This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Venkatesan brought in the New Year at LAOT by highlighting a copyright controversy that recently broke out between the makers of India's most entertaining, yet thoughtful Bollywood flick of 2009 and the author from whose book the central plot was allegedly lifted; a movie that goes by the name of "3 Idiots", but does not have the faintest trace of idiocy in either its script or execution. Clearly one of the best movies to have been released this year, it demonstrates yet again that meaningful "message laden" scripts sans any mind numbing dance, song or fight sequences have a fair shot at tasting box office success! Needless to state, a lot of the success of this particular movie owed itself to a brilliantly conceptualised storyline and an amazingly punchy script. The author Chetan Bhagat claims that the attribution (or rather the lack of it) to his book in the movie has been rather "unfair". Having seen the movie ("3 Idiots") and the book ("5 Point Someone"), I'm quite sympathetic to Chetan's claims that he's been "unfairly" treated. And I also think he may have an arguable case under Indian copyright law, since his book input has not been adequately "attributed", but rather reduced to a paltry amount of 3-5%. Bhagat writes in his blog: "Pre-release, the makers made press statements like the movie is only „very loosely‟, „2% 5% inspired by the book‟. After release, those who have read the book and seen the movie (and frankly, I think those are the only people who have the right to comment) find the film to be an adaptation of Five Point Someone. The setting, characters, plotline, dramatic twists and turns, one-liners, theme, message – almost all aspects that make up the story are from FPS. Yes, there are some changes, any adaptation requires that – but it is no way an original story.” The Key Facts/Issues 1. Bhagat entered into a contract with the production house (Vinod Chopra Films Pvt Ltd), under which he assigned all rights in any audio visual format of the book or its adaptation to the production house. 2. As consideration, Bhagat was to be paid a certain sum of money (totaling about Rs 11 lakhs or so). The facts appear to indicate that he was paid this sum in full and Bhagat does not contest this in his blog post either. So this is not really about the money. 3. Bhagat was also promised credit in the film. Since this clause (Clause 4) is critical, I reproduce it below: "It shall be obligatory on the part of the Producer to accord credit to the author in the rolling credits of any audio-visual moving image software (of any format or form in any media or medium) produced by the Producer in terms of the exercise and execution of the Rights granted as under: “Based Five on Point The Novel Someone
it would appear that at least contractually. The question now is: is it true that Bhagat's book only contributed 35% to the movie. in the process.By Chetan Bhagat” This clause appears to have been "technically" complied with. he has a decent case on moral rights against the makers of the movie. Most damagingly perhaps.. " In other words. the placement of this credit was not prominent and appeared to be rather fleeting. we can safely assume she might have actually looked hard for it).. And not a mere 3-5%! However. Abhijit Joshi was credited right at the start of the movie. even if the economic rights are assigned away (and in this case. as the credits right at the end of the film do mention the fact that the movie is based on the book by Bhagat in exactly the form that clause 4 requires. Or was the movie based substantially on the book? Having read the book (that has now reached some sort of a cult status in certain circles) and watched the movie. the moral rights continue to vest in the author. the script writer (along with Hirani) packed in some brilliant new scenes and sub-plots whilst adapting the book theme. the author of a work shall have the right to claim the authorship of the work . their originality does not detract from the fact that they have also. the makers claim that the movie was only based on the book to a paltry extent of 3-5% . If what Bhagat states is true. the makers of the movie made statements to the effect that the movie was not really based on the book and that it was "original". what they created is also "original". characters etc from the book. Bhagat indicates that even his mother missed it (since she loves him more than any of us do. Abhijit and Rajkumar Hirani. Though there is much to be said for the bargaining asymmetries between an individual author and a production powerhouse with ample financial and political muscle. I must also state that Abhijit Joshi. unlike what Chetan claims. I for one thoroughly missed it! In his blog post. . So much for the freedom of contract. the end product (movie script) could be rightfully said to be a product of joint authorship. since Bhagat did not specifically insist on any particular placement for the credit owed to him. However. lifted a significant portion of the plot. Bhagat assigned away his rights to any movie based on the book).. In any case. the script writer. Moral Rights and Lack of Attribution 4. the section states that ". Therefore. Section 57 of the Indian copyright act vests every author with the right to insist that their works be attributed to them. Therefore. I personally think the copying has been rather significant. Importantly. involving Chetan Bhagat. In essence.independently of the author's copyright and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright. Bhagat claims that in the pre-release publicity and even post the movie. And this right exists independent of the "economic" right to exploit the work. Vidhu Vinod Chopra and team did comply with the law. However. Even Bhagat seems to accept this technical legal compliance in his tweet.
should we base all law making only on economic rationales. and more importantly." I reproduce my quick and not so considered response.the U. ala the US? My reasons for supporting the moral right of attribution are to avoid the kind of unfairness that the Chetan Bhagat incident throws up. let me wish all of you a very happy New Year . I had an interesting exchange with an anonymous commentator who questioned the need to have any protection for moral rights." For those interested in a non legal take on this controversy. although he wasn't "legally" mandated to do so. Secondly.these rights has a weak economic rationale. see this interesting piece by Vir Sanghvi. through VARA. albeit a more problematic one that often crops up in most of the case law i. "Firstly. the author of the book on which the Oscar winning movie "Slumdog Millionaire" was based.e the moral right to integrity (to prevent any "unfair" treatment to the authors' work). In particular. What the Chopra production house appears to be doing is to buy out the author and then completely negate the fact that he had anything to do at all with the creation! Authors share a special relation to their creations--and many see it as an extension of their personality.. I've discussed these aspects in more detail in a post over at SpicyIP. There is another moral right. One hopes that this controversy is "destined" to end "well". is one country which does not have moral rights and for good reason . the US does protect moral rights to a limited extent. A recent article deals with some of the predominant rationales underlying such a moral right to integrity and ends up arguing against the need for any such moral right. However.S. And on that hopeful note. sans any legal expenses. He contrasts the rather harsh stand of the Vidhu Vinod Chopra production house with the more "graceful" stand of Danny Boyle's team who specifically went out of their way to acknowledge the role of Vikas Swarup. it does not deal with the moral right to paternity or authorship. In fact. who sees this as an issue of "grace" (or lack thereof). And I just think its grossly unfair to let economic forces divorce them from their creations and obliterate their status as authors! But all of the above arguments relate to the moral right to "paternity" or authorship. but hopefully this can serve as a starting point for engaging in a more meaningful discussion around the existence and extent of moral rights protection. What about morality? Fairness? Justice? Shouldn't these be legitimate ends to be pursued by law and law making? Or should our lens be a predominant economic one. he stated that ". I am yet to find any compelling argument that persuades one against the need to have a moral right to paternity.For those interested.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?