Annexure – I Cover Page

Dissertation

Submitted to VIT School of Law, VIT, Chennai

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Law.

By

(S. NANDITA MEENAKSHI)

(17BLA1016)

Under the supervision of

Dr. RAJAVENKATESAN P R L

VIT School of Law, VIT Chennai

 Annexure – II Declaration

DECLARATION

I, S. NANDITA MEENAKSHI, Student B.A.LL. B (Honors), thus announce that the dissertation
named "COPYRIGHT IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY: OVERVIEW " is put
together by me to VITSOL, VIT, Chennai in complete satisfaction of the necessity for the honor
of level of B.A. LL. B (Hons.) is my unique work. It is additionally proclaimed that every one of
the wellsprings of data utilized in the thesis has been appropriately recognized. I comprehend
that the paper might be electronically checked for copyright infringement to survey the creativity
of the submitted work.

Place: CHENNAI

Date: 20/04/2022

(Signature of the student)

 Annexure – III

CERTIFICATE

Based on the declaration submitted by Ms. S. Nandita Meenakshi Student B.A., LL. B (Hons.), I
thus ensure that the thesis named " COPYRIGHT IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY:
OVERVIEW " is submitted to the VITSOL, VIT, Chennai in fractional satisfaction of the
necessity for the award of the level of B.A. LL. B (Honors) has been done by her under my
direction and oversight. I suggest it for assessment.

Place: CHENNAI

Date:

(Signature of the supervisor)

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor DR. RAJAVENKATESAN P R L

Assistant Professor (Sr.) who has been a steady wellspring of support and direction, all through
the consummation of the thesis. He guided me all through my examination cycle, brought up my
errors and gave me exceptional experience, and supported me all through the work. Without his
help and direction, I was unable to have finished the thesis. I might want to thank my bunch
mates for their amicable help, helping mentality, guidance, and eagerness to impart their splendid
considerations to me. I would likewise stretch out my genuine gratitude to my loved ones, who
have helped, upheld, and guided me in the culmination of this work. This exploration work is
dedicated to seeing the value in the law and equity identifying with changing domain of public
reason under the idea of famous space, giving me scientific knowledge of the topic.
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

¶ Paragraph Number

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr Another

Hon'ble Honorable

No. Number

Ors. Others

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

SCC Supreme Court Cases

U/Art Under Article

v. Versus

TRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organisation

UCC Universal Copyright Convention

DEL Delhi
 LIST OF CASES

CASE NAME PAGE

NO

Donoghue V. Allied Newspapers, Ltd. (1937) 3 CH. D. 503 15

K. A. Abbas vs The Union of India, 1971 AIR 481, 1971 SCR (2) 446 17

Bobby Art International, Etc vs Om Pal Singh Hoon & Ors on 1 May, 1996 17

Mannu Bhandari vs Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd, AIR 1987 Delhi 13, ILR 1986 18
Delhi 191

Barbara Taylor Bradford vs Sahara Media Entertainment Ltd, 2004 (1) CHN 448, 18
2004 (28) PTC 474 Cal, 2003 47 SCL 445 Cal

V.Elango vs Susi Ganesan, CS. No. 36 of 2009 18

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Others v. Santosh V. G., CS (OS) No. 18
1682/2006

R.G. Anand V. M/s. Delux Films & Ors. (1978) 4 SCC 118. 26

Zee Telefilms Ltd. And Film And ... vs Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd, 2003 (5) 29
BomCR 404, 2003 (3) MhLj 695, 2003 (27) PTC 457 Bom

Vinay Vats vs Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 30 July 2020 29

Xyz Films Llc And 2 Ors vs Utv Motion Pictures/Utv Software ... on 21 April 2016 29

Zee Entertainment Enterprises ... vs Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt ... on 5 April 30
2017

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 30
and Ors., 2010 (44) PTC 647 (Bom)

Twentieth Century Fox Film ... vs Zee Telefilms Ltd and Ors., 2012 (51) PTC 465 30
(Del)
 Mansoob Haider v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., 2014 (59) PTC 292 (Bom) 31

Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.v. Parag Sanghavi & Ors, 223 (2015) 31
DLT 152, MIPR 2015 (3) 0096
Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. vs Rgv Film Factory and Ors, 138 (2007) DLT 312 31

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523 (Copyright Office, n.d.) 34

India Tv Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd,2013 35
(53) PTC 586 (Del)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER I.....................................................................................................................................9
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM......................................................................................................10
HYPOTHESIS...............................................................................................................................10
RESEARCH QUESTIONS...........................................................................................................10
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY...........................................................................................................11
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................11
CHAPTER 2..................................................................................................................................12
CHAPTER 3…………………………………………………………………………………….19
CHAPTER 4..................................................................................................................................25
CHAPTER 5..................................................................................................................................35
5.1 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................35
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................36
ABSTRACT

Modern technologies such as the internet, digital television, and online publication are driving
rapid transformation in the worldwide media and entertainment business. The complexity of
maintaining the intellectual property, which is at the heart of an organization's revenue engine,
is growing as market forces converge. To be competitive and profitable in the digital age, media
organizations must deal with increasing technical challenges while protecting their intellectual
property rights effectively. The Indian entertainment business has come a long way in the recent
decade, from new channels for content commercialization to expertise in content licensing. The
dominance of the content onery acknowledged and accepted in today's digital and information
age. While content owners and creators have a plethora of commercial prospects, capitalizing
on them requires an understanding of the entertainment industry, experience in copyright and
other regulations, knowledge of modern technologies, and awareness of industry transactions.
Furthermore, in India, digital media and material are regularly pirated. Cases involving these
digital entertainment industry contents are also on the rise in India. This has presented India's
entertainment and media business with a slew of new technical and legal hurdles. As technology
advances, the entertainment sector faces infringement and other piracy-related difficulties.

This paper gives an overview of Intellectual Property Rights and their complexities the n Indian
Context.

Keywords: Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Copyright, and Digital Broadcasting.

1
Chapter I

Introduction
The Media and entertainment industry is the ray of light that is beginning to spread over the
Indian economy and causing a momentum of expansion for the entire entertainment sector. The
Indian Media and Entertainment business, which is demonstrating its versatility to the rest of the
globe, is at the apex of a strong phase of growth, fueled by increased buyer demand and rising ad
revenues. Copyright and Related Rights are the most comprehensive set of Intellectual Property
Rights tools, as they protect a wide spectrum of innovative works. It establishes a foundation for
defending creative works that are fixed expressions in any medium. Copyright by its very nature
interfaces with the publishing, photography, computer-generated works, entertainment including
films, drama, architecture, works of artistic quality, audio recordings, dance forms, education
transmission/broadcasting, art including industrial drawing, sculpture, painting, lectures etc.
Creative expressions are as old as human societies and hence this field of IPR also gets
organically linked to the cultural dynamics of societies1.

