Delhi High Court Upholds Idea-Expression Dichotomy: Plaintiff Must Prove Substantial Copying for Copyright Victory
Title: BIKRAMJEET SINGH BHULLAR versus YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
+ CS(COMM) 483/2022
Decided on: 20th December, 2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
Facts of the Case:
The present application has been filed to request a temporary injunction against the Defendants and anyone acting on their behalf. The purpose of this injunction is to prevent the Defendants from engaging in various activities related to the film titled “Shamshera.” These activities include making, producing, distributing, broadcasting, communicating to the public, adapting, telecasting, exhibiting in theaters, and/or showcasing on television or online platforms, including any streaming platform.
The claimant alleges that the film “Shamshera” or any part of it, as well as any other similar work, infringes upon their copyright in a script titled “Kabu na chhadein Khet” (referred to as ‘KNCK’). By seeking this interim injunction, the applicant aims to stop the unauthorized use or reproduction of their copyrighted script by the Defendants until the legal dispute regarding copyright infringement is fully resolved in court.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants’ acts amount to infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright under Section 51 of the 1957 Act.
Laws Involved:
Section 51 in the Copyright Act, 1957
- When copyright infringed. —Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed—
(a) when any person, without a license granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a license so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act—
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or 1[(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or] 1[(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or]”
(b) when any person—
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports into India,” any infringing copies of the work: 3[Provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work, for the private and domestic use of the importer.] Explanation. —For the purposes of this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an “infringing copy”.
Issue framed by the Court:
Whether the Defendants’ film ‘Shamshera’ infringes Plaintiff’s copyright in the script ‘KNCK’?
Courts Judgement and Analysis:
The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for injunction, as the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate substantial similarity between the two works. The Court held that mere access to the script does not justify a finding of copyright infringement.
The Court also noted that the theme and concept of Plaintiff’s work were not copyrightable, and the alleged similarities between the script and the film were outweighed by the dissimilarities.
Observations made in the judgment will not impact the trial or the final adjudication of the suit on merits.
The Court applied the principle of idea expression dichotomy, which states that common ideas and themes are not protected by copyright. The Court emphasized that the Plaintiff must prove substantial copying of its work in order to succeed in a claim of copyright infringement.
The Court compared the rival works as a whole and found that the dissimilarities between the script and the film outweighed the alleged similarities. The Court also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the Defendants’ film copied the basic plot and storyline of the script.
The Court further held that the Plaintiff’s claim of copyright infringement was not supported by clear and cogent evidence.
The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for injunction, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The Defendants were permitted to continue the telecast of their film on the OTT Platforms.
The Defendants were ordered to file an affidavit disclosing their up-to date revenues earned from the telecast of the film within 6 weeks.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi