law: Copyright Act, 1957 
  51. When copyright infringed- 
  Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be
  
  infringed- 
  a. when any person, without a license
  
  granted by the owner of the Copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this
  
  Act or in contravention of the conditions of a license so granted or of any
  
  conditions imposed by a competent authority under this Act- 
  i. does anything,
  
  the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the
  
  copyright, or
  ii. [(Note:
  
  Subs. by Act 38 of 1994, S.16(1) (w.e.f. a date to be notified)) permits
  
  for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public
  
  where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the
  
  work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that
  
  such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright, or]
  a. when
  
  any person- 
  i. make for sale on
  
  hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale
  
  or hire, or
  ii. distributes either
  
  for the purposes of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the
  
  owner of the copyright, or
  iii. by
  
  way of trade exhibits in public, or
  iv. imports (Omitted
  
  by Act 65 of 1984, S.3 (w.e.f. 8-10-1984)) into India, any infringing
  
  copies of the work:
  [(Note: Subs. by Act 38 of 1994, S.16(2)
  
  (w.e.f. a date to be notified)) Provided that nothing in such clause (iv)
  
  shall apply to the import of one copy of any work for the private and domestic
  
  use of the importer.]
  Explanation – For the purposes of
  
  this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic
  
  work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an
  
  "infringing copy".
  Comment  : Thus, on a careful consideration and
  
  elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject
  
  discussed above, the following propositions emerge :
  1. There can be no
  
  copyright in an idea, subject-matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary
  
  facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form,
  
  manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the
  
  copyrighted work.
  2. Where the same idea
  
  is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being
  
  common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should
  
  determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial
  
  aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the
  
  defendant's work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted, work
  
  with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the
  
  copy-right. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a
  
  substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the
  
  defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.
  3. One of the surest
  
  and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of
  
  copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or
  
  seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable
  
  impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
  4. Where the theme is
  
  the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work
  
  becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises.
  5. Where however apart
  
  from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and
  
  broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the
  
  coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement
  
  of the copyright comes into existence.
  6. As a violation of
  
  copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent
  
  evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case law discussed
  
  above.
  7. Where, however, the
  
  question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by a film producer
  
  or a Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy.
  
  It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader perspective,
  
  wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a
  
  variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in
  
  which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after
  
  seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film is by and large a
  
  copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved.
  
  R G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films, AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 1613