This article has been written by Ms. Harshitha Reddy Vanga, a 3rd year student of M.S. Ramaiah College of Law, Bangalore.
TITLE : R.G. Anand vs. M/s. Deluxe Films (1977)
A case related to scriptwriters’ copyright and protection of literary works in films.
CITATION : AIR 1978 SC 1613
INTRODUCTION
The issue of copyright infringement, particularly when two works share a common narrative and source, often sparks contention in legal circles. A fundamental principle in copyright law is the absence of protection for ideas, emphasising that copyright safeguards the tangible expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. This is exemplified in scenarios where two authors may conceive the same book idea, but it is the distinctive manner in which they manifest their ideas in a physical form that establishes copyright protection. In essence, it is the specific form in which an idea is materialised that enjoys copyright protection.
The legal litmus test to ascertain what constitutes infringement lacked definitive clarity in India until the pivotal case of R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films and others (1978). This landmark decision ushered in a transformative era in copyright law, establishing a crucial precedent by affirming that copyright extends not to mere ideas but to the concrete expression of thoughts and ideas. The court’s ruling clarified that the protection under copyright law is tethered to the unique form in which ideas are articulated. This blog will delve into the key insights gleaned from the judgement, shedding light on its enduring relevance in contemporary legal landscapes and the evolving dynamics of copyright protection.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The play “Hum Hindustani,” authored by Mr. R.G. Anand, an architect by profession, gained widespread acclaim after its debut in 1953 and subsequent performances in the following years. Inspired by its success, the appellant contemplated adapting the play into a film. In 1955, the respondent, a film production company, expressed interest in pursuing this idea, initiating a brief discussion. However, no further communication transpired from the respondent.
- Upon learning that the respondent was producing a film titled “New Delhi,” the appellant suspected it to be an imitation of his renowned play. Despite reassurances from the respondent that the film was not a copy, the appellant, upon watching it after its release in 1956, became convinced of the similarities.
- Subsequently, the appellant filed a permanent injunction suit in the Trial Court in Delhi, alleging copyright infringement and seeking to restrain the respondent. However, the Trial Court rejected the plea, asserting that the film and the play lacked similarities.
- Undeterred, the appellant appealed to the High Court of Delhi, aiming to overturn the Trial Court’s decision. Nevertheless, the High Court upheld the Trial Court’s stance. With no alternative recourse, the appellant turned to the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution in pursuit of justice.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The individual who created the play “Hum Hindustani” gained widespread popularity. In 1954, the opposing party, Mohan Sehgal, expressed his intention to adapt the play into a film through a letter to the creator. Subsequently, the creator engaged in discussions with Sehgal, providing a comprehensive overview of the entire play. Despite Sehgal not making any explicit commitments, the creator later discovered that Sehgal had released a movie titled “New Delhi,” leading him to believe it was based on his play. Consequently, the creator initiated legal proceedings against Sehgal, seeking a permanent injunction and damages.
Both the District Court and the High Court ruled against the creator based on their findings of the facts. The case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court of India.
PLOT OF THE PLAY HUM HINDUSTANI BY PLAINTIFF
A Punjabi family and a Madrasi family, residing as neighbours, share friendly relations. The twist comes when Chandra, the Punjabi daughter, and Amni, the Madrasi son, fall in love. Despite the strong objection from both sets of parents, who seek same-community matches for their children, fate brings them to the same marriage broker, Dhanwantri.
Chandra’s parents discover a prospective match named Bansi for her. Rather than talking to his parents, Amni decides to take his own life. In a surprising turn of events, both Chandra and Amni decide on a suicidal pact and plan to run away, leaving behind a note. However, before they proceed, Dhanwantri intervenes and arranges for their marriage.
In a parallel scene, the parents, devastated to find the suicide note, regret their opposition to inter-community marriage. To their astonishment, the married couple appears before them, having been saved by Dhanwantri’s timely intervention.
PLOT OF THE MOVIE NEW DELHI BY DEFENDANT
Anand, a graduate from Punjab, arrives in Delhi and encounters Janaki, a Madrasi girl, at the railway station. Struggling to find accommodation, Anand pretends to be a Madrasi. Subramanian, Janaki’s father, who resides nearby, meets Anand. Anand enrols in the music school where Janaki teaches, and she becomes impressed with his singing, gradually developing feelings for him. Janaki invites Anand to a celebration at her home.
