This article is written by KIRTI SHARMA,CHANDIGARH  UNIVERSITY, final year, BBALLB Student during her internship at LeDroit India

INTRODUCTION

The case is an excellent example of infringement of copyright under Indian copyright act. A landmark judgment held by the Supreme court of india in the area of copy right law and the judgment is remarkable in the for clarifying the concepts of idea expression dichotomy and copyright infringement under the Indian copyright law.

Idea-Expression Dichotomy is legal doctrine in the US that limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the expression or manifestation of that idea.

The doctrine originated from the 1879 Supreme court case of Baker v Selden, The Supreme Court held in Selden that, while exclusive rights to the

“useful art” (in this case bookeeping) described in a book might be available by patent, only the description itself was protectable by copyright. In later cases, the Supreme Court has stated that “unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea—not the idea itself. Therefore, the doctrine provides a definitional balance the Copyright Act by permitting free communication of facts while still protecting an author’s expression.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE:

The plaintiff filed the case contending that the movie “NEW DELHI” made by Defendant is modelled on the play “Hum Hindustani” written by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was a professional architect who was also a playwright, dramatist, and producer of various theatrical plays, wrote and performed a play called “Hum Hindustani.” It was a hit, and it was re-staged in 1954, 1955, and 1956.

The plaintiff had communicated the story of the play to the defendant on the request of the defendant due to his popularity via writing a letter intending to meet and that he wishes to make a movie on the play but defendant did not

commit anything then. Later, the plaintiff came to know about the film released by the defendant which in the opinion of the plaintiff was based of his play.

The film was released in September 1956, and after seeing it, the plaintiff was convinced and filed a lawsuit for infringement of his copyright in his play “Hum Hindustani before the Delhi District Judge. The plaintiff argues that both the film and the play were founded on the same concept, namely, ‘Provincialism,’ and that they were strikingly similar.

JUDGEMENT

The learned district judge in an elaborated judgment dealt with all the lypoints of similarity urged at the bar and came to the conclusion that the incident and dramatic situations were essentially different from those, in the play. And it could not therefore be said that there was any fraud or artful disguise on the part of the defendants.

It was added that though it could be stated that the play and the film dealt with the same idea and subject the episodes and incidents which have been displayed pr depicted in the play and the film to portray, the idea and the subject are essentially, different.

Justice Fazal Ali presided over the court’s decision in which it was determined that despite the fact that both the play and the film are based on the concept of ‘Provincialism,’ the two are very distinct. The play only depicts one aspect of ‘Provincialism’ during the marriage, but the film depicts other aspects as well, such as ‘Provincialism’ when renting out outhouses. The film also depicts the evil of dowry, which is not depicted in the play. The Court relied on N.T. Raghunathan&Anr. v. All India Reporter Ltd., Bombay [1971], and rejected the Appellants’ claim

“The Court decided that if an ordinary person saw the play and the movie, he would not consider them to be identical. Because the play and movie are so dissimilar, the Appellants’ claim that their copyright has been violated cannot be sustained.”

IMORTANT ISSUES DISCUSSED BY THE COURT:

• Is the film New Delhi an infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in the play Hum Hindustani?
• Have defendants or any of them infringed the plaintiff’s copyright by producing, or distributing or exhibiting the film New Delhi?

The Court clarified the following important aspects in this case:

1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject-matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyrighted work.
2. It has to be seen whether similarities are fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. Copying should be substantial or material one.
3. Test: Whether the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
4. Where theme is same but presented differently, there can be no question of infringement.
5. If there are material and broad dissimilarities along with similarities, it negatives the intention to copy the original work. If the coincidences appearing in the work are clearly incidental then there can’t be infringement.
6. If the viewer after the incident gets the idea that the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved.
7. Burden of proof is on the plaintiff in cases where a stage play has been infringed by a movie director.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 1(2)(d) of the Copyright Act, 1911: Defines copyright in literary, dramatic, and musical works, including the right to make cinematographic adaptations.

Section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1911: Specifies acts that constitute copyright infringement.

The Supreme Court concluded that the film New Delhi was not a substantial copy of the play Hum Hindustani and dismissed the appeal.

Based on these principles:

Ratio Decidendi

The key legal proposition (ratio decidendi) established by the Supreme Court in this case is that copyright protection does not extend to ideas, themes, or plots but is limited to the particular form in which those ideas are expressed. For copyright infringement to occur, the subsequent work must be a substantial and material reproduction of the original expression, not merely an imitation of the theme or subject matter.

Obiter Dictum

The Court in R.G. Anand vs. M/S Deluxe Films and Ors also acknowledged that while there could be instances where filmmakers might attempt to evade plagiarism by making superficial changes, this case did not warrant such scrutiny. The film’s broader context, additional plots, and significant differences indicated that there was no breach of copyright.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COPYRIGHT LAWS:

Similarities:

• Both India and the USA have statutory frameworks for copyright law (the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and the US Copyright Act, 1976).
• Both jurisdictions follow the principle of “originality” for the protection of literary, dramatic, and musical works.

Differences:

• Registration Requirements: While COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION is optional in India, it is mandatory in the USA for the enforcement of rights.
• Fair Use vs. Fair Dealing: The US copyright law applies the concept of “Fair Use,” whereas Indian law uses the term “Fair Dealing.” The US approach is more flexible, using a four-factor test to determine whether the use of a work falls under fair use, while Indian law provides a more specific list of permissible acts under fair dealing

 SUMMARY:

The Court emphasised that for copyright infringement to occur, the copying must be substantial and material. The case set a precedent that shared themes alone do not constitute infringement, and dissimilarities in the expression of ideas can negate claims of copying. This decision remains a cornerstone in Indian copyright law and is frequently referenced in subsequent cases.