Objectives of the Research

 To gain an understanding of the various areas of IPR infringement in the Indian

Entertainment and Media industry.
 To study various cases of infringement of IPRs within the Indian Entertainment
industry and develop a critical overview of how the violation of IPRs is adversely
affecting the basic characteristics of the entertainment industry and its creativity.
 To develop an insight into the various challenges and issues involved in the resolution
and prevention of disputes pertaining to intellectual property rights issues.

Cases related to Entertainment IPR

IPR cases in the Indian Entertainment Industry:
The Indian media and entertainment industry has grown by leaps and bounds in terms of
content creation, number of outlets, and use of cutting-edge technology. However, when we
talk about content generation and delivery, we need to look at to what extent the content is
original and the principles and regulations of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) have been
followed in its creation. IP rights are a major safeguard against any kind of infringement of
the makers' originality and creativity, providing recognition to the creators' talents and
ensuring the dissemination of original and genuine work among the masses.
The Indian media and entertainment industry is one of the fastest growing and most visible
media industries in the world. As per the Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, it
is currently valued at USD 28 billion and is projected to reach USD 100 billion by 2030.
Although the industry has achieved exponential growth in the last decades, it more often than
not gets engulfed in some major legal issues like piracy and copyright violations.
Following are some IPR infringement cases of the Indian film, media and entertainment
industry:

