Copy right cases

Landmark case laws

R.G. Anand v. M/S. Delux Films and Others

(1978)

Facts
The respondent is a film production firm, while the appellant is a
playwright and an architect by profession. In the year 1953, the
appellant wrote a play titled “Hum Hindustani,” which was performed
in New Delhi the following year, in the year 1954. The play was so
popular that it was presented again in Calcutta in the years 1954,
1955, and 1956. Due to the play’s popularity, the appellant sought to
have it made into a movie. The appellant’s purpose was made known
to the respondent, and the two met in New Delhi to talk about the
possibility of hearing it. The respondent was given a detailed
explanation of the entire play by the appellant, but no promise to film
it was made by the respondent. In 1956, the respondent produced a
film titled “New Delhi,” which was thereafter released. After watching
the film, the appellant claimed that the respondents had plagiarised
his play and used it as the basis for a movie without his consent. The
appellant then presented a case to the Delhi District Judge. The
appellants argued in court that the play and movie share striking
parallels and are both founded on the same concept, namely
“Provincialism.” The District Judge, however, disagreed with the
appellant’s assertion following the arguments.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff’s copyright in the play “Hum Hindustani” was

violated by the defendants’ distribution, production, and screening of
the movie “New Delhi”?
Judgment

The Court’s judgment was given by Justice Fazal Ali. The Court
determined that even if both the play and the movie may have been
inspired by the concept of “Provincialism,” they are very different from
one another. The movie also depicts other aspects of “Provincialism,”
such as “Provincialism” in the leasing of outhouses, which are not
depicted in the play when it comes to marriage. The play doesn’t
illustrate the evils of dowry, but the movie does. Because the concept
in both the play and the movie is identical, the court struck down the
appellants’ claim because it is well-established law that a concept
cannot be protected by copyright. The Court cited N.T. Raghunathan
and Anr. v. All India Reporter Ltd., Bombay (1957), and held that there
may be some similarities. According to the Court, a regular person
would not consider the play and the movie to be a duplicate of the play
if they were to view both. The claim made by the appellants that their
copyright has been violated cannot stand due to the significant
disparities between the play and the movie. The Delhi High Court’s
decision has been maintained court. As a result, the Court ruled in
favour of the respondents on both matters, and thus there was no
violation.

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (2012)

Facts

The case between Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (MBPL) and Super
Cassette Industries Limited (SCIL) over the determination of a licence
agreement’s royalty rate gave rise to the interim orders made by the
Copyright Board, which are the subject of this appeal. In accordance
with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two
parties, if the parties are involved in lawsuits and a court or arbitration
board, whether in an interim or final order, specifies a rate that is
distinct from what the parties have agreed upon, MBPL shall make
payments to SCIL at the altered rate so specified by the court or
arbitration board, with immediate effect so specified in such an order.
The appellant had sought the Copyright Board in 2001 to seek redress
against the respondent’s inflated royalty fee claim. The Board had
granted an obligatory licence in favour of the appellant for 661/- per
needle hour based on the initial evidence, the balance of convenience,
and irreparable damage. The respondent argues that, in accordance
with Section 31 of the Copyright Act of 1957, the Copyright Board lacks
the express authority to issue such interim decisions and asks for the
orders granted by the Copyright Board to be revoked.

Issue

Whether the Copyright Board has the authority to issue temporary

orders and determine the royalties for a temporary order in
proceedings under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957?

Judgment

The Copyright Board was ordered for the purpose of setting an interim
fee, and this Court stated that the Board had the authority to rule on
both the interim and final terms of a compulsory licence. Considering
the subject matter of the Special Leave Petitions, the Court declined to
issue an interim stay of the Copyright Board’s order.

Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Ltd. and Anr. (2019)

Facts

The Indian music label Tips Industries Ltd. (Plaintiff) has the copyright
to a sizable music archive, and in 2016 it allowed Wynk Music Ltd.
(Defendant) permission to access this archive. Both parties attempted
to renegotiate the licensing terms at the licence’s expiration but were
unsuccessful, thus Wynk sought protection under Section 31D of the
Copyright Act. Tips contested Wynk’s use of Section 31D and filed a
lawsuit against Wynk under Section 14(1)(e) for violating their
exclusive sound recording rights.

Issue

Whether the Copyright Act has a legislative licensing scheme for

streaming platforms?
Judgment

The Bombay High Court reached a decision after hearing the

arguments from both parties and concluded that Wynk had engaged in
direct violation on two counts: firstly, by making the copyrighted work
available under Section 14(1)(e)(ii), which allowed users to download
and subscribe to the plaintiff’s work offline; and secondly, by making
the plaintiff’s works available to users via their streaming platform. The
decision was made in the plaintiff’s direction, and the Court
determined that the plaintiff was eligible for an interim injunction since
they had presented a strong case and would incur severe financial
damage.

Sanjeev Pillai v. Vennu Kunnapalli (2019)

Facts

The appellant, director, and screenwriter Sajeev Pillai, asserted to have

done a background study on the great festival of Mamankam and
written a script for a film based on the same epic. He signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Kunnapalli-related Kavya Film
Company after meeting Venu Kunnapalli. Initially designated as the
director, Sajeev’s position was later removed and filled by someone
else. After that, the movie’s filming was finished, according to Sajeev,
who claimed that his script had been altered, mutilated, and otherwise
changed. In light of this, Sajeev filed a lawsuit and requested a number
of reliefs. A request for an interim injunction was also made to prevent
the respondents from publishing, releasing, disseminating, and
exploiting the movie and from releasing pre-release advertising
without adequately crediting Pillai as the author in accordance with
film industry norms.

Issue

Whether Section 57(1) of the Copyright Act grant the creator of a work
particular rights to assert authorship of that work even after the
assignment of that work?
Judgment

In reaching its decision, the Court stated that Section 57(1) grants the
author the right to enjoin third parties, and its second sub-section
grants the author the right to sue those third parties for damages if
their actions result in deformations, destruction, or other alteration of
his work or in any other action related thereto that would be
detrimental to his dignity or reputation. This gave the appellant an
unmatched edge in the situation and ensured that his assignment of
the work would preserve his legal claim to authorship.