PROJECT REPORT

On
“IF THE VIEWER AFTER SEEING THE FILM TOTAL
IMPRESSION THAT THE FILM IS AND LARGE A COPY OF
THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT MAY BE SAID
TO HAVE BEEN PROVED.”

Submitted To:
Ms. DEBMITA MONDAL
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

Submitted By:
YASH DILIP WASNIKAR
SEMESTER- VI, SECTION-A, ROLL NO-186

SUBMITTED ON:
20, July 2020

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

ABHANPUR, NEW RAIPUR (C.G) - 492001

 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project work entitled “If the viewer after seeing the film total

impression that the film is and large a copy of the original violation of copyright may

be said to have been proved. ” submitted to the Hidayatullah National Law University,

Raipur is the original work done by me under the guidance of Ms. Debmita Mondal,

Faculty Member of Intellectual Property Laws, Hidayatullah National Law University,

Raipur and this project has been submitted for the partial fulfillments of the

requirements for the award of the degree of BA- LLB. The results embodied in this

thesis have not been submitted to any other University or Institute for the award of any

degree ordiploma.

Place:Raipur Yash Dilip Wasnikar

Date: 20, July 2020 Semester –VI

Section-A

Roll No. – 186

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I, Yash Dilip Wasnikar, feel myself elated, as it gives me immense pleasure to come with the
work on topic, “If the viewer after seeing the film total impression that the film is and large a
copy of the original violation of copyright may be said to have been proved.”. Words fail to
express my deep sense of glee to my teacher, Ms. Debmita Mondal, Faculty Member of
Intellectual Property Laws, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, who enlightened me
on my every difficulty in completion of task. I acknowledge the blessings and support which my
mother and father gave in finishing of this task. I would like to forward my hearty thanks to my
University and Vice-Chancellor for providing all the necessary requirements which aided me to
achieve my goal. I also thank Librarian HNLU, Raipur, for assisting me and allowing me to use
the library of the University. I feel a deep sense of thankfulness to all my seniors, my friends
who helped me in achieving my target.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 CHAPTER-1:
INTRODUCTION & RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

On July 7, 1896, India’s first cinematographic film was shown in Mumbai. Today, India’s
mammoth film industry produces more movies than any other country in the world and employs
over two million people. In 2001, India’s entertainment industry (which includes film, music,
television, radio and live entertainment) was one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy,
experiencing over a 30% growth. Cable television generated the most revenue, followed by
television broadcasting, filmand television production. India, unlike America, has several film
industries. This project focuses on the largest of these industries: Bollywood, the center of Hindi
language cinema.

Human beings possess the faculty to think and create. They exploit their creation to earn bread.
Since it is the creation of their mind, it is called the intellectual property. Every intellectual
property, which adds to the cultural, social, scientific and economic development of the society,
must be protected and encouraged. The creator must be suitably rewarded for his creation by
providing legal protection to the intellectual output. The intellectual property law regulates the
creation, use and exploitation of mental or creative labour. It prevents third parties form
unjustifiably reaping the fruits of the creative labour of the author, which they have not sown.
The IPRs are the legal rights governing the use of creation of human minds.

We all have noticed a recent trend in the film industry to remake old or popular films. Typically,
remaking a film requires a license from the copyright holder of the original film. Sometimes,
remakes can also be made by taking 'inspiration' from or by 'adaptations' of the original film.
Such remakes do not require a license from the copyright holder.  It is pertinent to understand the
difference between taking inspiration/ adaptation from an original work and to make a blatant
copy of the original 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 film.  This can be gleaned from section 14 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.

In recent years, nearly eight out of every ten Bollywood scripts have been “inspired” by one or
more Hollywood films. Previously, this widespread problem was not visible to those outside of
India. The emergence of the Internet and better global communications, however, have made
Westerners more aware of the cultural copy situation in India.If a person’s copyright was
violated in another country, the copyright holder would have no recourse other than enlisting
their native country’s help in taking the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).”
RESEARCHQUESTIONS

The main research questions of the study are:-

 What is the concept of Cinematographic films under Copyright Act,1957?

