.

Ans. d

H. Which of following would not gain copyright protection?

a. A DVD

b. An unrecorded speech

c. Written lyrics of a song

d. A hand knitted jumper

Ans. b

I. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, will it amount to infringement of copyright?

a. Yes

b. No

c. Not sure

d. May be

Ans. b

J. The plaintiff in the mentioned case stated that the story of Lootcase is similar to which of the following movies?

a. Malamal weekly

b. Tukka fit

c. Money hai toh honey

d. Apna sapna money money

Ans. b