It appears there's a misunderstanding. "Section 13(2)(ii) in The Copyright Act, 1957" is not a case title. It's a section within the Copyright Act. To provide a case summary, I need a specific case name and citation. I can then analyze how the courts have interpreted and applied Section 13(2)(ii) in that particular case.

However, I can explain what Section 13(2)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957 deals with in general:

Explanation of Section 13(2)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957

Short Summary Section 13(2)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957, specifies that copyright protection is not available for cinematograph films if they are substantially an infringement of the copyright in any other work.

Facts This section is a statutory provision within the Copyright Act. It concerns the eligibility of cinematograph films for copyright protection. The underlying principle is to prevent the creation and protection of derivative works that infringe upon existing copyrights.

Issues The issue addressed by this section is whether a cinematograph film that infringes on another copyrighted work can itself be granted copyright protection.

Legal Position The Section clearly states that if a cinematograph film is substantially an infringement of the copyright in any other work, then it will not be granted copyright protection under the Act.

Implications This provision ensures that copyright law does not incentivize or reward the infringement of existing copyrighted material. It reinforces the principle that copyright protection is only granted to original works or authorized adaptations.

To provide a case summary, please provide the name of a specific court case that discusses or applies Section 13(2)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957.