 When the violation of copyright in Cinematographic films may be said to have been
proved?
 What are various authorities and the case law on the issue of infringement of
copyright of Cinematographic films?

OBJECTIVES OF THESTUDY

The main objectives of the study are:-

 To study the definition of Cinematographic films.

 ToStudyabout the ownership of copyright in Films and Videos.
 To study about how a copyright in a work is deemed to be infringed.
 To Study the landmark cases on the issue of infringement of copyright and the various
guidelines given by the courts.

SCOPE OF STUDY
The project report entitled “If the viewer after seeing the film total impression that the film
is by and large a copy of the original violation of copyright may be said to have been
proved” concept of cinematographic films under the Copyright Act,1957 and covers various
definitions. This project covers the concept about the ownership of copyright in films and
videos. It will also touch upon the various landmark cases and authorities concerning this
issue.
METHODOLOGY OF STUDY
Research Methodology is systematic approach and methods of study concerning for obtaining
new knowledge and generalization and formulation of theories.

 NATURE OFSTUDY-

Non-empirical research work has been used in this project as the material in this project mainly
consists of the work of people which is already done. The project is basically doctrinal in nature.
Citations are also provided wherever they werenecessary.

 SOURCES OFDATA-

This Project is made on the basis of secondary sources of information, which include:
1) Books and
2) Information from theinternet.

ORGANISATION OF THESTUDY

The study/report has been organized into six chapters. The first chapter deals with the
introduction of the topic and the research methodology used in this
project.Secondsectiondealswiththeconcept and definition of Cinematographic films. Third
Chapter is about Infringement of copyright in films. Fourth Chapter Deals with the Landmark
Case R.G. Anand v. Delux Films. Fifth chapter deals with the difference between Adaptation and
copyright infringement. Sixth Chapter deals with the famous cases of copyright infringement in
India.Lastly the above chapters were analyzed and is followed by a Conclusion &Suggestions.
 CHAPTER-2:

CONCEPT AND DEFINITION OF

CINEMATOGRAPHIC FILM WORK IN COPYRIGHT
ACT OF 1957
According to 'Concise Oxford Dictionary' a cinematograph film is a film which by rapid
projection through an apparatus called cinematograph produces the illusion of motion on a
screen of many photographs taken successively on a long film.

Meaning of Cinematograph Film Sec 2 (f) - Copyright subsists In cinematograph films

"Cinematograph film" means any work visual recording on any medium produced through a
process from which a moving image may be produced by any means and includes a sound
recording accompanying such visual recording and 'Cinematograph' shall be constructed as
including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematograph including video films.

The definition only protects the film as well as the sound track which is married to the film
proper (i.e. the visual sequence). The copyright in the entire film may cover portions of the film
in the sense that the owner of the copyright in the film will be entitled to the right in portions of
the film; but this idea or concept cannot be extended to encompass an idea that there would be
one owner of the cinematograph film and different owners of the portions therefore in the sense
of performers who have collectively played roles in the motion picture, in this connection
reference may be made to Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs Eastern India Motion Picture
Association . In paragraph 21 of the report Krishna Iyer.J refers to cinematograph film in the
following words. “A Cinematograph is a felicitous blend, a beautiful totality, a constellation of
stars if I may use these lovely imageries to drive home my point, slurring over the rule against
mixed metaphor. Cinema is more than long strips of celluloid, more than miracles in photograph,
more than song, dance and dialogue and, indeed, more than dramatic story, exciting plot,
gripping situations and marvelous acting. But it is that ensemble which is the finished product of
orchestrated performance by each of the several participants, although the components may,
sometimes, in themselves be elegant entities. Copyright in a cinema film exists in law, but Sec.
13 (4) of the Act preserves the separate survival in its individuality, of a copyright enjoyed by
any 'work' notwithstanding its confluence in the film. This persistence of the aesthetic
`personality' of the intellectual property cannot cut down the copyright of the film qua film.
Video Tapes:

In Entertaining Enterprises vs State of Tamil Nadu9 it was held that as a result of the inclusive
definition of cinematograph film - S.2(f) of the Act, including any work produced by any process
analogues to cinematograph the exhibition of film in a television through video tapes in which a
cinematograph film is recorded, will also fall within the definition of cinematograph film.