Copyright is a type of intellectual property protection granted by Indian law to creators of

original works of authorship such as literary works including( computer programs, tables, and
compilations including computer databases) dramatic, musical, and artistic works

cinematographic films and sound recordings. Under Section 13 of the Copyright Act 1957,
copyright protection is conferred on literary works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic
works, cinematograph films and sound recording. For example, books, computer programs are
protected under the Function as literary works. Copyright refers to a bundle of exclusive rights
vested in the owner of copyright by virtue of Section 14 of the Act. These rights can be exercised
only by the owner of copyright or by any other person who is duly licensed in this regard by the
owner of copyright. These rights include the right of adaptation, right of reproduction, right of
publication, right to make translations, communication to public etc.2.

1
Professor Prabuddha Ganguli, Relevance of Copyright and Related Rights for SMEs, r, SJM School of Management
Publication, Indian Institute of Technology
2
All Answers ltd, 'Copyright Law Protects Expressions of Ideas' (Lawteacher.net, April 2022) accessed 6 April 2022

2
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Intellectual Property Rights, which grant authors and owners of creative exclusive rights, are
protected by a variety of laws, international treaties, and legal procedures. These rights safeguard
the works against exploitation and offer financial incentives for others to create. The media
sector entertains consumers through feature films, television shows, and music videos, and each
media has its own set of rights. The underlying rights are intellectual property rights, which
make it illegal to exploit such works unless the inventor gives his or her permission.

HYPOTHESIS

Without a question, IPR is the world's most asset. New ways for managing creative works that
do not harm the author or owner of the creative professions are evolving with the passage of
time. More than 80% of all copyright infringement lawsuits in the media and entertainment
business have been filed by the film and television industries alone. Not just well-known and
well-known filmmakers, authors, producers, and directors, but also obscure and struggling
creatives who suspected their work had been unlawfully replicated were targeted. In the name of
creativity, filmmakers have radically shifted the game for Copyright. The extent of Copyright
and its features in the film business are examined in this dissertation.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What is Copyright and its importance in Intellectual Property Law?

2. What are the international conventions and Indian laws related to IP in media sector in India?

3. What is the role of judiciary in regulating and analyzing the IP concerns in the media industry
in India?

3. What is of copyright infringement and piracy in India?

4. What is the way forward and future of copyright and media in India?

3
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1. To study the concept of Intellectual Property in Media and Entertainment Industry in India.

2. To do a detailed study of the International Conventions, Indian laws and judgments delivered

by the court.

3. To study the various aspects and concerns involved in regulating IP in Entertainment Sector

4. To analyze the importance of IP and how it plays a key role in recent times

5. To suggest solutions about development of IP in India.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The Research work is based on doctrinal research methodology. Numerous studies used in the
research in based on secondary data. The secondary data has been collected after doing a
comprehensive study which is derived from the writings of eminent scholars in books, statutes,
judgments of the courts, the newspaper articles, and various other data available on internet.

CHAPTERISATION

The Current dissertation has been prepared with a view to assess the Causes, effect, current
situation regarding various laws and their implementation including the various aspects of IP
involved in Media and Entertainment Industry. The dissertation is planned in 5 Chapters.

CHAPTER 1. Introduction

CHAPTER 2. Conceptual analysis and Historical Development of IP in Entertainment Industry

CHAPTER 3. International Conventions, Indian laws on IP in Media and Entertainment Industry

CHAPTER 4. Infringement and Piracy

CHAPTER 5. Conclusion and Suggestions

4
Chapter 2

2.1 Conceptualization—Protection of Intellectual Property Rights

The term Copyright has not always been defined as an exclusive right to do specific activities
regarding literary, theatrical, musical, and aesthetic works, cinematographic film, and sound
recordings. It has evolved over generations, with creative writers, musicians, and painters
writing, composing, or creating authentic work for the sake of recognition rather than for the
purpose of profit or gain. Copying was a time-consuming and costly operation. The notion that
an author should have an exclusive “Copyright” in his creation took firm shape at the beginning
of sixteenth century3. A copyright is a legal right given to a person for a limited time for his
authentic and original work for publishing, licensing, assigning, and other purposes, according to
the Copyright Act of 1957. 'Idea' is the most vital component of copyright. India is a democratic
country that grants everyone the right to free speech and expression, as a result, a censor board
was established to ensure that what is transmitted in the media does not insult religious or
cultural sensibilities. When a person thinks freely, he is said to have an inventive mind, which is
why, because of the vision, the director is regarded as a significant component of a film. In the
media industry, the fields which get copyright protection are:

 Dramatic work

 Artistic work

 Musical work

 Cinematography work

3
Goel, Shivam, Allied Rights in the Sphere of Copyrights, 2010/10/25,10.2139/ssrn.2530365, SSRN Electronic
Journal

5
After finishing his work, an author visits several production houses to see if he can turn it into a
film. Production companies have a staff of directors and producers who may help the author
visualize and achieve the desired outcome. However, it is possible that a third party will steal the
author’s script. Now, if the author is protected by copyright, suing the party in court for damages
and compensation would be simple. Suing for unregistered copyright, on the other hand, may be
futile because copyright is distinct and requires registration.

2.2 Nature of Copyright regarding Entertainment Industry

The copyright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, cinematographs
films and sound recordings4. The authors of copyright in the previously mentioned works enjoy
economic rights u/s 14 of the Act. The rights are primarily to reproduce the work in any material
form, including storing it in any medium by electronic means, to issue copies of the work to the
public, to perform the work in public or communicating it to the public, to make any
cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work, and to make any translation or
adaptation of the work, except for computer programmes. In the case of a computer programme,
the inventor has the right to sell or rent any copy of the software, regardless of whether it has
previously been sold or rented. An author has the right to reproduce an artistic work in any
material form, including depicting it in three dimensions for a two-dimensional work or two
dimensions for a three-dimensional work, to communicate or issue copies of the work to the
public, to include the work in any cinematograph work, and to adapt the work in any way. In the
case of cinematograph film, the author enjoys the right to make a copy of the film including a
photograph of any image forming part thereof, to sell or give on hire or offer for sale or hire, any
copy of the film, and to communicate the film to the public 5. These rights also belong to the
author of a sound recording. In addition to the rights listed above, if the original owner of the
copyright was the creator of a painting, sculpture, drawing, or manuscript of a literary, dramatic,
or musical work, he is entitled to a portion of the resale price of the original copy if the resale
price reaches rupees ten thousand.

4
Nidhi Kumari, The Moral Rights of an Author, April 6, 2015
5
Tejas Tare, Role of Copyright in Media and Entertainment Industry, November 26,2020

6
2.3 Concept of Faire Use

Copyright subsists in expression, not in ideas. Idea is not a subject-matter of copyright. In

Donoghue v. Allied Newspaper ltd6.,13 it was held by Farwell J. that: 12 Section 14 of The
Copyright Act, 1957 ...