The following day, Anand plans a date with Janaki but discovers that his father and sister are arriving in town. To divert his sister Nikki’s attention, Anand takes her sightseeing and introduces her to Ashok Banerjee, a Bengali painter. Anand leaves Nikki with Ashok and meets Janaki. When all four of them coincidentally meet, Anand fails to introduce Nikki as his sister, leading to her offence. Anand later clarifies the situation to Nikki, who understands. Meanwhile, Ashok develops feelings for Nikki.
Subramanian desires Anand to marry Janaki and invites his father to discuss the matter. Anand brings his South Indian cook to their house, introducing him as his father. At a music school award ceremony, Anand again presents the cook as his father, causing the actual father to get offended. The truth about Anand’s Punjabi identity is revealed, leading both fathers to disapprove of their children associating with someone from another community. Subramanian arranges Janaki’s marriage, and Anand urges Janaki to negotiate with her father. However, Janaki’s attempts are rebuked, and frustrated, she leaves a suicide note.
At the chosen river spot, Janaki encounters an old friend of her father who promises assistance. He takes her to Anand’s father’s house, where she pretends to be a Punjabi girl, and the marriage proposal is accepted. In another storyline, Nikki’s marriage is arranged within her community after her father discovers her affair with Ashok. During the marriage ceremony, the groom demands dowry, and Ashok, realising the situation, offers his mother’s jewellery to cover it. Witnessing the contrasting values between Ashok and the Punjabi groom, Nikki’s father agrees to an alliance between Nikki and Ashok, resulting in a happy ending for all parties involved.
ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANT
The appellant’s legal representative argued that the Trial Court incorrectly applied the relevant laws. Additionally, the court overlooked legal principles established by Indian, English, and American courts concerning copyright infringement. The counsel contended that the film bore undeniable similarities to the appellant’s play, sharing a nearly identical storyline and being set in the same location. The families depicted in both had comparable Punjabi and Madrasi backgrounds, and the leading female character in the film shared traits of singing and dancing, mirroring the character in the play. Finally, the counsel asserted that the respondent unlawfully replicated the stage show, violating the appellant’s copyright, and produced the movie without obtaining proper permission.
ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT
The legal representative for the respondent vehemently refuted the allegations put forth by the appellant. According to him, the film and the play were distinctly dissimilar. They involved different events, and their core essence diverged significantly. The counsel maintained that the Trial Court’s assessment was accurate, and consequently, there was no basis for claiming a breach of the appellant’s copyright.
JUDGEMENT
Justice Fazal Ali led the court’s decision, emphasising the distinct nature of a play and a film, particularly in the context of the concept of ‘Provincialism.’ The court ruled that while both the play and the film share the theme of ‘Provincialism,’ they explore different facets of the concept. The play focuses on provincialism during marriages, whereas the film delves into additional aspects, including instances related to renting out outhouses and the issue of dowry, which the play does not cover. Citing the precedent N.T. Raghunathan Anr. v. All India Reporter Ltd., Bombay [1971], the court dismissed the appellants’ claim, emphasising that copyright protection does not extend to ideas, and the similarity in ideas between the play and the film does not warrant a copyright violation.
The court, relying on the perspective of an ordinary person, concluded that the play and the movie, when viewed together, do not appear identical. The dissimilarities between the two works were emphasised, leading the court to reject the appellants’ assertion of copyright infringement. The Supreme Court, upholding the Delhi High Court’s decision, provided clear guidelines for determining copyright infringement, highlighting that copyright protection extends to the form, style, arrangement, and presentation of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
The court specified that copyright infringement occurs only when the later work is unmistakably perceived as a copy of the original, and the similarities constitute basic or substantial characteristics of the copyrighted work’s expression. Importantly, the court emphasised that using the same concept is not infringing if it is expressed differently, and unintentional coincidences or material differences in the works do not constitute copyright violations. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, especially when a film is accused of infringing on a theatrical performance. Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the respondents, finding no infringement in both aspects of the case.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court established the following principles for assessing copyright infringement:
- Copyright does not extend to ideas or plots; rather, it applies to their specific presentation. If the presentation implies imitation, it constitutes a breach of copyright.