Ownership in Cinematograph Films:

Generally, the author of a cinematograph film is the first owner of the copyright in such film.
According to Section 2(d)(v) of the Act, ‘author’ in relation to a cinematograph film is the
producer of it. Further, according to Section 2(uu) of the Copyright Act, 1957, “producer” in
relation to a cinematograph film means a person who takes the initiative and responsibility for
making the work. However, according to proviso (b) to section 17, where a cinematograph film
is made for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the
absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein. Thus, when
a cinematograph film producer commissions a composer of music or a lyricist, for reward or
valuable consideration for the purpose of making his cinematograph film, or composing music or
lyrics thereof, i.e. the sounds for incorporation or absorption in the sound track associated with
the film, then he becomes the first owner of the coyright therein and no copyright subsists in the
composer of the lyric or music so composed, unless there is a contract to the contrary between
the composer of the lyrics or music on the one hand, and the producer of the cinematograph film
on the other.

In Ramesh Sippy v. Shaan Ranjeet Uttamsingh, the court stated that where a person financed
and took the risk of making the work and directed others to do the work for valuable
consideration, such person was the owner of the copyright. In case of a cinematograph film made
in the course of the author’s employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, the
employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the
copyright therein.
Illustration: If 'A' directs a film, screen play done by 'B', Dialogues were written by 'C', story was
written by 'D', Music and sound track composed by 'E', Lyrics written by 'F', Acting done by
group of 'G' , songs sung by 'H'.

In this illustration the possible right holders of the various copyright works are protected by the
copyright act separately. They are as follows: -

'A', and B' transfers their rights in the film to the producer of the film through a separate contract
and the producer holds the copyright in the direction and screen play through a contract governed
by the Indian contracts act.

'C,"D' and 'F' is protected under the literary copyright under sec 14 (a) of the act.

‘E’ is protected under the musical copyright under sec 14 (a)

'G' and ‘H’ are protected under the performer's rights under sec 38 of the act.

The synchronization of all the rights in the illustration i.e. from ‘A’ to ‘G’ as a whole devolves
to the producer, who is the 'author' of the film and he is the sole person who has the exclusive
rights under the cinematograph works of the act under sec 14 (d) (i), (ii) and (iii), except the
'moral rights' under sec 57 of the act. In the whole of copyright act the rights that are conferred
under sec 57, alone cannot be transferred by way of any conveyance like agreement, contract,
and assignment or by a license.
 CHAPTER-3:
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN FILMS

Under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright in a work is deemed to be infringed:

(a) when any person, without a license granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar
of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a license so granted or of
any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act—
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the
owner of the copyright, or
(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the
public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in
the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing
that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or

(b)  When any person—

(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or
offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) Distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect
prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
(iii) By way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) Imports 2[***] into India, 2[***] into India," any infringing copies of the
work: 3[Provided that nothing in sub-clause (IV) shall apply to the import of one
copy of any work, for the private and domestic use of the importer.] Explanation.
—For the purposes of this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic,
musical or artistic work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be
an “infringing copy”.
What amounts to infringement of a copyright in a cinematograph film has always been a matter
of debate. Whilst the right holders are trying their level best to safeguard their intellectual
property rights, the Judiciary has been doing its bit of interpreting the Physical Copy Doctrine in
relation to the copyright in cinematograph films. The Delhi High Court in its Judgment held that
that making a copy of the film was not only confined to making a physical copy of the film by a
process of duplication, but the same also included a substantial, fundamental, essential and
material reproduction of the original.