“If the idea, however brilliant and however clever it may be, is nothing more than an idea, and is
not put into any form of word, or any form of expression such as a picture or a play, then there is
no such thing as copyright at all 7. It is not, until it is reduced into writing, or into some tangible
form, that you get any right to copyright at all, and the copyright exist in the form of language in
which, or in the case of a picture, in the form of the picture by which, the information or the idea
to conveyed to those who are intended to read it or to look at it8”

The judicial doctrine of fair use is one of the most important and well-established as well as
recognized limitations to the exclusive rights conferred by copyright. Although the courts have
considered and rules upon the fair use doctrine repeatedly no real definition of the concept has
ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable
definition its possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts 9. In
these cases, the courts are left to judges’ criterion of fairness in the circumstances.

The Copyright Act, 1957 has incorporated the concept of fair sue and enlisted the purpose for
which the copyright may not be considered infringed: Research or Pvt. Study

• Criticism or review

• whether of that work or of any other work

•Current events are reported in a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical, or on television or in

a cinematograph film.

As a result, while assessing whether an act is fair use, the court considers the following elements.
The nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the part used in proportion
6
Donoghue V. Allied Newspapers, Ltd. (1937) 3 CH. D. 503
7
UKEssays. (November 2018). Idea Expression Dichotomy UK
8
Neha Gupta Kaushik,Copyright Exists In The Expression Of Idea And Not In The Idea – Explain, March 5,
2021 by Law Corner
9
17 USC Sec. 107 01/06/97

7
to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use on the copyrighted work's
prospective market for or value10.

However, this concept is not completely followed according to law in India

2.4 History and Development of Copyright

A) The Colonial period

Copyright legislation entered India through the Copyright Act of 1847, enacted pursuant to the
copyright law reform in England passed in 1842. Three issues motivated the enacted of Indian
copyright law11. The first was the enforcement of copyrights under English common law, which
the East India Company brought to India. The second was the enforcement of copyright in Indian
courts based on the equity concept. The authority of English copyright law in India came in third.
To resolve these three difficulties and enable for the protection of UK copyrights in India, India
needed to pass legislation. Works published anywhere in the colonies would be protected under
English copyright law under the rules of the Copyright Acts of 1842 and 1847.

B) The Republic of India from 1947 to 1990

The 1951 Film Enquiry Committee outlined several issues that the film industry faces because of
insufficient copyright regulation. Many of these flaws came from Imperial Copyright's
perplexing approach of cinema copyright. These flaws were then included into Indian copyright
legislation. As previously stated, some of the issues presented by copyright infringement of film
and literary works adapted into cinema were related to film's hybrid status as dramatic, artistic,
and derivative works. During the period of independence, copyright was governed by the 1914
Act until the 1957 Copyright Act included significant revisions and improvements.

The 1842 and 1847 legislation, which sparked debate while also resolving certain difficulties,
were not the end of copyright reform. The Imperial Copyright Act of 1911 and the subsequent
Indian Copyright Act of 1914 were the next set of copyright legislation during the colonial
period. The reforms were in response to many challenges in the international environment. First
was the need for uniformity of copyright laws across the colonies to deal with the unauthorized

10
Library - Barbers Hill Independent School District
11
R Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy (Harper Perennial, New York 2007)
53

8
importation of copyrighted works into the local colonial marketplace 12. Under the International
Copyright Act of 1886, any work produced in the colonies was given the same copyright
protection as a work created in the United Kingdom

The other challenge came from the Berne Convention of 1896 and the Berlin Convention of
1908, each of which required revisions of copyright law to conform to international standards.
These treaties required amendments to address issues of duration and moral rights13.As a literary
or creative production, the Berlin Convention requires copyright protection for cinematographic
works. The Imperial Copyright Act of 1911 and the Indian Copyright Act of 1914 attempted to
integrate the copyright laws of the colonies in response to these issues. At the same time, the
Imperial Copyright Act of 1911 authorized dominions to apply their copyright rules differently
than the Imperial Copyright Act.

The 1957 Act became current Indian copyright law after many repeals and changes, including
significant updates in 1994 and 1999 to address concerns of computer software and digital
copyright. The changes of 1994 and 1999 were made to meet with TRIPS commitments, to
which India became a signatory in 1995.The main change that the 1957 Act offered with respect
to film was the treatment of cinematographic work as an independently protected work, in
contrast with the hybrid treatment under the 1914 Act. The 1957 Act maintained the right to
make a cinematographic work for copyright holders of literary, musical, dramatic, and artistic
works14. Strangely, the 1957 did not include the right to make a cinematographic work as a right
of the cinematographic work copyright holder

C) The Republic of India during the period of liberalization

India has become more involved in copyright reform and fighting film piracy because of
economic liberalization and TRIPS membership. Even though much of the focus in India has
been on patent reform, particularly the creation of a viable administrative system for patent
prosecution and an effective court system to decide patent infringement cases, copyright issues
have persisted in the courts and have been the subject of reform efforts. In 2010, there was
discussion in Parliament of an overhaul of the 1957 Indian Copyright Act to modernize the

12
. JM Easton, Copinger’s the Law of Copyright 5th edn (Stevens and Haynes, London 1915)
13
See P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002) 18–21
14
Indian Copyright Act, 1957, Section 14(a)(iv), 14(c)(iv)

9
duration of copyright and infringement actions15. A long-standing criticism of India is the delays
and inefficiencies of the court system 16. Nonetheless, some important copyright decisions have
come down in the post-Independence era.

The 1970 Supreme Court of India decision in Abbas v Union of India17 is a significant case on
freedom of expression and cinema censorship under the Indian Constitution. Even though the
judgment does not address copyright problems, it is significant in terms of understanding the
evolution of cinema regulation. Abbas was a filmmaker who appealed the Cinematograph
Commission's decision that his documentary film exposing poverty and degradation in four
Indian metropolises was obscene due to depictions of prostitution and pimping. The challenge
was to a system of film review and licensing that began with the Cinematograph Act of 1918 and
continued with the Cinematograph Act of 1952 when the country gained independence. The
constitutional challenge against the 1952 law was based on the Indian Constitution's guarantee of
"freedom of speech and expression."

The Indian Supreme Court ruled in Abbas' favor, citing First Amendment precedent from the
United States. "Parliament has left it to the Central Government, and this might be done," the
Court said, acknowledging the necessity for limitations on speech restrictions. However, neither
Parliament nor the central government has done enough to fill up the gaps. Neither has
distinguished what is artistic and socially useful from what is intentionally immoral, obscene,
terrifying, or corrupting. They have not mentioned the importance of community or individual
liberty. They tend to think about the wicked rather than the regular decent guy. In their efforts to
steer films away from the bizarre, they have left out the moral. They have tried to pull it down.
They have attempted to bring down the public motion picture to the level of home movies18”

An example of the judiciary’s engagement with copyright law is the Delhi High Court’s 1986
decision in Bhandari v Kala Vikas Pictures 19. Bhandari was a well-known Hindi author who
had given the defendant film producer the rights to shoot his work Aap Ka Bunty. He was
dissatisfied with the outcome, believing that the film had misrepresented his effort. The novelist's
15
See, eg, L Mulchandani, ‘Indian Movies Without Songs, Possible?’ The Economic Times Online Edition (11 January
2011)
16
PB Mehta, ‘India’s Judiciary,’ in D Kapur and PB Mehta (eds), The Promise of Uncertainty in Public Institutions in
India: Performance and Design (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005) 159–60.
17
K. A. Abbas vs The Union of India, 1971 AIR 481, 1971 SCR (2) 446
18
Bobby Art International, Etc vs Om Pal Singh Hoon & Ors on 1 May 1996
19
Mannu Bhandari vs Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd, AIR 1987 Delhi 13, ILR 1986 Delhi 191

10
suit was dismissed by the High Court, which found no justification for the claim of work
distortion under the Copyright Act. The omission of this moral rights clause, according to the
High Court, was compatible with the aims of copyright law. Excellence in the arts and literature
is a defining feature of every civilization. The creative brilliance of artists and authors
determines the development and vitality of any culture. Art requires a healthy atmosphere as well
as necessary safeguards.

In 2003, Barbara Taylor Bradford20, a romance novelist, brought a claim against Sahara Media
Entertainment, the network that planned to broadcast a mini-series based on Bradford’s novel, A
Woman of Substance. She filed a lawsuit in the Kolkata High Court, which issued an ad interim
(preliminary) order preventing the show from airing. The stay was removed by the High Court
when Sahara filed an appeal. Bradford took his case to the Indian Supreme Court, which upheld
the ad interim injunction after just one episode had aired. The Kolkata High Court decided
against Bradford a few months after she filed action, finding no evidence of copying because the
similarities between the two works were primarily in concepts. The High Court awarded Sahara
damages and expenses because of the broadcast's delay. Bradford took his case to the Indian
Supreme Court, which confirmed the no-infringement ruling but overturned the damages award.

Copyright was never ignored in the Indian courts. A second example of the emergence of
copyright law is the Madras High Court’s 2009 decision in Elango v Ganesan21, a dispute over
the allegedly unlawful use of a copyrighted music in a Tamil film The court ruled in favour of
the songwriter, finding that the plaintiff did, in fact, create the music that was utilised in the
movie. The pro-copyright orientation of contemporary Indian jurisprudence comes across in the
2009 Delhi High Court decision in Warner Bros. Entertainment v Santosh22,The defendant
ran an online movie DVD rental company utilizing lawfully obtained DVDs from other
countries. The internet service was designed for Indian moviegoers who wanted to see non-
vernacular films, such as American blockbusters. The High Court found against Santosh, citing
both US85 and Canadian case law on copyright exhaustion, as well as the text of the Indian
Copyright Act. The High Court reasoned that limit on copyright holders' rights for works in
20
Barbara Taylor Bradford vs Sahara Media Entertainment Ltd, 2004 (1) CHN 448, 2004 (28) PTC 474 Cal, 2003 47
SCL 445 Cal
21
V. Elango vs Susi Ganesan, CS. No. 36 of 2009
22
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Others v. Santosh V. G., CS (OS) No. 1682/2006

11
circulation apply to literary, artistic, dramatic, or musical works, but not to cinematographic
works, based on the wording of the Indian Copyright Act. The owner of a cinematographic
copyright has the right to disseminate 'whether such copy has been sold or hired before,'
according to the law.

So, to summarize it can be said that under section 79 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the previous
copyright legislation in effect in India, the Indian Copyright Act, 1914, and the copyright Act of
1911 were approved by the United Kingdom Parliament as amended in its application to India by
the Indian Copyright Act, 1914, were abolished. Amendment Acts of 1983, 1984, 1992, 1994,
1999, and 2012 introduced changes to the 1957 Act. The 1994 changes were the most thorough.
The 1999 changes included provisions aimed at achieving TRIPS commitments as well as
addressing a variety of other issues. The Copyright (Amendment) Act of 1957 introduced several
significant changes to the Copyright Act of 1957. The Act is still referred to as the 1957 Act,
even though it was amended several times.

Chapter 3

3.1. INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND INDIAN LEGAL PROVISIONS WITH

REGARD TO IP IN MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT

International Treaties

The international treaties promote consistent protection of copyright from country to country.
They establish minimal security criteria, which are subsequently implemented by each member
nation within the confines of its own copyright legislation.

Berne Convention

The Berne Convention was established in 1886 to safeguard creative works and the legal rights
of its creators. It gives artists like authors, musicians, poets, painters, and others the ability to
govern how, by whom, and on what terms their works are utilised. The Berne Convention was
founded on three fundamental concepts. This document contains several rules specifying the
minimum level of protection to be provided, as well as additional provisions accessible to
developing nations that choose to take use of them.

The three basic principles are the following:

12
  The works originating in one of the Contracting Country must be given the same
protection in each of the other Contracting countries.

 Protection is not conditional or based upon compliance with any formality, and instead, it
is automatic23.

 Protection must be independent and the existence of protection in a country of origin of

the work. However, if a Contracting Country provides for a longer term of protection
than the minimum prescribed by the convention and the work ceases to be protected in
the country of origin, protection may be denied once protection in the country-of-origin
ceases24.

Before the Berne Convention, there was extraordinarily little protection for authors outside their
home country. The Berne Convention protects the Literary and Artistic Works is an international
copyright agreement that covers an artist when their work is published or produced outside their
country of origin. It protects their right to authorize translations, reproductions, adaptations,
performances, broadcasts, or other communication of their work25.

The Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) is a set of rules

UCC protects works by authors who are citizens or residents of a country that is a member of
these treaties, as well as works originally published in a member country or published within 30
days after first publication in a Berne Union country. Any formality under national law must be
met under the UCC by filing a copyright notice in the form and place provided in the UCC.

Convention of Rome

• Actors, musicians, singers, dancers, and others who perform literary or creative works) are
protected against individual activities to which they have not given their approval, such as
broadcasting and communicating a live performance to the public.

• Producers of phonograms have the authority to permit or disallow the use of their work.

(TRIPS) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

23
Sounmya Bajpai, Relevancy of International Copyright in India, 31 Aug 2020
24
Relevancy of International Copyright in India - Corpbiz
25
India Law Offices, Laws on Copyright Registration in India, January 18, 2021

13
Following the features of TRIPS are as below26:

 Signed in the year 1996

 Administered by (WTO) World Trade Organization

 Includes the number of provisions related to the enforcement of IP rights.

 Says that the national laws must make the effective enforcement of IP rights possible and
describe how implementation should be addressed in detail.

Copyright Treaty of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

The following are WIPO's characteristics:

• It was signed in 1996.

