R.G. Anand v. Delux Films and Ors.

Citation:AIR 1978 SC 1613

Petitioner :R.G Anand

Respondent: M/S . Delux Films &Ors.

Facts:
- R.G. Anand, a playwright, wrote and produced the successful play 'Hum Hindustani' in 1953.

- The second respondent, Mr. Mohan Sehgal, expressed interest in the play and had discussions with the
appellant about making it into a film in 1955.

- The appellant believed that the film 'New Delhi,' made by the respondents in May 1955, was based on
his play.

- The respondents denied any similarity and assured the appellant that there was no infringement.

- The appellant later watched the film in September 1956 and concluded that it was a copy of his play,
leading to a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against copyright infringement.

Issues:
- The main issue was whether the film 'New Delhi' infringed the copyright of the play 'Hum Hindustani.'

Holdings:
- The Supreme Court held that the film 'New Delhi' did not infringe the copyright of the play 'Hum
Hindustani.'

- Copyright protection applies to the expression of ideas, not to the ideas themselves.

- Infringement depends on the degree of similarity in expression, and if a substantial part has been
copied, it constitutes infringement.

- The impression created on the audience or readers plays a crucial role in determining infringement (Lay
Observer Test).

- Dissimilarities between works negate the intention to copy, and similarities may be coincidental.

- Clear evidence and correct application of copyright infringement tests are necessary to prove piracy.

- When comparing a film adaptation to a stage play, the broader scope of a film allows for greater
differences in presentation and incidents.

- If the audience perceives the film as an imitation of the play, it can constitute copyright infringement.
Rationale:
- Copyright law protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves, to prevent monopolies in
creative markets.

- Copyright infringement depends on the substantiality of copying and the impression left on the
audience.

- Dissimilarities between works and a lack of clear evidence can negate copyright infringement.

Dicta:
- The case emphasized the distinction between copyright protection for ideas and their expression.

- It highlighted the importance of audience perception in determining infringement.

Dissent:
- There was no dissent mentioned in the case summary.

Procedural History:
- The case began in lower courts and was appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution.

Party's Arguments:
- Appellant argued that the trial and High Courts' decisions contradicted established copyright principles
and that similarities between the play and the movie implied infringement.

- Respondents contended that the lower courts correctly applied the law, citing numerous dissimilarities
between the works and denying copyright infringement.

Judgment:
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the film 'New Delhi' did not infringe the copyright
of the play 'Hum Hindustani.' It emphasized the need for substantial copying and audience perception of
imitation to establish infringement. The court underscored the distinction between protecting ideas and
their expression in copyright law.