In MRF Limited v Metro Tyres Limited 1, the Delhi High Court in an order dated 01 July 2019
interpreted the term 'copying' in context of the Copyrights Act, 1957 (Act) for cinematograph
films. The Delhi High Court ruled that 'copying' of a cinematograph film will include substantial
copying of material to the extent that it resembles the original film and not merely a physical
copy of the film created by a process of duplication.The Plaintiff produced an audio-visual
advertisement titled 'MRF NV Series present REVZ' (Plaintiff's advertisement) which was first
aired in TV media on June 27, 2015 and then posted on the internet on June 29, 2015 on
www.youtube.com. Thereafter the same was aired on forty-one television channels. In October,
2016, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant had produced a similar advertisement titled
'Bazooka Radial Tyres' (the Defendant's advertisement). The pertinent issue herein was that upon
a bare perusal of the two advertisements, it was evident that the Defendant's advertisement was
nothing but a substantial and material copy of the Plaintiff's advertisement, whereby the
Plaintiff's copyright in its advertisement was being infringed.

The learned Judge held that, while the independent works forming part of a cinematograph film
were individually protected under the Act, separate copyright vests in the cinematograph film as
a whole. The learned Judge ruled that even though under Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, the word
'original' was missing, upon reading Section 13(3)(a) with the definition of the words 'author' and
'cinematograph film', as well as considering previous decisions, it was evident that
cinematograph films are original since they are also intellectual creations. The learned Judge
observed that since India is party to an international treaty, the Act would have to be given a
purposive construction in line with the treaty to fulfil India's international obligations. Therefore,
in accordance with the Berne Convention the owner of a cinematograph film will have rights
similar to the author of an original work. The learned Judge also ruled that the term 'to make a

Copy' under Section 14(d) (i) of the Act would not be confined to only making physical copies
but would also include imitation or reproduction of the work. Furthermore, he ruled that nothing
1
C.S. (COMM) 753/2017 & I.A. 12770/2017
in the Act per se suggested that the term 'copy' would have a narrower meaning as purported by
Metro's counsel. Therefore, the scope of protection for cinematograph film was at par with other
original works under the Act and therefore the test of substantial and material similarity would
have to be applied to ascertain copyright infringement. However, in the present case it was ruled
that there was no substantial similarity between the advertisements therefore no interim
injunction was granted.
 CHAPTER-4:
LAND MARK CASE R.G. ANAND VS. DELUX FILMS
AND ORS., AIR 1978 SC 1613

CASE FACTS:

The appellant, R. G. Anand, an architect by profession and also a playwright, dramatist and
producer of several stage plays, wrote and produced a play called ‘Hum Hindustani’ in 1953. It
ran successfully and was re-staged in 1954, 1955 and in 1956. Aware of the interest of the
plaintiff in filming the play in view of its increasing popularity, the second defendant, Mr.
Mohan Sehgal, contacted plaintiff.

In January, 1955, plaintiff met the second and third defendants and had detailed discussions
about the play and its plot and the desirability of filming it. However, after this discussion, the
plaintiff received no further communication from the second defendant. In May, 1955, the
defendants started to make the film ‘New Delhi’, which, the plaintiff gathered, was based on his
play, “Hum Hindustani’. The defendant, however, assured him that it was not so. In September,
1956, the movie was released and after viewing it, the plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of his
copyright in his play ‘Hum Hindustani’. His claims included damages, account of profits and a
permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from exhibiting the movie.