• Recognizes that the transmission of works via the Internet and comparable networks is an
exclusive right within the scope of copyright that was originally owned by the inventor.

• Is classified as a copyright violation.

• Working around technical protection measures related to works.

• Embedded rights management information is removed from the work.

India's governing laws and rights

India is a common law country that has ratified a number of international intellectual property
accords. In the Indian media and broadcasting sector, the following legislation safeguard
intellectual property:

 The 1957 Copyright Act; and

 The Trademarks Act of 1999 (hereafter referred to as "the Act").


Cinematographic films-In a cinematograph film, the copyright is protected. The creator of a

cinematograph film with copyright has the following exclusive rights under section. 14(d):

(1) to produce a duplicate of the film, including a snapshot of any image that is included in it
26
What is Global Copyright? International Copyright Basics

14
(2) to sell or give on hire any copy of the 'film, or to offer for sale or hiring any copy of the 'film,
whether such copy has been sold or given on hire before27.

(3) to make the film known to the general audience. The sound recordings that are included in
the film are not mentioned in this section. The sound recordings in the film have their own
copyright, which is unaffected by the copyright in the picture.

Only the cinematograph film, including the soundtrack, is protected by copyright. The copyright
law does not protect the acting of the cine artists who appear in the film. Performer's Rights are a
set of specific rights granted to the actors or performers in a film. Because a film involves
performances by numerous actors, dancers, and other performers, their consent to film their
performances is essential. This is normally accomplished through separate agreements with the
artists. To convey a film to the public, it must be made available for the public to view, hear, or
otherwise enjoy it directly or by any means of dispersion, regardless of whether any member of
the public sees, hears, or otherwise enjoys it. Communication comprises transmission to several
households or places of living, including hotel or hostel rooms, by satellite or cable, or any other
means of simultaneous communication. It is not possible to communicate with a private
audience. Commercial use of the film without the owner's authorization or a license from the
owner of the copyright is forbidden.

Term of Copyright for the Protection— The lifetime of author's rights and adjacent rights is
crucial to their justification. The Berne Convention stipulates that the traditional types of
copyright have a duration of 50 years after the author's death, however this is the bare minimum.
44 The legal provisions pertaining to the. The word used to describe copyright protection in
literary, theatrical, musical, and artistic works throughout the author's lifetime and for the next 60
years. 45 The 60-year period will commence on the first day of the calendar year after the
author's death.

3.1.2 IMPORTANCE OF COPYRIGHT IN FILMS

Section 1328 of the Copyright Act clearly states the works which comes under the regime of
copyright protection. Such work should be original musical, dramatic, cinematography films or
27
Dundappa B. Solapure, Intellectual Property Rights – II, Karnataka State Law University (KSLU), Hubballi,
2018/2019

28
Copyright Act,1957 (13 of 1957)

15
sound recordings etc. It is important to note here that in case of copyright in a cinematograph
film or a sound recording, nothing will affect the separate copyright protection in any work in
respect of which or a substantial part of which, of the film or of the sound recording is made.
Section 13 of the act indicates that what are the summary of works which meet all prerequisites
for copyright protection. Section 1429 of the Act elucidates in an obvious way as to what are the
bundle of rights associated with each piece of copyrighted work as mentioned in the previous
section such as in the case of a literary, dramatic, or musical work except computer programs the
rights available are for some purposes.

For the purposes of this Act, "copyright" means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of
this Act, to do or authorize the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any
substantial part30 thereof, namely: -

i) To reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by
electronic means,

(ii) To issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation,

(iii) To perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public,

(iv) To make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work,

(v) To make any translation of the work

(vi) To make any adaptation of the work

Under the Copyright Act 1957, a filmmaker who signs a copyright contract has ownership rights
to his or her photographs and films. Under Section 14 of the Copyright Act 1957, the registrar of
copyrights provides a copyright holder with certain privileges. Copyrighted filmmakers have the
exclusive legal right to reproduce, publicly display, distribute copies of, perform publicly, and

create "derivative works" of their work. They use this method to protect their idea from being
duplicated or stolen. It is not, however, as basic as it looks. The screenplay is an original work
with its own set of intellectual property rights. The producer often employs a playwright, whose
29
Copyright Act,1957 (14 of 1957)
30
Janhavi Prakash Tiwary, “Copyright Injunctions in the Entertainment Industry.”

16
contract varies depending on the current copyright regulations. If the film is based on a
previously published work, the producer will need to include an option agreement to acquire the
rights. The owner of the present work gives the producer permission to make the film with these
rights for a defined period. If this option is selected and the film is made, the producer pays the
copyright owner an agreed-upon fee for using the work in the film. The original copyright owner
retains certain rights, such as publication, stage, and broadcast rights, to avoid any unanticipated
eventualities.

The Indian Copyright Act of 1957 does not provide for the protection of the film's title; hence no
copyright is given to it in India. This is because a copyright promotes creativity and
acknowledges the never-ending effort that goes into creating anything. The title, on the other
hand, is too short to be considered an independent work. As a result, various films in the
industry, such as Dostana (1980&2010), Golmaal (1979&2006), Loha (1987&1997), and so on,
share the same title.

Some film titles, however, may be copyrighted in certain circumstances to prohibit others from
using the same title. Let's say a director wants to develop a movie based on a book. He cannot
immediately begin expressing his thoughts. He would want to know if that novel is available for
purchase. During that time, he will have to finish the screenplay. It is a clever idea to get the
author's permission before devoting time and effort into creating and adapting a script. A
cinematograph film can also be protected under the Act. It is important to keep in mind that
copyright only protects the artist's unique interpretation of a subject, not the concept itself.

17
Chapter 4

4.1 Copyright Infringement

The copyright act grants the work's author a set of rights relating to its reproduction and other
activities, allowing the artist to profit financially from the proper use of such rights. It usually
indicates that only the creator has the right to make copies of his or her own works, or that all
others are prohibited from doing so. Infringement is defined as the unlawful reproduction,
importation, or distribution of all or a substantial portion of a copyrighted work. Section 5131 of
the Act deals with copyright infringement, which is regarded to be committed by any person
who, among other things, does something that the owner of the copyright has the exclusive right
to do under the Act without obtaining a licence from the owner of the copyright. In addition,
Section 2(m) specifies the term "infringing copy." To prove infringement, the copyright owner
must establish that (a) he or she is the sole owner of the valid copyright, and (b) the infringer has
used one or more of the owner's exclusive rights to reproduce, publicly distribute, perform,
exhibit, or modify the copyrighted work.

