This article has been written by Mr. Abdulla, a 4th year B.A.LL.B student of Aligarh Muslim University, Uttar Pradesh.

Introduction

The world of Indian theater is a vibrant tapestry woven with creativity, emotion, and cultural diversity. Behind the scenes, however, lies a complex web of legal intricacies, particularly in the realm of copyright disputes. As playwrights, directors, and performers strive to bring stories to life on stage, the question of ownership and protection of creative works often takes center stage itself.

This exploration delves into the fascinating arena of copyright disputes within the Indian theater landscape, shedding light on cases that have shaped the industry’s understanding of intellectual property rights. From adaptations and reinterpretations to outright reproductions, each case study offers a unique lens through which we can examine the challenges and nuances of copyright protection in the dynamic and evolving world of Indian theater.

These case studies not only serve as cautionary tales but also provide valuable insights into the delicate balance between artistic expression and the legal safeguards designed to protect the intellectual contributions of playwrights, scriptwriters, and other theatrical stakeholders. As we navigate through the intricacies of these disputes, we gain a deeper understanding of how the Indian legal system grapples with the ever-evolving nature of creative expression.

• R.G. Anand v. Delux Films

• Facts of the Case-

Mr. R.G. Anand, an architect by profession, wrote a drama titled “Hum Hindustani” in 1953. The drama became a sensation with a huge success. This success prompted the appellant to consider adapting the play into a film. The respondent, a film production business, learned of the appellant’s intentions and approached him to move things ahead in this regard. Despite a brief discussion in 1955, the respondent did not return to the appellant on the subject.

The appellant learned that the respondent was making a film called ‘New Delhi,’ which he mistook for a copy of his famous play “Hum Hindustani”. When he asked the respondent about it, the latter told him that the film was not a copy of his theatrical stage play and that he need not be concerned. However, when the appellant saw it after it was released in 1956, he was convinced that it was certainly a copy of his stage play “Hum Hindustani”.

Inevitably, the appellant filed a permanent injunction suit  in the Delhi Trial Court. He argued that the respondent had attempted to copy his work without his permission which is clear  infringement of  his copyright, and he requested a restraining order against the respondent. However, the court denied the request, noting that there were no parallels between the film and the play. 

The appellant then petitioned the High Court of Delhi to set aside the Trial Court’s decision. Even the High Court refused to hear his appeal, stating that the Trial Court was correct in its decision. Seeing no other option, the appellant filed a special leave petition with the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution of 1949.

• Issue raised before the court

The primary issue involved herein was whether the film titled ‘New Delhi’, created by the respondent breaches the appellant’s copyright for the play titled ‘Hum Hindustani’ or not.

• Judgment

The Supreme Court laid down seven lists or guidelines in it’s judgment to determine infringement and liabilities arising out of it, which are as follows:

1. There can be no copyright of ideas, subject-matter themes, plots or historical or legendary facts.
2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such cases, the court should determine that whether the similarities are fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendant’s work is literal limitation of copyrighted work, then it amounts to piracy.
3. One of the surest test to determine if there has been a violation of copyright, if the readers, spectator or viewer after having read, is clearly of the opinion, and gets an unmistakable expression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
4. If the theme remains same, but presented and treated differently, that does not amount to copyright.
5. If there is material and broad similarities of the work, which somehow appears similar, it does not amount to copyright.
6. Copyright must be proved with clear and cogent evidence.
7. In case of films, if the viewer is of the opinion that large part of the film is the copy of original, it amounts to copyright.

The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s plea and held that the larger portion of the movie is dissimilar to the plot of the appellant’s play. It was stated that there was various plots in the movie that was not a part of the play’s plot and an ordinary man would not be of the view that there are any similarities between the two. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court’s decision and  held that there was no breach of the appellant’s copyright. 

• Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma

• Facts of the Case-

Thoppil Bhasi was a playwright and an active member of the Communist Party of Kerala. He wrote a play “Ningalenne Communistakki” in 1952 and since then it had been performed over 10,000 times on the stage. Thoppil Bhasi also used the play “Ningalenne Communistakki” to gain massive support from it because his play was based on the idea to organize individuals from the allegedly lower strata of society in a struggle against oppression, exploitation, and poverty in order to bring about a revolution that results in workers victory. All the rights of the play were vested in Thoppil Bhasi and after his demise, into his legal heirs. 

In 1995, the defendant wrote a drama “Ningal Are Communistakki” which was styled as the counter drama to the drama “Ningalenne Communistakki” written by Thoppil Bhasi. This counter drama was published in the Malayalam edition of India Today.

The plaintiff (legal heir of Thoppil Bhasi) alleged that the counter drama written by the respondent contains a substantial portions of the drama written by Thoppil Bhasi and the characters and dialogues are also copied with some mere changes. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant had done this just to gain the advantage of the work and labor done by Thoppil Bhasi which was in violation of the copyright act.

Issue raised before the court

Whether the use of copyrighted material for preparing a counter-drama can be considered as fair dealing?

Judgment

The concept of fair dealing is not defined anywhere in the Copyright Act,1957. So in this case, the Court relied heavily on the decision given in Hubbard v. Vosper. Lord Denning stated in that case that fair dealing is a matter of degree. The number and extent of extracts and quotations, as well as their utilisation, must be carefully considered.

In this decision, the Court stated that three considerations are significant in determining whether the plaintiffs’ rights were violated:

1. The matter’s quantum and value in respect to the comment or criticism
2. The reason behind its acquisition
3. The possibility of competition between the two.

After doing a scene by scene analysis, the Court, in it’s landmark judgment held that the scenes and characters were not taken from the plaintiff’s play for the purpose of reproducing the drama in any substantial way. Furthermore, the Court stated that the intent was not to misappropriate the concept, form of presentation, theme, character, lines, or techniques used in the writing of the drama. The goal was not to copy or make something similar to the play. The underlying goal of the counter-play was to criticize the philosophy depicted in the drama and demonstrate how the drama had failed to achieve the goals it claimed to have set for itself. Furthermore, the counter-play included references to popular social and political personalities in Kerala that were not present in the drama.

Hence, the Court determined that there was enough material in the counter-drama to demonstrate that the Defendant used his own labor and skill, and that the differences between the original drama and the counter-drama could not be considered insignificant. The portions of the original drama that were copied in the counter-drama were taken only to strengthen the criticism. As a result, the Court concluded that there was no prima facie case against the defendants because they had a strong defense

.3- Academy Of General Education, Manipal & Ors. v. B. Malini Mallya 

Facts of the Case-

The present legal case revolves around a copyright dispute involving the established dance form “Yakshgana” and a newly created dance art called “YakshaRanga.” The dispute centers on the originality of the latter, emphasizing the challenge of determining the creativity behind a derived work. “Yakshgana” is a specific form of ballet dance with a unique historical background, notably shaped by Kota Shivarama Karanth, a Jnanapeeth award-winning art scholar. Karanth, who played a role in the appellant Institute’s Board of Directors, developed “YakshaRanga,” described as a “creative extension of traditional Yakshagana.”

Upon Karanth’s passing, the legal matter involves Malini Mallya, the beneficiary of his will, acting as the respondent. Mallya filed a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement against the Academy, the appellant, asserting her rights over the dance form created by Karanth. The claim includes modifications to the conventional form concerning elements such as Raga, Tala, Scenic arrangement, Costumes, etc. It is also contended that Karanth authored seven verses or prasangas for the presentation of Yaksharanga Ballet.

In response, the Academy denied and contested Karanth’s copyright, arguing that all his achievements were carried out in his capacity as the Director of the Kendra. They asserted that the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial College Trust provided support, funding, and staff, forming a Committee supervised by Karanth under the Board of Trustees. Additionally, the Academy highlighted that Karanth, appointed to the Yakshagana Kendra Executive Committee for a three-year term, passed away during this tenure.