Zanjeer (Salim Khan and Another vs. Sumeet Prakash Mehra and Others):
"Zanjeer" is a 1973 Hindi blockbuster starring Amitabh Bachchan, Jaya Bachchan,
Pran, Ajit Khan, and Bindu. Without a doubt, this is one of the best dramas ever made. The
smash hit was written by Salim Khan with assistance from Javed Khan and produced by
Prakash Mehra Productions. However, Mr Mehra died in 2009, and his rights were
transferred to his legal heir, Puneet Prakash Mehra.
Plaintiffs Salim Khan and Javed Akhtar claimed copyright infringement for the script
they wrote for Prakash Mehra's original 'Zanjeer' in 1973. They sought a permanent
injunction prohibiting Sumeet Mehra and others (heirs of Prakash Mehra, the Defendants in
this case) from exhibiting, releasing, displaying, or communicating to the public in any way
the remake film "Zanjeer" in Hindi, Telugu, or any other language anywhere in the world.
The Plaintiffs contended that they were the authors of the original Zanjeer, and that
this literary work was never authorised by Prakash Mehra, and that it existed before Prakash
Mehra proposed the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, Prakash Mehra was granted a one-time permit to
make the aforementioned film in 1973. As a result, Prakash Mehra's rights were limited to the
1973 film "Zanjeer" and did not extend to the underlying literary work because there was no
approval from the plaintiffs to that effect. Based on the literary work, the plaintiffs retain the
right to remake a cinematographic film in any language in the absence of any agreement
under Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, and the defendants cannot remake the film
without the plaintiffs' written consent.
However, the Court determined that Prakash Mehra had commissioned the work from
the Plaintiffs for a fee of Rs. 55, 000 each and was thus the first owner of the film's
underlying works, which included the literary work. The following sequence of events
marked the case's turning point:
 Plaintiff No.1 narrated the “story idea” of “Zanjeer” to Dharmendra;
 Dharmendra paid valuable consideration for that story, although it will be a
matter of evidence whether the payment was to purchase the story (as stated
by Plaintiff No.1 in his interview to ETC network) or as token blessing money
as alleged in the rejoinder of Plaintiff No. 1;
 Dharmendra narrated the story to Prakash Mehra and asked him to take a
script from the Plaintiffs based on the said story; and
 Dharmendra then commissioned the Plaintiffs to write a script on behalf of
Prakash Mehra based on the said story.
Several interviews with Prakash Mehra and Salim Khan were examined, and the court
discovered clear statements indicating that the script was purchased by Dharmendra and later
by Prakash Mehra from Salim Khan, and that it was not a case of mere licencing. The
assessment order for the relevant year, as well as the profit and loss account and the cost
breakdown of the film, were also produced, revealing that Rs. 55,000 was paid to each author
as a consideration for ‘script and screenplay’.
Based on these facts, the court reached a preliminary conclusion that the producer,
Prakash Mehra, became the first owner of the copyright in the underlying work (the script)
and thus had the right to remake it (this right now vests with his heirs) (the Defendants).
Furthermore, the court determined that the Plaintiffs had overly delayed bringing the case to
court. They were closely associated with the film industry and thus could not plead ignorance
that the Defendants were in the process of remaking Zanjeer, which was widely publicised.
Furthermore, because the Plaintiffs had quantified their claims in monetary terms at
Rs. 6 crores, the court determined that they did not qualify for a mandatory injunction. This
was due to the fact that even if the Court had determined that the Plaintiffs are the owners of
the copyright, because their claims fall under Section 38 (3) (c) and not Section 38 (3) (b) of
the Specific Relief Act,1963, they would be satisfied by monetary compensation rather than
an injunction.
Dassault Systems Solid Works Corp. vs. Spartan Engineering Ind.:
Dassault Systems Solid Works Corp. vs. Spartan Engineering Ind. is just the latest in a
long line of copyright infringement lawsuits involving digital piracy. The coronavirus has
drastically altered people's lifestyles, forcing them to confine themselves to their homes and
avoid contact with the outside world. It has also had an impact on people's income and
livelihoods, which is why software piracy and digital piracy of online material have increased
concurrently. While the popularity of internet content and digital literary works such as music
and movies has grown, so has piracy, resulting in widespread copyright infringement.
 The matter pertains to Dassault’s “Solidworks” software which is computer aided
design (CAD) programme that simplifies product development in a 3D environment. It was
created by Dassault’s employees and the rights to it belong to Dassault. The Plaintiffs claim
that the software programme and its instruction manuals are literary works under the
Copyright Act of 1957 and therefore entitled to copyright protection. They filed a lawsuit
claiming copyright infringement of its “Solidworks” software by the defendant Spartan
Engineering.
Dassault disclosed in May 2018 that Spartan was allegedly using pirated and illegal
modifications of the "Solidworks" software. Dassault filed a copyright infringement lawsuit
against Spartan in the Delhi High Court. Dassault stated that illegal use of the software had
more than doubled since August 2020, and that efforts to find a solution had failed because of
Spartan’s denial of infringing on Dassault's software. It was claimed that any entity using the
plaintiff's original licenced software must be able to show proof of payment or proof of
procuring the required number of genuine licences, corresponding to the exact number of
computers on which the software has been downloaded/loaded/installed and which the
customer is using concurrently. Given that India and the United States of America (US) are
both signatories to the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention, and the
World Trade Organization Agreement, the programme was first published in the US and is
now protected in India under Section 40 of the Copyright Act.
The Plaintiffs petitioned the Court for an injunction, claiming that use of any pirated
or unauthorised copy of the Plaintiffs' software programme constituted copyright
infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act. The Plaintiffs also cited Section 63B of
the Act, which makes knowingly using a pirated computer programme a criminal offence.
Furthermore, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants violated the End User License
Agreement, resulting in contractual and intellectual property infringement.
The court’s judgement came in favour of the Plaintiffs, restraining the Defendants
from using, reproducing and distributing any pirated or unlicensed or unauthorized software
programs owned by the Plaintiffs and also from formatting their computer systems and/or
erasing any data, pertaining to assisting others to infringe the Plaintiff’s copyright. While
issuing the order the court remarked that “software infringement is a serious issue, and
deserves to be nipped in the bud.”
Piracy has harmed not only the due profits of lawful copyright holders, but it has also
harmed the economy, resulting in job and income losses. Because of the omnipresence of
digital media and the resulting exponential number of pirates, copyright owners are unable to
identify infringers, making digital piracy so dangerous and difficult to combat. The Indian
government and its various departments being aware of this technical threat have
implemented various structural and policy measures to counter it.
Indian courts have made significant contributions to the development of an effective
intellectual property jurisprudence in the country. The right to communicate work to the
public is without a doubt one of the most important rights that any Intellectual Property
owner has, and it is recognised under the Copyright Act of 1957. The Indian copyright law
provides civil remedies as well as criminal penalties for infringement. To combat online
piracy, Indian courts have taken tough measures ranging from prohibiting unlicensed
broadcasting to issuing injunctions and blocking websites.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. vs. Gajendra Singh:
Famous television reality show producer Gajendra Singh created the Antakshari
Saregama format while working for Zee Entertainment and reduced it to writing in the format
of a concept note, which was supposed to be a departure from the traditional "Antakshari "
game.
The defendant was accused of copying the plaintiff's game show in all material
aspects without a licence or valid authorization for the show "Antakshari- The Great
Challenge," which aired on Star One. The plaintiff claimed that it is the owner of the
copyright in the literary work and the cinematograph film embodying the television game and
is entitled to exclusive use thereof/or to license the same, and that it has not licensed or
assigned it in respect of the game to anyone, including the defendant, and that the defendant
has thus infringed the plaintiff’s said copyright. As a result, the plaintiff filed a suit in
Bombay High Court seeking perpetual injunctions.
The issue here was whether Copyright exists in the concept of a Television Serial. A
concept note is an expression used in the television/film industry that contains literary work
and is entitled to protection under the Copyright Act if it contains work that is copyrightable
under the said Act. If it contains copyrightable work, the author/owner is entitled to the
protection provided by the Copyright Act of 1957.
The mere use of the term concept note, on the other hand, would have no effect. In
each case, a court would have to determine whether the concept note constitutes work that is
copyrightable and entitled to protection under the Act's provisions.
Although the Bombay High Court accepted the defendant's contention that the
concept note was fabricated in this case, the court also noted that:
 For starters, there was no record of the concept note's creation.
 Second, the concept was never mentioned in the record.
 Third, despite the serious allegations made by the first defendant regarding the
concept note, the plaintiff did not present any evidence demonstrating how the
concept note came to be stored on the plaintiff's computer.
As a result, the court concluded that because the plaintiff had not established the
concept note, it was unnecessary for the court to consider whether the material contained
therein constituted literary work and whether it is protected under the Copyright Act. Later,
the plaintiff and defendant reached an out-of-court settlement worth Rs 2 crores.
References:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
318122730_Intellectual_Property_Rights_and_Indian_Entertainment_Industry_An_Ov
erview
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/media/entertainment/media/indian-
media-and-entertainment-industry-projected-to-reach-usd-100-bn-by-2030-ib-
secretary/articleshow/90311661.cms?from=mdr
https://blog.ipleaders.in/zanjeer-famous-copyright-infringement-case/
https://lawessential.com/m%26a-deals-%26-cases-archive/f/dassault-systems-solid-
works-corp-vs-spartan-engineering-ind#:~:text=Dassault%20said%20that%20in
%20May,High%20Court%2C%20alleging%20copyright%20infringement.
https://blog.ipleaders.in/how-copyright-has-changed-the-entertainment-industry-in-the-
recent-time/