CASE HISTORY:

Appellant filed a suit at the District Court and the learned trial judge held, in his wisdom, that the
movie ‘New Delhi’ made by the defendants does not infringe the copyright of the plaintiff. On
appeal, the Delhi High Court upheld the judgment of the district court. An appeal against the
judgment of the Delhi High Court was filed at the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the production, distribution and exhibition of the film ‘New Delhi’ made by the
defendants are in infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in the play, ‘Hum Hindustani’?
RULE OF LAW

Unless there is any substantial resemblance between the original work and the alleged copy, the
play and the movie here respectively, in terms of scenes, incidents and treatment, and similarity
between the two is so much that a reasonable man would consider the ‘copy’ to be more or less
an imitation of the original, an infringement of copyright cannot be said to have taken place.

The Supreme Court laid down following propositions after careful consideration and elucidation
of the various authorities and the case law on the issue of infringement of copyright:

1. 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
work.
2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the
source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case, the courts should
determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the
mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendant’s work is nothing
but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there, it
would amount to violation of the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable, the
coy must be substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the
defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.
3. One of the surest and safest test to determine whether, or not, there has been a violation
of copyright is to see if, the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both
the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the
subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
4. Where the there is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent
work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises.
5. Where, however, apart from the similarity appearing in the two works there are also
material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and
the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental, no infringement of the
copyright comes into existence.
6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and
cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case law.
7. Where the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by a film producer or
a director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest
that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader perspective, wider field and a bigger
background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a color
and complexion different from the manner in which the copyright work has expressed the
idea. Even so if the viewer after seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film
is by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to have
been proved.

CHAPTER-5:
 ADAPTATION V/S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

The word 'adaptation' connotes innocence. The minute we hear or read this word, we pass it off
as something that is an innocent or general attempt to recreate a piece of work that has already
been produced or composed and appreciated. The adaptation of any work signifies a bona fide
replication of the original. But, is it always done in good faith?

The right to adaptation of an original work emerges from the grant of copyright to the same. It is
an empowering right, as it gives the author not only the authority over his/her work, but also the
freedom to present it to the audience, in the way he/she deems fit. The law fully protects the
composer or author as he/she has full suzerainty over the details of the piece of art and no one
can infringe upon it, without inviting legal consequences.

Adaptations, in India, are governed by section 14 (a)(vi) of The Copyrights Act, 1957. The
author is in complete control of the work and how it is produced or reproduced. The owners of
copyrights also have the right to assign the copyright of the work, to third party individuals. This
gives the author the freedom to choose and the assign the rights over his work, in a manner
which both parties may deem fit. This ultimately leads to the execution of a License Agreement.
As per Section 30 of the Act, the author of the copyright can assign the rights over his work to
another, via a valid License Agreement.

Adaptation is very common in case of cinematograph films. Several films or television shows are
based on popular novels or plays. The intention of the author or the producer is to display or
narrate the story, at a larger scale. The most recent example is that of Game of Thrones, a widely
acclaimed and an extremely popular television show that gained accolades globally. Based on the
book, A Song of Fire and Ice, by George R.R. Martin, they are a series of fantasy novels,
converted into a successful television show. From an Indian perspective, movies like
'Khoobsurat' or 'Laila Majnu' are adaptations of older counterparts. Also, television shows like
'Saraswatichandra', which is based on a popular novel with the same name by Govardhanram
Tripathi or Sudha Chander, which is based on the iconic novel called 'Gunaho Ka Devta' by
Dharamvir Bharati, are products of adaptations of originals. Often, one hears modern adaptations
of retro songs, which were magnanimous hits in their era of release.
Now, it is assumed that for every adaptation or "inspiration", in India, there must be, or rather,
there should be, a License Agreement in place, which validates and legalizes this transaction of
ideas. For e.g. the Hindi remake of Bengali film 'Rajkahini' which was titled and released as
'Begum Jaan,' in pursuance of a license agreement executed between the makers of the respective
movies. But, what about the "inspirations" which are drawn from Hollywood or western movies?

