Copyright In Cinematograph Films.
1. Meaning of Copyright in Cinematograph Films
A cinematograph film refers to any work of visual recording intended to be shown as a moving picture. In India, this is covered under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Definition
Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957: “Cinematograph film” means any work of visual recording on any medium produced by any process, including sound or other forms of recording, from which a moving image may be produced mechanically or electronically.
Includes feature films, documentaries, short films, animated films, etc.
2. Nature of Copyright in Cinematograph Films
Exclusive Rights (Section 14):
Reproduce the film.
Distribute copies.
Communicate the film to the public.
Make adaptations or derivative works.
Ownership (Section 17):
Generally, the producer of the film is considered the first owner.
Author of the script, music, lyrics, or artistic works may hold underlying copyright, but the producer owns the film as a whole.
Duration (Section 25):
Copyright lasts for 60 years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year of publication.
3. Key Legal Issues in Cinematograph Film Copyright
Ownership disputes between producer, director, scriptwriter, and composer.
Infringement cases:
Piracy of films (DVDs, streaming, online downloads).
Unauthorized adaptation or remake.
Fair use or substantial similarity:
Plagiarism vs. inspiration in plot, screenplay, or song.
Internet and digital streaming piracy:
Online platforms uploading copyrighted films without permission.
Moral rights under Section 57:
Right to claim authorship, prevent distortion or mutilation.
4. Important Case Laws on Cinematograph Films in India
Case 1: R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978) – Supreme Court
Facts
R.G. Anand, a playwright, claimed that a movie “Khamoshi” was copied from his play.
Alleged copyright infringement of literary work in the cinematograph adaptation.
Legal Issue
Whether substantial similarity in theme, plot, or idea constitutes infringement.
Decision
Supreme Court laid down the “substantial part” test:
Copyright protects expression, not mere ideas.
Infringement arises when a substantial part of the original work is reproduced in the film.
Court observed:
“There can be no copyright in an idea; only expression of an idea is protected.”
Significance
Foundation for film plagiarism cases in India.
Idea vs. expression doctrine is critical in cinematograph film disputes.
Case 2: Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (1994) – Delhi High Court
Facts
The plaintiff claimed unauthorized use of his work in a film.
Legal Issue
Moral rights of the creator under Section 57.
Whether distortion, mutilation, or misattribution in cinematograph adaptation violates moral rights.
Decision
Court upheld the author’s moral rights, even if the producer owned copyright.
Distortion or unauthorized alteration constitutes infringement of moral rights.
Significance
Reinforces protection of integrity of the creator’s work in films.
Distinguishes between economic rights and moral rights in cinematograph films.
Case 3: Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. (2008)
Facts
Concerned copyright in sound recordings used in films.
ENIL broadcasted songs from film soundtracks without authorization.
Legal Issue
Whether broadcasting film songs online or on radio without permission is infringement.
Decision
Delhi High Court held:
Sound recordings of films are protected under Copyright Act.
Broadcasting without license constitutes infringement.
Producer and music label jointly hold copyright over audio-visual and audio components.
Significance
Protects film music and soundtracks as integral part of cinematograph films.
Established principle of licensing for public communication.
Case 4: Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008, Supreme Court)
(Although primarily legal publications, principles extend to films)
Facts
Involved reproduction of substantial portions of work in other publications.
Legal Issue
What constitutes substantial part for infringement?
Observations Relevant to Films
Quantity and quality of copied work assessed.
Even small parts of scripts, dialogue, or scenes can constitute infringement if they form the “substantial expression”.
Significance
Courts in film plagiarism cases reference this test to determine script or scene copying.
Case 5: Dolly Films v. Shree Ganesh Films (2001, Delhi High Court)
Facts
Dolly Films alleged that another film copied plot, dialogue, and characters from its registered film.
Legal Issue
What constitutes infringement in cinematograph films?
Decision
Delhi HC emphasized:
Idea not protected; expression protected.
Substantial similarity in storyline, sequences, or character development can be infringement.
Courts may direct injunctions and damages.
Significance
Applied R.G. Anand principles to modern film disputes.
Clarified that entire film or selected scenes can be protected.
Case 6: Phantom Films v. Film Distributors (2019, Bombay High Court)
Facts
Phantom Films alleged piracy of a film uploaded on digital streaming platforms without license.
Legal Issue
Copyright protection in online streaming era.
Liability for intermediaries.
Decision
Court held:
Streaming films without permission is infringement under Sections 51 & 52.
Platforms facilitating unauthorized access can be held liable if notice is served and not acted upon.
Injunction granted; pirated links blocked.
Significance
Strengthens enforcement against digital piracy of films.
Reaffirms producer’s rights in cinematograph films, including online rights.
Case 7: Ramesh Sippy Productions v. Film Producers Association (2004)
Facts
Dispute over reproduction of famous film sequences for promotional or commercial use.
Decision
Court held that unauthorized reproduction of film sequences, even for commercial promotion, constitutes infringement.
Emphasized integral copyright in cinematograph films, including sequences, scenes, music, and dialogues.
Significance
Confirms protection of partial reproduction in films.
Injunctions can be granted for even short clips or sequences.
5. Key Legal Principles in Cinematograph Film Copyright
Idea vs. expression: Only the expression (script, scenes, dialogue) is protected, not the idea.
Substantial similarity test: Infringement requires copying of a substantial part of the film.
Ownership:
Producer generally owns the copyright of the whole film.
Writers, composers, and directors may hold underlying rights.
Moral rights: Authors can claim attribution and prevent distortion under Section 57.
Digital rights: Online streaming, downloads, or distribution without authorization is infringement.
Derivative works: Remakes, adaptations, or commercial exploitation require permission from the copyright owner.
Remedies: Injunctions, damages, seizure of pirated copies, and blocking of digital content.
6. Conclusion
Copyright in cinematograph films in India is broad and robust, covering:
Visual sequences
Script and dialogue
Sound and music
Online and offline distribution
Landmark cases like R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films and Dolly Films v. Shree Ganesh Films establish that substantial copying of expression constitutes infringement, while moral rights protect authors’ reputations and integrity. Modern cases extend protection to digital streaming platforms and online piracy, ensuring that producers can safeguard their films in the digital era.
RELATED Blog
comments