• Issue raised before the court

1. what ate the categories that are inclusive of dramatic work which can be protected under the purview of the Copyright Act,1957?
2. Can the dance form reproduced in the literary form of be treated as a dramatic form of choreography?

• Judgment

In the interpretation segment of Section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court observed the presence of multiple definitions. It was also noted that Section 13 of the Copyright Act holds jurisdiction over original literary, dramatic, musical, and creative works, along with cinematograph films and sound recordings. The inclusion of proviso (d) to Section 17, stipulating the government as the primary owner in the absence of a contrary agreement, was incorporated into the legislation concerning the “First owner of the copyright,” designating the author as the copyright owner unless stated otherwise.

Based on arguments presented by Ms. Mallya, the Supreme Court concluded that she had obtained copyright for seven Yakshagana Prasangas and for a dramatic or theatrical adaptation of Yakshagana as a residual legatee under clause 12 of the Will dated 18.6.1994. Additionally, the High Court affirmed the enforceability of Clause 11 of the Will.

The Supreme Court clarified that the term “dramatic work” encompasses literary works within dramatic literature. It emphasized the distinction between “literary work” and “dramatic work” in the Act, asserting that copyright related to the performance of “dance” falls under the latter. The Court noted the modification by the High Court to the District Court’s order, stating that the Academy could stage the seven Yakshagana Prasangas as conceptualized by Dr. Karanth only in compliance with the Copyright Act, 1957, as the copyright vested with Ms. Mallya.

To prevent multiple legal cases arising from injunctions, the Supreme Court deemed a permanent injunction necessary. It emphasized the need to evaluate statutory provisions and consider relevant precedents. The Court also ruled that the High Court should have clarified the Academy’s ability to utilize fair use provisions under Section 52(1)(a)(i) of the Copyright Act for statutory benefits.

Upon examining Dr. Karanth’s will, which encompassed both literary and dramatic works, the Supreme Court found that Ms. Malini Mallya, the respondent, owned the copyrights to the dramatic and literary works associated with Yaksharanga. Consequently, the Court prohibited the Appellants from performing the dance form “Yaksharanga” without Ms. Mallya’s consent, with an exception for fair use or fair dealing for educational and/or religious purposes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the journey through these three significant copyright disputes in the realm of Indian theater unveils the intricate dynamics that govern the protection of creative works. The cases of R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, and Academy Of General Education, Manipal & Ors. v. B. Malini Mallya collectively offer a comprehensive insight into the legal complexities surrounding intellectual property rights in the context of theatrical productions.

The R.G. Anand’s case underscored the Supreme Court’s meticulous approach in establishing guidelines for determining copyright infringement in the cinematic adaptation of a theatrical work. The court’s emphasis on distinguishing fundamental aspects of expression and the need for clear and cogent evidence set a precedent for future disputes.

Moving to Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, the concept of fair dealing emerged as a crucial aspect in assessing the permissibility of using copyrighted material for counter-dramas. The court’s meticulous scene-by-scene analysis and considerations of the purpose, quantum, and value of the borrowed material provided a nuanced understanding of fair dealing in the theatrical domain.

The Academy Of General Education, Manipal & Ors. v. B. Malini Mallya’s case delved into the realm of dance forms, specifically Yakshgana and its derivative, YakshaRanga. The court’s interpretation of Section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the distinctions between literary and dramatic works added depth to the understanding of copyright protection in the performing arts. The case highlighted the significance of wills in determining ownership and emphasized the need for courts to clarify the scope of fair use provisions.

Collectively, these cases illuminate the challenges faced by playwrights, directors, and performers in safeguarding their creative endeavors in the field of theater. The delicate balance between artistic expression and the legal safeguards designed to protect intellectual contributions is evident throughout these legal battles. As the world of Indian theater continues to evolve, these case studies serve not only as legal benchmarks but also as beacons guiding the industry toward a more nuanced comprehension of the intersection between creativity and copyright protection.

REFERENCES