It has been an on-going trend that Bollywood film industry has heavily borrowed material or
stories and has remade them in hindi language, under the banner of 'remake.' Several popular
hindi movies are remakes of successful western or Hollywood movies. Earlier, this phenomenon
was not given the importance it deserved. However, ever since the entertainment has gained a
global colour, the western movie producers are becoming wary of the unlicensed and unethical
copies or remakes of their movies. In the absence of any valid agreement between producers, this
practice is strongly indicative of copyright infringement. Hence, now, the producers are
compelled to take stringent steps to curb this practice as it is a heavy and turbulent loss of ideas
and creativity. One such famous example is that of 'Hari Puttar' which was the hindi conversion
and adaptation of the title 'Harry Potter.' This unethical use of the famous trademark sparked a
debate and bought the trend of lifting content from the west, to the limelight. Several well known
Bollywood movies like 'Ghajini', 'Partner', 'Bang Bang', have been remakes of successful
Hollywood movies.

In the case of R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, the Supreme Court, while adjudicating upon such
questionable infringement, adopted the test 'ordinary-observer test.' This test was first laid down
by an American court in the case of Daly vs Palmer, which states that if after watching the
movie, an unmistakable impression is made on the mind of an ordinary reasonable man that it is
a copy of another, it would constitute infringement. However, this test was further evolved in the
case of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Zee Telefilms, where it was stated that the
infringing material must be looked at individually, then as a whole- if the theme was the same,
however, the presentation was done in an entirely new manner, one could hardly call it
infringement. This point has been used by the film industry extensively as the plot of the movie
might be the same, but the presentation is where it is declared as "different."
 CHAPTER-6:

CASES OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN INDIA

From songs to entire movies, Indian cinema loves seeking ‘inspiration’. Sholay is an essential
part of Indian cinematic history and has had a lasting impact on Indian pop culture. Almost all its
famous scenes and songs are well known, and its characters, from the Jai-Veeru pairing to
Gabbar himself, have served as the inspiration for many other personas in Indian cinema. Sholay
itself was inspired by numerous western movies, specifically Seven Samurai and the numerous
spaghetti westerns famous during the late ’60s and early ’70s. The most long-lived component of
the movie is the song Mehbooba Mehbooba. During the song, Helen, as the ubiquitous (in Salim-
Javed movies) cabaret dancer, distracts Gabbar Singh, SoormaBhopali and their henchmen,
while Jai and Veeru lay down mines and destroy their camp and supplies. Legendary as the song
is, you may know that it was copied from Demis Roussos’s Say You Love Me. This is not
surprising: our cinematic history is littered with songs, characters, as well as entire movies
“inspired” by western and regional films.

We are going to look at a few examples and see how copyright works in this regard. Before we
move further, let’s see how the law defines a few key concepts.

Author: This is quite simple – the author with respect to any work is the person who causes the
work to be created. There are different definitions of who the author is based on the nature of the
work. For example, in the case of a book, the author is literally the author! In the case of song,
it’s the composer and for a movie, it’s the producer. There are more definitions given based on
the nature of the work.

Copyright: In law, copyright means that the author of any work, as mentioned above, has the
right to decide how other people can use that work. The work can only be used if the author of
the work gives permission.
Fair Dealing: This is an exception to the rule of copyright given in Section 52 of The Copyright
Act 1957. Basically, the idea of Fair Dealing is that it is okay for a person to reuse a work that is
under copyright, as long it is done in certain limited amounts and for a specified purpose.

Now, let’s take a look at some movies and see how the law dealt with copyright infringement in
their case.

Banda Yeh Bindaas Hai

A popular film among lawyers and law students is the 1992 Oscar-winning comedy My Cousin
Vinny. The film features Joe Pesci as a quick-witted but hapless attorney defending two innocent
New York teens from a capital murder charge in the Deep South. In 2009, 20th Century Fox
filed a suit for copyright infringement in the Bombay High Court against the Mumbai film
production company, BR Films, which was set to release Banda YehBindaas Hai. Fox alleged
that the producers and director of Banda Yeh BindaasHai blatantly created a “substantial
reproduction” of My Cousin Vinny. Both parties agreed on a settlement amount out of court
under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code. This section of the law allows for mutual
settlement between parties without intervention of the court.