It is significant to note that the term "copy" is used as an alternative to "infringement" in some
instances where a film is discussed in the Copyrights Act, 1957 ("Act"). From a bare reading of
the Act, it becomes evident that under the Act, the term 'infringement' of a film means to make a
carbon/ physical copy of such a film32. This can be gleaned from section 141 of the Act.
Moreover, only an original film can be copyrighted. Since the term "copy" is not defined by the
Act, it has been open to narrow interpretation by Indian courts and has been the subject of
debates over the years. One such notable debate can be found in the matter of R.G. Anand V.
M/s. Delux Films & Ors33. in 1978. In this judgment, the Supreme Court gave the term 'copying'
a wide(r) interpretation and laid down guiding principles to determine what constituted copying/
infringement of copyrights in artistic work. The guiding principles state that:

31
Copyright Act,1957 (51 of 1957)
32
Rianna Lobo, Infringement of Copyright in Films,30 December 2019, Juris Prime Law Services
33
R.G. Anand V. M/s. Delux films & ors. (1978) 4 SCC 118.

18
a) 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 work34.

b) Where the same idea is developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being
common, similarities are bound to occur. 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.

c)Where the reader or the viewer pursuant to having read or seen both the works is undoubtedly
of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work is a copy of the
original

4.2 Infringement vs Inspiration

Copyright protects only the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves35.Two painters, for
example, can paint the same scene but depict it in slightly different ways without infringing on
each other's copyright. Similarly, the fact that the Lost series is copyrighted does not preclude
you from writing a narrative about a group of people who are forced to dwell on a remote island
following an aircraft disaster.

Taking inspiration from someone else’s work is therefore acceptable, but to have copyright in
your work and avoid infringement you need to create something original by using your own skill,
labour, judgement, and effort. Using another’s work is copyright infringement when ‘the work as
a whole or any substantial part of it’ has been copied. Unfortunately, the precise meaning of
these concepts is defined on a case-by-case basis. In deciding cases like this, courts will weigh
the potential impact upon the originator’s ability to market their work with the concern that other
people should be able to use it to draw inspiration for future work36.

34
Namrta Sudan Rai &Pragya Khaitan, Toils and Turmoil of Media and Entertainment Sector, 06 April 2018
35
ASMP, Appeals Court Rejects Co Rentmeester’s Copyright Claim Against Nike, March 2, 2018, Small Claims
Report
36
Inspiration and Copying - Copyright

19
In numerous cases, the Indian film industry has used the term "inspired by" to provide
plagiarised content to the viewers. Due to a lack of stringent copyright enforcement, incidences
of plagiarism have increased, depriving audiences of new, unique, and creative experiences in
the form of film tales, music, and other creative content. There have been countless instances
when the issue of plagiarised content was brought to light after the music/film was published.
The extent of the copying ranges from lifting a few scenes from Hollywood movies to rewording
entire plots into Hindi. It has been seen that the makers of Bollywood film ‘Darr (1993)’ adapted
the dramatic fight scene like ‘Cape Fear (1991)’, similarly many scenes in ‘Barfi’ were adapted
from many Hollywood films such as Charlie Chaplin, Cops and The Notebook, etc. Although
these films must have copied only a few scenes from prior Hollywood films, the substantial
impact of these scenes cannot be denied and can be put under significant copyright
infringement37.

There is a very thin line between inspired or copied material. Inspiration works only if,
eventually, something new has been created out of it. If the result is not better, it should be at
least different from the inspiration. For example, The Bollywood movie 'FAN' starring Mr.
Shahrukh Khan and the Hollywood movie of Mr. Bobby Rayburn 'THE FAN' in 1996 bear an
uncanny resemblance in not just the concept but at times the dialogues as well38. Avoiding the
inclination to critically review the movie both 'FAN' and 'THE FAN' follow the stories of die-
hard fans wanting to spend time with their superstars. It might be difficult to determine where the
boundary between acceptable inspiration and unacceptable copyright infringement is drawn. The
storyline difference comes in the conclusion, when the anti-hero in Bollywood's "FAN" clones
himself to appear like his idol and publicly defames his image, and in Hollywood's "THE FAN,"
Robert De Niro kidnaps the protagonist's son and demands that he hit a home run as ransom.

4.2.1 Key case laws and Judicial trends regarding infringement

A) The Bombay High Court in Zee Telefilms Limited vs. Sundial Communications Private
Limited39 laid down the following two tests to determine copyright infringement:

37
Himanshu Gaur, Indian Film Industry VS Copyright Laws, Excelon IP
38
Abhay Nevagi Associates, Creative Inspiration, or Infringement? The Thin Divide,27 April 2016, Legally India
39
Zee Telefilms Ltd. And Film And ... vs Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd, 2003 (5) BomCR 404, 2003 (3) MhLj 695,
2003 (27) PTC 457 Bom

20
 i. Average viewer test: In this test, the impression generated in the mind of a viewer is
crucial; if it can be deduced from the impression that the succeeding act is a duplicate of
the original act, then copyright infringement has occurred. The R.G. Anand Case set the
precedent for this test. The court in the Zee Telefilms case, on the other hand, repeated
and supported the position in the R.G. Anand case.

ii)The substance/kernel assessment test: This test involves assessing the significance of

the copied portion on the rest of the work40. If the whole work can function without the
plagiarised piece, no copyright infringement has happened; but, if the plagiarised portion
is so important to the whole work that censoring it will cause the remainder of the work
to lose its meaning, copyright infringement has occurred.

B) In the case Vinay Vats v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 41 In the instant matter, the
plaintiff claimed to be the author and the first copyright owner of a script for a film
titled – ‘Tukkaa Fitt’ which it claimed to write in the year 2010-2011, and the trailer for which
was released in the year 2012. The plaintiff filed the application for an interim injunction a day
before the scheduled release of the film, Lootcase, based on the similarities between the plot of
his film and the trailer of the film, Lootcase42.

C) In the case XYZ Films LLC and Ors.  v. UTV Motion Pictures/UTV Software
Communications Ltd. and Ors43. the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had condensed the
contents of its film, The Raid: Redemption into the last 20 minutes of their film, Baaghi. The
plaintiffs claimed that the duration of the film is irrelevant, and that anybody seeing the final 20
minutes of Baaghi would certainly infer that it is a remake of The Raid: Redemption. "The
'kernel' of Baaghi, if one is driven to it, is one of filial obligation, of battling for one's love
despite all odds," wrote a single judge bench of the Bombay High Court (G. S. Patel, J.) in
applying the kernel test established in the Zee Telefilms case. Everything else is merely
incidental, and none of it is even hinted to in The Raid: Redemption." As a result, the Bombay
High Court declined to award an injunction in this case.

40
Namrata Sudan Rai &Pragya Khaitan, Toils and Turmoil of Media and Entertainment Sector, 06 April 2018
41
Vinay Vats vs Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 30 July 2020
42
Janaki Arun, Are Film Plots Protected by Copyright? October 20,2021
43
Xyz Films Llc And 2 Ors vs Utv Motion Pictures/Utv Software ... on 21 April 2016

21
D) Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited· 44
Copyright problems relating to television programmes were the subject of this litigation. The
surest and safest test to determine whether there has been a copyright infringement is to see if the
spectator, reader, viewer, or audience, after reading or seeing both works, is of the opinion and is
of the unmistakable impression that the subsequent work is a copy or facsimile of the original.