- cases where the idea or plot is the same, inevitable similarities need scrutiny to determine potential copyright infringement.
- If an ordinary person can identify replication of someone else’s work, it constitutes a breach of copyright.
- While the theme of the work can be identical, originality requires distinct execution.
- A higher number of dissimilarities than similarities suggests a lack of intention to copy someone else’s work.
- Clear evidence indicating piracy implies a breach of copyright as an act of piracy.
- The burden of proof for establishing a breach of copyright rests with the appellant.
OBITER DICTUM
The Supreme Court emphasised the difficulty for a scriptwriter to establish a breach of copyright against a film, highlighting the broader concepts and ideas encompassed in movies compared to plays. According to the court, if an observer perceives similarity only after viewing both, it constitutes a breach of copyright.
The court acknowledged the potential tactic of avoiding plagiarism by incorporating broader concepts and making minimal alterations. While the outcome might have been different with the specific facts of the present case, the court chose not to intervene given the dismissals by the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court in the appellant’s appeals.
CASES THAT USED R.G. Anand v. M/S Delux Films and Ors. AS ITS FOUNDATION
Shree Venkatesh Films (SVF) v. Vipul Amrutlal Shah (2009)
The Calcutta High Court addressed a copyright infringement dispute involving a Bengali film. The court emphasised the concept of “homogeneous material,” stating that every component of a cinematographic film, including plot, lyrics, and dialogues, is protected by copyright. The term “copy” entails considerable similarity in any aspect, avoiding a limited interpretation.
Maddock Films Private Limited v. Shiboprosad Mukherjee (2017)
The Calcutta High Court upheld an injunction against the release of the film “Hindi Medium” due to considerable story similarity. Despite the delay in filing the complaint, the court applied standards from R.G. Anand and SVF, allowing the copyright infringement trial to proceed.
MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Limited (2017)
Saw the Delhi High Court adopting criteria from the R.G. Anand case, emphasising the overall resemblance of cinematographic films. The court applied conditions to determine such similarity, assessing substance, foundation, treatment, and the ordinary viewer’s impression.
20th Century Fox v. Zee Telefilms Ltd. (2005)
The Delhi High Court considered similarities in parts of the work rather than the entire production, asserting the validity of this approach in modern times.
Zee Telefilms Limited v. Sundial Communications Private Limited (2003)
The court reiterated R.G. Anand’s principles, emphasising that an idea alone has no copyright, but a developed concept with features can be registered.
Vinay Vats v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. (2019)
Reiterated R.G. Anand’s principles, emphasising a reasonable man’s test to prove substantial similarities and providing clarity on the relevance of the timing of suits based on essential facts and circulation.
CONCLUSION
The definitive and all-encompassing standard for evaluating copyright infringements in cases involving films with similarities to original works is encapsulated in the R.G. Anand case. The criteria set forth in this landmark case serve as the ultimate measure to establish the extent of plagiarism or resemblance. Subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court, such as Shree Venkatesh Films (SVF) v. VipulAmrutlal Shah (2009) and MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Limited (2017), have further solidified these standards. They assert that any considerable similarity in any aspect of a cinematographic film qualifies as a “copy,” whether exact or substantial similarities are perceptible with ordinary prudence.
Moreover, emerging factors, such as the timing of filing a complaint, as underscored in the Vinay Vats Case (2019), have become pivotal in copyright infringement cases. The timing of the complaint is recognized as a crucial consideration, as the popularity of subsequent works can lead to contentious litigations. The significance of when the claims are filed is assessed by examining essential factors such as the relevant facts, circulation, and available duration of both the older and newer works. This nuanced analysis is imperative for a fair and just determination in cases of copyright infringement. These principles, derived from the R.G. Anand cases are rightfully deemed the “locus classicus,” and their significance in establishing copyright violations in cinematographic films is of paramount importance.
REFERENCES
- R.G. Anand v. M/S Delux Films and Ors. : case analysis
Author Name – Bhumika Dandona
Published On – July 12, 2021
Analysis Of R.G. Anand V. M/S Deluxe Films And Its Relevance In Recent Times, Author Name – Anuja Saraswat
Published On – 11 January, 2022