- JUDGMENT SUMMARY: Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd.
- DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27 March 2003
- BENCH: AP Shah, J. and B Deshmukh, J.
SUBJECT:
The present case puts forward the principle of breach of confidentiality very explicitly in the case of copying a concept or creative idea.
FACTS:
The plaintiffs, Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd. was a company engaged in the business of television programming, video programming, multimedia programming and feature films, television serial production etc. The creative concepts for television programmes generated by the plaintiffs were expressed through concept notes, character sketches, and ideas The concepts were then registered with the Film Writers’ Association and the titles for such programmes were registered with Indian Motion Pictures Producers’ Association. In 2002, the plaintiffs came up with a concept titled ‘Kanhaiyya’.
Subsequently, the concept was worked on with the title changed from ‘Kanhaiyya’ to ‘Krish Kanhaiyya’ and detailed concept note, character sketches, a detailed plot of the first episode and ten episodic plots were sent to the defendants. The plaintiffs met the defendants and certain price discussions took place after which they didn’t receive any affirmation from the defendants. After which they pursued the same concept with Sony Entertainment Television who declined to produce it because the defendants had started working on the same concept. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for infringement of copyright in the work “Krish Kanhaiyya” and misuse of confidential information.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Section 13 and Section 51 of the Copyright Act.
- SECTION 13 – the subject matter of copyright
- SECTION 51 – infringement of copyright
ISSUES:
The main issues in question before the court were:
- Whether there were any material or substantial similarities between the two works?
- Whether the defendant’s work violated the plaintiffs’ copyright?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT:
Plaintiff's Contentions: The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ infringing copy was distinctly similar to that of the original work of the plaintiffs in all material ways with a few slight changes. It was further contended that there is a clear breach of confidentiality by the defendants since plaintiffs’ work was disclosed to the defendants in confidence on the understanding that it will not be used by them in any way except through the plaintiffs.
Defendant's Contentions: The defendants contended that the TV serial 'Kanhaiyya' was not in any manner identical in terms of theme, concept, story, characters, the idea to that of the plaintiffs. They stated that the plaintiffs’ concept was neither original nor novel. Therefore, in the absence of any originality in the idea, the principles of confidentiality are inapplicable. The defendants referred to the decision in the case of R.G. Anand v. Delux films and Ors. and submitted that the entire claim of the plaintiffs is based upon that the plaintiffs are entitled to the copyright in the concept/idea while the established position of law is that there subsists no copyright in a mere concept or an idea.
Court's observations:
The Bombay High Court observed that the law of breach of confidence is distinct from the law of copyright. It is much broader than copyright as was expressed by the authority on copyright ‘Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright’. The law of confidentiality also includes an unpublished idea that may have merely been disclosed in a relationship of trust. According to the court, this case undeniably lies under breach of confidentiality as there are certain similarities between the plaintiff’s concept and the concept of the television programme which was to be produced by the defendants.
Quoting from the said judgment ‘There can be no copyright of ideas or information and it is not an infringement of copyright to adapt or appropriate ideas of another or to publish information received from another, provided there is no substantial copying of the form in which those ideas have, or that information has been previously embodied. But if the ideas or information have been acquired by a person under such circumstances that it would be a breach of good faith to publish them and he has no just case or excuses for doing so, the court may grant an injunction against him. ….Copyright is good against the world generally while confidence operates against those who receive information or ideas in confidence. Copyright has a fixed statutory time limit which does not apply to confidential information, though in practice application of confidence usually ceases when the information or ideas becomes public knowledge..”
The court rejected the defendants’ contention that the copyright was claimed merely in an idea and observed that without a doubt the law did not recognize copyright in ideas and it became the subject matter of copyright only when the idea is embodied in a tangible form. The plaintiffs developed the idea into various concept notes including a pilot, therefore, the present case was not a case of a mere idea.
The court considered the two works involved in this case not hypercritically and with meticulous scrutiny but by the observations and impressions of an average viewer and observed that the striking similarities in both the works were not mere chances. Thus, The only conclusion that can be drawn from the material available on record was the unlawful copying of the plaintiffs' original work.
Furthermore, it was observed that it is the substance, the foundation and the essence which must be seen to find out the similarities between the two concepts. And the test for whether the reproduction is substantial or not is to see if the rest can stand without it. If it cannot, then even if several dissimilarities exist in the rest, it would, however, be a substantial reproduction liable to be restrained. In this case, if the concept of Lord Krishna in child form is removed from the defendants’ serial, their programmes would become meaningless.
The court held that the plaintiffs’ idea was indeed novel and the similarities between the two concepts were material and substantial. Therefore, there was an infringement of copyright as well as a breach of confidentiality as the act of defendants affected the plaintiff’s goodwill.
CONCLUSION:
This is a landmark judgment as it sets forth the principle of breach of confidentiality very explicitly in the case of copying of a concept or creative idea. The case was a derivative of the R.G. Anand case where the substantiality test was applied. However, the only difference being that in this case, the dissimilarities do not overshadow the similarities between the two works.
