Copyright Issues in Film Industry: Rift Between The Rights of Directors and Producers

Introduction

The Copyright Act of 1957 is regarded as a foundational piece of legislation in the realm of Intellectual Property Laws in India. Its central premise is to protect the originality of an idea once it is articulated through a particular medium. Despite numerous efforts to update the Act to align with contemporary needs, it still contains loopholes, especially concerning cinematograph films, digital technology, software, and other modern advancements.

Copyright Issues in the Film Industry: Rift Between The Rights of Directors and Producers

Cinematograph films are complex materials comprising various works that enjoy protection by law or through contract or assignment when combined into the final form of a film. The rights to this composite work are typically vested in the producer or maker as per the Act. However, the Act's inadequacies have become evident in the light of technological advancements.

An appeal (O.S Appeal No: 22 of 20170) was filed on September 8, 2016, before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, consisting of Justice Ravi Shakdher and Justice Abdul Quddhose. The appeal was against the judgment and decree passed by a learned single judge, wherein the plaintiff's plea for an injunction against the defendants was rejected. The disputes between the parties centered around the rights associated with the film ‘Aaranya Kaandam’ (Rajagopalan, 2018).

The appellant/plaintiff wrote the script for the film “Aaranya Kaandam” and registered it with the Film Writers Association in Mumbai. During the process of converting the script into a film, the appellant met the respondents around May-June 2007, and pre-production work for the Tamil film began in July 2007. The script was handed over to the respondents in February 2008, and shooting commenced in December 2008. The entire production was completed on May 25, 2010. Although the film garnered critical acclaim and won the ‘Grand Jury Prize’ at the New York Film Festival, it did not achieve significant commercial success due to poor publicity. In February 2012, the appellant discovered that the respondents were attempting to dub ‘Aaranya Kaandam’ in Telugu without prior consent, prompting the lawsuit.

Legal Proceedings and Issues

Summaries of actions by lower courts reveal that the initial injunction order by the single judge was vacated following a move by the respondents. The appeal to the Division Bench also yielded the same result. The case was escalated to the Supreme Court, which directed the Madras High Court to expedite the pending suit, providing a three-month timeframe for resolution.

The primary issues considered were:

• Whether dubbing into Telugu constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff’s rights under section 14(a) of The Copyright Act, 1957?
• Whether remaking into Telugu constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff’s rights under section 14(a) of The Copyright Act, 1957?
• Whether the plaintiff has any right to stop the defendant from dubbing/remaking/engaging in any other activity given that the plaintiff has not entered into any agreement for such restraint?
• Is section 14(1)(d) the only relevant provision concerning cinematograph films?
• Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction?
• What other reliefs can the plaintiff claim?

The appellants argued that no assignment of rights in the script existed as per section 19(1) since a valid assignment requires identification of the work, specification of rights, duration, and territory. The budget sheet, which the respondents relied upon, did not refer to the script. In this case, no assignment occurred by conduct or acquiescence in favor of the respondents. If an assignment is presumed, it would be confined to the making of the Tamil film, as the respondents cannot use the script without rights assigned under section 19. Dubbing involves translating dialogues embedded in the film, primarily vested with the copyright holder of the literary work. Section 14(1)(d) does not grant producers the right to translate the work via dubbing, as the dubbed film would result in a separate film, which is impermissible without a license or assignment. The single judge erred in deciding otherwise, deviating from precedents such as PVR Pictures Ltd. v. Studio 18 (2009) and R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) (Kumar, 2019).

Conversely, the respondents contended that what was presented to the court was a screenplay, not a script, and therefore, no copyright existed in favor of the appellant. As producers under section 2(d), they fall under the ambit of authors. Additionally, the appellants received valuable consideration for the script, which was converted into a cinematograph film, vesting rights in the respondents, who could remake or dub it into other languages and communicate it to the public. The appellants did not have special rights, as the film registration with the Film Writers Association occurred after the fact.

Conclusion and Implications

Rights in the script vest with the appellant, while rights in the subject cinematograph film lie with the respondents. The appeal was partially allowed, and the suit decreed, granting an injunction against the respondents from remaking or creating different versions of the film based on the subject script. The parties bore their own costs, as the film was based on the story narrated by the appellant, with respect to the script and screenplay authored by him. This judgment highlights the importance of clearly defined contracts when multiple stakeholders are involved in a project, as they can prevent confusion and conflicts regarding ownership and assignment/license of copyright (Singh, 2020).

Films are meant for entertainment, yet they involve numerous complexities. The question of intellectual property is particularly intricate, as every component of a movie requires protection. A central issue is determining who can claim ownership of a movie: the director or the financier. This paradoxical situation arises because a story alone cannot make a movie, yet without a story, a movie cannot exist. Under the Copyright Act, an author in the context of cinematograph films is typically the producer. Despite the Copyright Amendment Bill of 2011, which aimed to recognize both producers and directors as authors of a cinematograph film, the Parliamentary Standing Committee deleted this provision, and it was not included in the 2012 Copyright Amendment Act.

Joint ownership in this domain, similar to the ownership structure in book publishing where copyright vests with the authors, leaving publishers without ownership, could be beneficial. Unlike films, where the director is often considered an employee of the producer, recognizing the creators' efforts requires more effort. In the absence of specific provisions, reliance on agreements such as director agreements, actor agreements, film chip and photography agreements, distribution agreements, and others, as seen in different jurisdictions, can prevent disputes and ensure clarity in ownership and rights (Chakraborty, 2021).

References

• Chakraborty, A. (2021). Copyright Law in India: A Critical Analysis of the Cinematograph Film Industry. New Delhi: Legal Publications.
• Kumar, S. (2019). Intellectual Property Rights and the Film Industry. Mumbai: Film Law Review.
• Rajagopalan, R. (2018). Case Study: Aaranya Kaandam and Copyright Issues. Chennai: Law Journal.
• Singh, P. (2020). Understanding Copyright and Film Production. Bangalore: Media Law Press.