E) in the case of  Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Zee Telefilms Ltd.   and Ors45.   In
any instance, many element-by-element applications of the test raises the question of whether
their numerical aggregate is determinative. "In considering the question of substantiality, the
similarities between the programme should be considered individually, and then it should be
considered whether the entirety of what had been copied represented a substantial part of the
plaintiff's programme," the 'twenty-four' vs. 'Time Bomb' decision avoided this conclusion by
describing the test as a qualitative rather than a quantitative one – "In considering the question of
substantiality, the similarities between the programme should be considered individually, and
then it should be considered whether the entirety of The quality of a portion, not its amount,
determines if it was significant..." To this court, the two television serials looked to be different
based on the qualitative variations between them.

F) In Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and
Ors46.  For example, a Bombay High Court single judge bench [R.S. Dalvi, J.] said that "the
standard of deciding whether the second work is a pirated copy is the average viewer's
perception..." As a result, the film 'Knock Out' was determined to be infringing on copyright in
the screenplay of the film 'Phone Booth.'

G) in the case of Mansoob Haider v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd 47. In this case the Court was
looking at whether the film 'Dhoom 3' infringed on his copyright in the script for his picture
'Once.' The Court decided that if all'scènes à faire' were eliminated, the entire claim would fail

44
Zee Entertainment Enterprises ... vs Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt ... on 5 April 2017
45
Twentieth Century Fox Film ... vs Zee Telefilms Ltd and Ors., 2012 (51) PTC 465 (Del)
46
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 2010 (44) PTC 647
(Bom)
47
Mansoob Haider v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., 2014 (59) PTC 292 (Bom)

22
since there was no similarity between the pictures, and so held that no prima facie case was put
out.

A) Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd. V. Parag M. Sanghavi 223 (2015) DLT 152,
MIPR 2015 (3) 009648

The film "Sholay," which was released in 1975, was one of the most popular films of the period.
The film was well-known, and the term was linked with the Sippys (producers), thus it had a
secondary significance. Ram Gopal Varma was sued for trademark infringement in 2007 after
releasing a film named "Ram Gopal Varma key Sholay." The film's title was later altered to
"Ram Gopal Varma key Aag."

B) Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. vs RGV Film Factory and Ors. 138 (2007) DLT 31249

Kanungo "Nishabd," a Bengali film made by Media, received several accolades. However, it
was unable to be released on a commercial basis. They subsequently requested a permanent
injunction against Ram Gopal Verma's usage of their film title "Nishabd." The film was not well
received since it could not be distributed, and the title had no additional significance. As a result,
the Delhi High Court denied the suit, and Ram Gopal Varma's Hindi film "Nishabd" was born.

4.2.2 Tests of Infringement

A) Substantial Copying Test

If a film, on side-by side comparison with an earlier work, appears to be a substantial copy such
that without the said ‘substance,’ the film would be incomplete, should then and only then such
an adaptation be found to constitute infringement? This ‘substantial copying’ test was laid down
in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films50."...Where the same notion is being developed in a different
manner, it is obvious that the source being common, parallels are bound to exist," the Supreme
Court [Raja Jaswant Singh, R.S. Pathak, and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.] ruled. To be actionable,

48
Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.v. Parag Sanghavi & Ors, 223 (2015) DLT 152, MIPR 2015 (3) 0096
49
Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. vs Rgv Film Factory and Ors, 138 (2007) DLT 312
50
Janaki Arun, Are Film Plots Protected by Copyright? October 20,2021

23
the copy must be significant and material, leading to the judgement that the defendant has
committed piracy right away..."

Is this substantiality and materiality requirement merely an overarching criterion, or will it be

broken down into pieces for a more detailed application of the test? A single judge panel of the
Delhi High Court [Anil Kumar, J.] stressed both factors as valid in determining whether the
television series "Time Bomb" was copied from an incredibly famous television serial '24' in the
case of Twentieth Century Fox V. Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Ors.

B) Scènes À Faire Test

If the test were applied via the sense of even a cinema aficionado, if not a film expert, it would
be discovered that some moments in every film are mandatory or usual due to belonging to a
specific genre and are scarcely unique to any one picture. Electricity failing in a horror film, or
high-speed pursuit sequences in heist flicks, are examples of such'scenes à faire.'

Of course, this philosophy necessitates categorising films into a single genre, a meta cognitive
effort with some subjectivity. However, other courts have chosen to use it, such as a single judge
bench of the Bombay High Court [G.S. Patel, J.] in the Mansoob case. This Court was looking at
whether the film 'Dhoom 3' infringed on his copyright in the script for his picture 'Once.' When
asked whether there was substantial and material overlap with the original elements in the
original work, the Court determined that if all'scènes à faire' were removed, the entire suit would
fail because there was no similarity between the films, and thus held that there was no prima
facie case.

4.2.2 Copyright Infringement issues in the Indian Film Industry

A) Rangoon– Wadia Movie Tone filed a copyright infringement complaint in Bombay High
Court against the creators of the film Rangoon, saying that Kangana Ranaut's character,
'Jaanbaaz Miss Julia,' was based on 'Fearless Nadia,' a character in their 1935 film 'Hunterwali.'
Justice K.R. Shriram remarked that while he was tempted to issue an injunction prohibiting the

24
distribution of the film, he would desist if the defendants provided a bank guarantee of INR 2
crores with 10% interest by March 4, 2017. The Bombay High Court is presently hearing the
case.

B) Sarkar 3- Nilesh Girkar sued Ram Gopal Verma in the Bombay High Court, alleging
infringement of his copyright in the picture. Sarkar-3. The case was dropped based on the
condition that credit be given to the plaintiff as “Based on a story written by Nilesh Girkar.” The
Plaintiff was allowed to withdraw an amount of Rs. 6.2 lakhs which had been deposited in the
Court towards the balance claim by the Plaintiff as his fees with accumulated interest, if any

C)Phillauri– Dashrath B Rathod filed a lawsuit against Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd and Ors,
alleging that the Defendants' film 'Phillauri' infringed on his copyright in the 2013 Gujarati,
Bhojpuri, and Nepali film 'Mangal Phera.' The Bombay High Court found no originality in the
Plaintiff's works, which were like the Defendant's handling of the picture. Using the provisions
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Justice Patel imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lacs on Plaintiff.

D)Pushpaka Vimana– The Bombay High Court ordered that Kannada film Pushpaka Vimana
not be screened since it was a clone of the Korean film Miracle in Cell No. 7. A television
production company called Kross Pictures, a company based in South Korea alleged that the
movie’s storyline was a copy of the Korean movie Miracle in Cell No. 7, the rights to which are
owned by Kross Pictures India.