Knock Out

In the 20th Century Fox Film Corporation Vs SohailMaklai Entertainment case, the Hollywood
studio accused the Indian producer of unlawfully copying and remaking its 2002 thriller Phone
Booth under Section 2(m)(ii) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. This section explains what
“infringing copy” means.

With respect to a movie, it means a “copy of the film made on any medium by any
means”. Phone Booth premised on a sniper who holds an unfaithful publicist hostage in a phone
booth and demands that he confess his infidelity to his wife. The sniper toys with his hostage and
threatens to kill him if he does not obey the commands.

Maklai’s 2010 film Knock Out, the subject of the court case, is also centred on a sniper who
holds an unfaithful man hostage in a phone booth. However, Knock Out incorporates a political
conspiracy plot into the script along with song-and-dance sequences.

The court said “it is enough that substantial parts were lifted; no playwright can excuse wrong
for showing how much of his work he did not pirate.” The court held that copyright infringement
could be found even when a small part is substantially similar to the copyrighted work. The court
ruled that there had been a copyright infringement. The matter was settled amicably between
both parties and Maklai gave amount of Rs 1.25 crore given by SohailMaklai to Fox Studios.

Raabta

Raabta (2017) was slapped with a copyright infringement suit by the producers of the Telugu
film Magadheera. Both films involve lovers who unite in their second lives (after reincarnation).
Other similarities include parallel visualisation of the two different births and the medieval
setting of the previous birth.Both films also have a notable antagonist vying for the woman’s
affection. The suit was withdrawn under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as the
parties agreed to an out of court settlement.

There are so many more examples we could add, but for the sake of brevity, we will refrain from
doing that. However, we can see the pattern that emerges from the examples given above.
Getting into long drawn court battles is something that no one seems to prefer, especially if it
means a delay in the release of a movie. Out of court settlements seem to be the best option for
both parties. Of course, recently we have started seeing that producers are increasingly opting for
official remakes and buying the rights for original regional or western movies. That is the whole
point of copyright law. Not only does it ensure that the author’s rights are protected, it also
ensures that the author can make money from sharing their work.
 CONCLUSION

In the current scheme of things, it is indicative that there is a serious lacuna for laws that deal
with situations where, under the garb of adaptation, there is an audacious and repetitive attempt
to infringe the works which are copyrighted. Because, at the end of the day, it is not just about
the original words, songs, notes or colours, it is about the creativity, time and the passion that has
gone into making something remarkable and irreplaceable.

The Indian Copyright Act is the one of the toughest copyright law among the world. In spite of a
comprehensive legislation the law becomes a tooth less tool due to its lack of enforcement. The
growing piracy is due to the cultural irresponsibility of every citizen of our country to respect the
law. Government must make every effort to strengthen the enforcement of the law to realise the
real intention and letter of the 1egislation.The government has taken various steps to curb the
growing problem of piracy through Internet and computer software by establishing cyber- anti
piracy cell almost in every major city of our country.The copyright enforcement advisory council
(CEAC) is playing a vital role in co-coordinating the copyright holders, the government and the
general public at large in creating awareness as well as facilitating policy implementation in
curbing piracy in the field of copyright law.

The cheap production of CDs, DVDs and LDs has added to the rampant problem of piracy in
films. The film industry personalities are urging the government to enact a legislation to control
the production of this optical disc in order to control the piracy of films through discs. The
legislation of an act would facilitate the recognition of SID code through which the piracy of the
film can be traced.

The development of this various forms of film projection is a double edged weapon. Whereas
they provide for additional source of commercial exploitation of the film on the other hand, the
ease with which they can be copied, reproduced and disseminated becomes an easy way of
piracy which is a nightmare for the film industry.
REFERENCES