- JUDGMENT SUMMARY: R. G. Anand v. Delux Films
- DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18 August 1978
- BENCH: S MFazalali, J. and Syed Murtaza, J.
SUBJECT:
The present judgment is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in the field of copyright law.The case is concerned with a copyright infringement suit against the movie New Delhi made by Mohan Sehgal in 1954.
FACTS:
The appellant, R.G. Anand was a playwright, dramatist and producer of several stage plays.The play named ‘Hum Hindustani’ was written by him in 1953 which became very popular and was re-staged many times. In 1954, the respondent Mohan Sehgal sent a letter to the plaintiff that he desired to make a movie based on the play. Thereafter, they met in Delhi and had discussions regarding filming the play. However, no commitments were made after their meeting. Later, the defendants announced the production of the film titled “New Delhi”. The film was released in 1965. After watching the film, the appellant claimed that the story of the film was entirely based on his play ‘Hum Hindustani’. The appellant filed a suit against the respondents alleging that the film was entirely based on his play which resulted in infringement of his copyright in his play. He pleaded for damages and permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from exhibiting the film.
Both the Trial Court and the High Court decided in favour of the respondents by ruling that the appellantwas theowner of the copyright in 'Hum Hindustani' but there was no infringement of appellant’s copyright.
The Appellant preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
ISSUES:
The main issues in question before the court were:
- Whether ideas, plots or themes are protected under the copyright law?
- Whether the film ‘New Delhi’ constitutes an infringement of the appellant's copyright in the play ‘Hum Hindustani’?
- Whetherrespondents or any of them infringed the appellant’s copyright by producing or distributing or exhibiting the film ‘New Delhi’?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT:
Appellant's Contentions: The appellant contended that the principles laid down and the legal inferences drawn by the trial and the High Court were against the principles established by Indian, American and English Courts towards infringement of Copyright. Moreover, the similarities between the play and the filmwere so close that inference and unmistakable impression can easily be drawn that the film is certainly an imitation of the play. They also submitted that the second and third appellant was already awareof thescript of the play before directing the film.
Respondent's Contentions: The respondents contended that the Trial Court, along with High Court, applied the law correctly and it is pointless to go into the merits of the concurrent findings of the facts established by the two courts.According to them, the film was very much different from the play in contents, spirit and climax. Therefore, there was no infringement of copyright.The only similarities between the film and the play were present because of the factthat both of them were based on the idea of provincialism.
Court's observations:
On careful consideration and explanation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above, the High Court came up with the following principles :
1. There exists no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts.Copyright violation in such cases is limited 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, similarities are bound to arise. In such cases, the courts should determine whether the similarities are on fundamental or significant aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendant's work is only a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to copyright infringement.
3. Another test to determine whether or not there has been acopyright infringement is to see the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works are clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
4. Where the same theme is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a totally new work, it will not amount to copyright infringement.
5. Existence of material and broad dissimilarities disproves the intention to copy the original work and the similarities appearing in the two works is considered clearly incidental and will not result in copyright infringement.
6. Copyright infringement must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the several tests laid down above.
7. When the issue relates to the copyright infringement of stage play by the producer ordirector of the film, it has to be kept in mind that in comparison to a play, a film deals with a much broader perspective, a wider arena and a higher background where the defendant is able to introduce a no. of incidents to give colour and complexion to it making it different from the way in which the copyrighted work. Even after this, if the viewer after watching the film gets a general impression that film is a copy of the original play, it will amount to copyright infringement.
After applying the above-mentioned principles the court held that the film was not a substantial or material copy of the play written by the plaintiff. No prudent person after watching both the works will get the impression that there is an imitation. The play and the film deal with the same theme of ‘provincialism’ but it is well settled that an idea is not the subject matter of copyright. Justice Pathak in his concurring opinion stated that "the story portrayed by the film travels beyond the plot delineated in the play."
For future cases, he observed that "in another, and perhaps a clearer case, it may be necessary for this Court to interfere and remove the impression which may have gained ground that the copyright belongs to an author can be readily infringed by making immaterial changes, introducing insubstantial differences and enlarging the scope of the original theme so that a veil of apparent dissimilarity is thrown around the work now produced. The court will look strictly at not only blatant examples of copying but also at reprehensible attempts at colourable limitation."
The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
Conclusion:
The judgment is regarded as a landmark judgment in the field of copyright law and has been cited in various subsequent judgments in India.It is clear from the judgment that there exists no copyrightin an idea, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and copyright violation in such matters is limited to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyrighted work.