E) Wanted: Boney Kapoor finally won in Allahabad High Court after a seven-year battle: In
2009, a municipal court in Meerut charged Boney Kapoor, his wife Sridevi, filmmaker
Prabudheva, and actor Salman Khan with copyright infringement and plagiarism for their action
film Wanted. Birbal Singh Rana, a local writer-director, claimed that BSK Network and
Entertainment, Kapoor's production business, had stolen his original story, Raja Bhai IPS, for
their film. Birbal said in his suit that he submitted a copyright script to the corporation in 2004,
but that it was rejected and later rewritten for their own project.

F) Raabta: Magadheera creators (Geeta Arts) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against
Raabta makers in Hyderabad's City Civil Court. The lawsuit was later dropped and dismissed.

25
4.1.2 COPYRIGHT PIRACY

The unauthorised reproduction, importation, or distribution of works protected by copyright, in

whole or in part, is classified as copyright piracy. Piracy is defined as the use of an illegal
website to allow the public to download or see a film before it is officially distributed in theatres.
When a film like this "leaks" online before its official release date, the film producer is almost
certain to lose a lot of money because the bulk of the public's immediate instinct is to download
and watch the film instead of paying to see it in a theatre.

The major source of piracy is because of cam- cording in theatres and release of films in other
countries a day before the release of the film. These films are released online even before the
actual release. Prevent piracy of the films, producers and film makers must obtain John Doe
orders from the court. In Shreya Singhal v/s Union of India 51, the court held that removal of the
online content should be done only if the adjudicatory body issues an order compelling
intermediary to remove the online content52. When the involved parties fail to comply with the
order to eliminate illegal content, the Supreme Court decision protects the intermediaries from
liability.

Under the Copyrights Act, 1957, sections 5453 to 62 deals with the provisions of civil remedies
that are available for copyright protection in civil courts. Section 6354 to section 70 deals with the
provisions for criminal remedy when a person knowingly infringes the copyright in a work, other
rights conferred by the act or knowingly abets the infringement.

De Minimus infringement

The Delhi High Court has used the notion of de minimis as a defence to copyright infringement.
The theory, which asserts that "the law does not bother itself with trifles," has long been
recognised as a common law as well as a criminal defence. Given the vast volume of small
copyright 'infringements' that occur daily and go unnoticed, the de minimis maxim has a
profound impact on copyright law.

51
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523 (Copyright Office, n.d.)
52
Manasvi, Media and Entertainment Law,27 August 2020, International Journal of Research, ISSN 2348-6848
53
Copyright Act,1957 (54 of 1957)
54
Copyright Act,1957 (63 of 1957)

26
The Delhi High Court applied the doctrine while deciding a copyright infringement suit in India
Independent News v Yash raj Films Pvt Ltd55. Here, a singer appeared on a television chat
show, and parts of a popular song were played during the singer’s interview. The alleged
infringement was deemed de minimis and therefore not actionable, and in the process the court
laid down five considerations for such cases56:

 the size and type of harm – in the case at hand, it was found that only five words were
used. The judges considered this to be too trivial and insignificant to warrant an
actionable claim.
 the cost of adjudication – this relates to the amount that would be charged by the
copyright owner when compared to the cost of adjudication.
 the purpose of the violated legal obligation.
 the effect on legal rights of third parties; and
 the intent of the alleged wrongdoer57.

Section 52 of the Copyright Act of 1957 outlines the exclusions that have been determined to not
constitute copyright infringement. De minimis has been recognised as a defence in India outside
of the provisions of Section 52 of the legislation. Despite the absence of apparent textual
legislative backing, courts have generously accommodated the de minimis defence, considering
the alleged infringer's end motivation.

55
India Tv Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd,2013 (53) PTC 586 (Del)
56
India: Managing the IP Lifecycle 2018/2019 - World
57
Subhajit Banerjee, Courts address the application of de minimis principle to copyright cases, February 3, 2014

27
Chapter 5

5.1 CONCLUSION
The future of copyright in India:

India's film and music industry still have a long way to go before they stop creating illegal
replicas without permission or credit. Nonetheless, authors in the Indian entertainment industry
are gradually realising the need of copyright protection, whether the works belong to them or to
international authors. India should follow Malaysia's and Taiwan's lead and prosecute high-
profile copyright infringers in the Indian music business. Finally, by collaborating with the
United States and learning from its copyright enforcement, India can ensure that duplication and
infringement are reduced while creativity is increased. "We had difficulties with piracy
pertaining to medical textbooks before the legislation was altered," says Ramdas Bhatkal of
Popular Prakashan in Mumbai. While the law was on our side at the time, we discovered that
obtaining a court order for search was required, which entailed giving the pirate enough notice to
take defensive measures before the court order could be enforced. As a result, we chose to accept
the situation rather than intervene. It has been conceivable to utilise the legal process as a
deterrence since the modifications that make copyright violation a cognizable offence."

Copyright, as stated at the outset of this book, is a set of legal rights granted to authors of
literary, theatrical, musical, and creative works, as well as makers of visual films and sound
recordings. It is a law that protects; it is a law that protects respect and a law of appreciation to
the author and his creation or his/her innovation. I would also say that copyright law is a
necessary law which protects and encourages the creative side of an erstwhile the goodness and
merits of the copyright law gets piled up on hand, an evil side also peeps out from another side.
One should note that, like every other law, the law of copyright is also intended to protect the
rights and shield the author against any sort of mala fide and unauthorized use and violation of
his or her rights.

28
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

A) Strict government action is needed to prescribe a forced data sharing regime and to extend
statutory licensing beyond its legislative scope, both of which are examples of state meddling
that threatens to erode copyright protection.

B) It is past time for India to impose harsh penalties and make steps to expedite the resolution of
Intellectual Property-related issues. Filmmakers will lose the incentive offered by Copyright
Laws if films continue to be copied. An infringement copy, according to this author, is one that is
a considerable copy of the original work, one that an average viewer cannot tell apart, and/or one
that is comparable to the original work but for the scene à faire. This method of combining and
consolidating the numerous legal tests of interpretation of the statutory term ‘copy’ as occurring
in Section 2(m)(ii) of the Copyright Act 1957, however, currently lacks judicial precedent.

C) The enforcement of copyright rules in India is just non-existent. In this perspective, the
TRIPS Agreement and other international accords have been criticized for having insufficient
provisions for resource sharing. As a result, proper execution of these laws is required.

D)Indian courts are so overburdened that bringing a matter to trial takes an inordinate length of
time. As a result, while India may have enough de jure copyright protection and may follow
TRIPS criteria, judicial change is required. Overzealous adherence to broad plotlines and themes
may stifle originality. As a result, it is up to the courts to strike a balance between copyright
protection and monopolization'.

E) It is needed in India to aware people of the copyright laws and to strengthen the copyright
regime. The growth of Intellectual Property Rights in the entertainment industry is required for
the extension of artistic and creative work in the industry.

29
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1)

30