This case analysis is written by Apurva Sharma during her internship with Le Droit India.
1. Case Name and Citation
- Title of the Case: R.G. Anand vs. Delux Films & Others
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Year: 1978
- Citation: AIR 1978 SC 1613
2. Facts of the Case :
R.G. Anand, a playwright, filed a case against Delux Films, claiming that the film “New Delhi” produced by Delux Films was an unauthorized copy of his play “Hum Hindustani.” He allegedly said that the film was based on the same story line with twists and plots and also had same characters as his play. Anand claimed that this the infringement of copyright which led to dispute.
Delux Films and directors denied to such allegation and argued that their film is nowhere similar to the play of Anand and that it was original work.
3. Issues
The primary legal issue was:
- Whether the film “New Delhi” was a substantial copy of the play “Hum Hindustani,” thus constituting a copyright infringement?
4. Arguments
- Plaintiff’s Arguments (R.G. Anand):
R.G. Anand argued that the film copied the essential plot, characters, and themes of his play “Hum Hindustani.”
He also claimed that the play was easily accessible to the defendants and there were many similarities between them which cannot be a coincidence
Anand plead that there is a infringement of copyright of his work and unfair advantage has been taken by the defendants.
- Defendants’s Arguments (Delux Films)
The defendants argued that it was original work and the similarities between them is coincidental.
They emphasized that the film was made in different context and characters and story was distinct from the play.
The defendants also contended that copyright law protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Therefore, similarities in the basic plot or theme, which could be common in many works, did not constitute copyright infringement.
5. Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the defendants, Delux Films. The court held that there was no substantial similarity between the two works that would amount to copyright infringement. The court emphasized the following points in its judgement :
- Ideas vs. Expression: The court made a clear distinction between an idea and the expression of an idea. While both works dealt with the theme of North-South relations in India, this was a general idea, and copyright law only protects the specific expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
- Substantial Similarity Test: The court applied this test and found that although there were similarities in the film but the presentation were significantly different. The film was original work and did not copy the play.
- Access to the Work: Even if the play was accessible it was not enough to prove infringement of copyright. There must be clear copying of the work which was not established in this case.
6. Ratio Decidendi
The key legal principle was copyright law protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. The court ruled that the mere fact that two works share a similar theme or concept does not necessarily lead to copyright infringement. For infringement, there must be substantial copying of the distinctive expression, which is not present in this case.
7. Obiter Dicta
In this judgment, the court said that the protection of intellectual property should not restrict creativity. Common ideas, themes, or concepts can be expressed in various ways by different creators, and only the specific expression of those ideas is protected under copyright law. The court also observed that the public must be free to take inspiration from common themes, provided they do not plagiarize the original work.
8. Legal Precedents Cited
- The court cited Francis Day & Hunter Ltd. vs. Bron , in this case the distinction has been made betwwen the idea and its expression. These precedents supported the view that general themes or ideas are not protected by copyright.
