Case Commentary

R.G. Anand v. M/s Dulux Films & Ors.1

Background-

Infringement of a third party's copyright by an owner is frequently a difficult subject,

especially when both works share a common narrative and source. It is a well-established
legal principle that there is no copyright on ideas. Copyright protects just the material form in
which the ideas are translated. Two authors, for example, may have the same book idea.
However, it is how they communicate, i.e. how they put their ideas down on paper, that
distinguishes them. It is the form in which a particular idea is safeguarded after being
translated.In India, the rule for determining what constitutes infringement was not established
until the case of R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films and others (1978). The judgement signalled
the start of a new era in Copyright law, emphasising that copyright does not apply to mere
ideas, but rather to the expression of thoughts/ideas, etc. This blog will emphasise the key
conclusions of the judgement and its current relevance.

Facts-

In 1953, R. G. Anand, a professional architect who is also a playwright, dramatist, and

producer of several theatrical plays, penned and performed "Hum Hindustani." It was a
success, and it was staged again in 1954, 1955, and 1956.

Mr. Mohan Sehgal, the second defendant, approached the plaintiff after learning of his
interest in filming the play due to its growing popularity. Plaintiff met with the second and
third defendants in January 1955 and discussed the play, its plot, and the possibility of
filming it. However, the plaintiff had no more communication from the second defendant
following this interaction. According to the lawsuit, the defendants began filming 'New Delhi'
in May 1955, based on his play "Hum Hindustani."

However, the defendant informed him that this was not the case. The film was released in
September 1956, and after witnessing it, the plaintiff filed an action before the Delhi District
Judge for infringement of his copyright in his play "Hum Hindustani." The Appellants
contended in court that "both the film and the play were founded on the same concept,

1
AIR 1978 SC 1613
namely 'Provincialism,' and that they were strikingly similar." Damages, an accounting of
earnings, and a permanent injunction barring the defendants from screening the film were
among his demands.

Decision-

The court's verdict was presided over by Justice Fazal Ali, who concluded that, while both the
play and the film are based on the notion of 'Provincialism,' the two are very different. The
play displays only one facet of 'Provincialism' during the marriage, but the film depicts more
aspects, such as 'Provincialism' when renting out outhouses. The film also highlights the evil
of dowry, which the play does not. The Court based its decision on N.T. Raghunathan & Anr.
v. All India Reporter Ltd., Bombay [1971] and rejected the Appellants' claim because, while
there may be some parallels because the idea in both the movie and the play is the same, it is
well-established law that an idea cannot be copyrighted.

The Court found that if an ordinary person saw both the play and the movie, he would not
think they were the same. Because the play and film are so dissimilar, the Appellants'
argument that their copyright was breached cannot be upheld. The judgement of the Delhi
High Court was maintained by the Court.

The following guidelines were issued by the Supreme Court:

 There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, narratives, or historical

or legendary facts, and copyright infringement in such circumstances is limited to the
creator of the copyrighted work's form, style, arrangement, and presentation of the
idea.
 Whether the spectator is definitely of the opinion and receives the unambiguous
impression that the later work looks to be a copy of the original after reading or seeing
both works.
 It must be determined whether the similarities constitute basic or substantial
characteristics of the copyrighted work's style of expression. Significant or
considerable copying is required.
 There is no copyright infringement if the same concept is used but it is expressed and
portrayed differently.
 When there are material differences or inadvertent coincidences in the published
work, it is not considered a copyright violation.
  If the viewer concludes after the incident that the film is essentially a replica of the
original play, copyright infringement has been established.
 In circumstances when a movie director infringes on a theatrical performance, the
plaintiff bears the burden of evidence

Conclusion-

In conclusion, the case of R.G. Anand v M/s. Dulux Films and Ors. marked a significant
milestone in the realm of intellectual property rights in India. The judgment handed down by
the Supreme Court of India elucidated and solidified the principles of copyright law,
particularly in the context of the film industry. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case set
forth key principles that continue to shape copyright law in India. It affirmed that a play's
script can be protected as a literary work, even if it is meant for performance. Additionally,
the court highlighted that substantial similarities in characters, plot, and dialogue between the
play and the film constitute infringement, irrespective of the differences in the medium of
expression.

Furthermore, the judgment shed light on the interplay between the rights of the playwright
and the producer. It emphasized that while the producer has certain rights over the work, such
as the right to make cinematographic adaptations, these rights should not encroach upon the
moral rights of the author. The court held that the author's consent is necessary for any
substantial modification or adaptation that may prejudice their reputation or integrity.

The case of R.G. Anand v M/s. Dulux Films and Ors. reaffirmed the significance of
protecting the intellectual property of creators and providing them with adequate legal
recourse against unauthorized use or adaptation

It contributed to the development of a robust copyright framework in India, which continues

to serve as a guiding precedent in similar cases such as Zee Telefilms Limited v. Sundial
Communications Private Limited2 and Vinay Vats v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd.3

Overall, this landmark judgment not only highlighted the importance of copyright protection
in fostering creativity and innovation but also reinforced the fundamental rights of authors in
the Indian legal system. It serves as a lasting testament to the courts' commitment to

2
2003 (5) BomCR 404
3
I.A. 6351/2020 in CS(COMM) 291/2020
upholding intellectual property rights and promoting a fair and equitable environment for
artistic expression in the country.