R.G. ANAND V. DELUX FILMS (1978) 4 SCC 118

R.G. ANAND V. DELUX FILMS  (1978) 4 SCC 118

 

FACTS

The Plaintiff (P) wrote a script for a play of the name “Hum Hindustani” in 1953 and it was enacted in New Delhi theatres in that year. The play was based on the concept of Provincialism, and was well received so P started considering the possibility of filming it. The Defendant (D) approached P in 1954 after an eminent scriptwriter told him about the play when D was considering making a movie on the topic of Provincialism. On hearing the script D told P that he would inform P of his decision upon return to Mumbai. In 1955 D announced the production of a movie called “New Delhi”, after watching the movie, one of the artists in the play told P that it was similar to the play. P wrote to D about his concerns that the movie was a copy of the play, and D told P that the movie was on the topic of Provincialism but it was not based on the play as the play in itself wasn’t enough for a movie and the characters and story treatment, etc. was very different from the play. P read newspaper comments about the movie and then later watched the movie himself and felt that the movie was entirely based on the play. He found that the movie had one character with the same name as in his play. P therefore filed a suit of the infringement of his copyrights.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Delhi High Court held that the similarities between the movie and the play were insignificant and although both the copyrightable subject matters were based on provincialism, the stories and portrayal in the movie were completely different from the play. Dissatisfied with the holding, P appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

ISSUES

1. Whether the cinematographic film was colourable imitation/ substantial or material copy of the play?
2. Whether a name of a person in a copyrightable subject matter can also be copyrighted?

 

HELD

The Supreme Court held that the movie although based on the same concept, wasn’t a copy of the play. Therefore, there was no copyright infringement by D. The court also held that the name “Subramaniam” which appeared in both the movie and the play wasn’t copyrightable; therefore the use of the name wouldn’t result in copyright infringement.

The similarities and coincidences as observed by the court were insignificant and were not sufficient to raise an inference of colourable imitation. The play relied heavily on the idea of provincialism; it did not touch the other aspects of “caste” and “sati” that the movie had explored. The Supreme Court also observed that the three aspects in the film were completely integral to the movie and could not be divorced from each other without affecting the beauty and the continuity of the script. The story in the movie also went beyond the plot represented in the play. The dissimilarities in the between the movie and the play were so material that it was not possible to say that P’s copyright had been infringed.

The Supreme Court laid down 7 rules, after considering the precedents, to determine if there was a copyright infringement:

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 copyright work.”
2. “In order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.”
3. “Seeing 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.” If the answer is in the positive then it can be concluded that there is a copyright infringement.
4. “Where the theme 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. “If 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. “It must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case laws.”
7. “Although unlike a stage play a film has a much broader prospective, a wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. But if the viewer 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 be proved.”