RG Anand v. Delux Films

Add a comment

Introduction

Copyright is a legal right of an owner. It is provided for original works of human which is tangible and maybe published or unpublished. It includes visual, video, sound, written and dramatic work.[1]  The content cannot be published by anyone else without consent.[2] There are various laws governing it, especially Copyright Act, 1957. It confers copyright protection in two forms[3], economic rights of the author which consists of his rights on his work and moral rights which concerns right of paternity and integrity.

Issues

In the RG Anand v. Delux Films[4], the concerned issue was whether the production, exhibition and distribution of the film ‘New Delhi’ made by the defendants are in infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in the play, ‘Hum Hindustani’?

Rules

Several laws were taken into consideration like section 2 of copyrights act, 1957 which defines “copyright”, section 2(a)(i) which defines “adaptation”,  section 2(h) which defines “dramatic work”. Section 14(a) (vi) which denotes adaptation of “dramatic work” and section 51 of copyright act which provides provisions for infringement unless excluded by section 52. Furthermore, The Supreme Court issued seven rules to determine if there was a copyright infringement- 

  • There cannot be copyright of any idea, subject matter, plots, themes or historical or legendary facts and if the violation of copyright occurred in such cases then it is confined to the form, manner, arrangement and expression by the author of copyrighted work.
  • Whether similarities are substantial or fundamental aspects of mode of expression in the copyrighted work. Copying should be of substantial and material nature.
  • Test: After having read or seen both the work the viewer get the impression that subsequent work is copy of original one
  • Where theme is similar but being presented differently then, there cannot be any question of infringement
  • If there is similarities but also have broad dissimilarities, it decreases the intention to copy the original work, if similarities are clearly incidental or coincidently then there can’t be infringement.
  • If the viewer after the incident got an idea that the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved.
  • Cases where stage play is infringed by a movie director, then burden of proof will be on the plaintiff.

Analysis

The main problem was that the defendant was aware about the play but the movie wasn’t the imitation of play. The core theme might be similar but that does not lead to copyright. The court considered the defendant’s side and as per the rule 2 given by Supreme Court the work should be substantial and material copy of original work, this constituent was again not portrayed here. All the facts were analysed in light of the rules provided and none of the components were present here as apart from the basic idea, nothing was similar. Further, as per rule 6 it was seen that even if there was similarities there were dissimilarities as well so the intention of defendant could not be proved here. Also a very important point was introduced here, as per rule 7; the burden of proof should lay on the plaintiff. This was huge as the defendant wasn’t involved in proving his innocence. Therefore, in this case the plaintiff wasn’t able to prove the intention or the copyright of defendant. Even though there were similarities but it wasn’t a copyright as only the idea was similar but no viewer by watching it can infer that the movie was a copy. The apex court had not found violation of copyright and it dismissed the appeal.

Conclusion

This judgment is a landmark judgment and is crucial to the intellectual property laws. Some suggestions will be to define the prudency of the viewer as a he can be mentally challenged so it is important that the judgment whether a work is copyright or not is made by a reasonable person. Secondly, the clear denotation of ‘mode of expression’ should be defined as it will be hard to interpret it without any set meaning. This judgment has no doubt molded the law and has given further criteria to distinguish between works. The tests laid down here are crucial and should be kept in mind by the judges and court of law while interpreting other cases.

References-

[1] What is “Copyright”? – Legal Help, Google, https://support.google.com/legal/answer/3463239?hl=en (last visited Apr 12, 2020).

[2] Copyright, Copyright Definition, https://techterms.com/definition/copyright (last visited Apr 12, 2020).

[3] Copyright Law in India, Copyright Law in India – Copyright Office, Copyright act, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l195-Copyright-Law-in-India.html (last visited Apr 12, 2020).

[4] AIR 1978 SC 1613

Leave a comment