Case Note:
Citation: 2014 (59) PTC 292
Decided on: 20 June 2014
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Quorum: Justice G.S. Patel
Introduction:
Copyright is a form of intellectual property right that is given to an individual for novelty of work. Copyright protects the works of an author or creator and prevents others from copying such original work. There is no copyright in ideas, it exists only in the material form into which the ideas are translated. Two authors may have the same idea for a book[i], what makes a difference is the way they both express themselves. It is the form in which a particular idea is protected.
The doctrine of scène à faire creates a balance between freedom of expression and copyright law[ii]. It protects the rights of the artist and on the other hand, it also gives another individual the freedom to create his own work on a particular theme which has already been used earlier by another artist. This doctrine which covers mainstream elements has been created considering both law and equity in mind.
Facts:
The Plaintiff (Mansoob Haider) is a professional film scriptwriter and is the author of the film script titled “ONCE”. He claimed that a recently released film, Dhoom 3, contravenes the Plaintiff’s copyright in his script “ONCE” and also claimed that he submitted the copyrighted script to the Defendant.
The Plaintiff sought an order asking for credit in the titles of the film and interim injunction against release via satellite broadcast[iii]. The film was already released in various other media and forums for which the Plaintiff did not obtain any injunction.
Issues:
I. Whether the Defendant had access to the script of the Plaintiff or not?
II. Would an ordinary person inevitably conclude that the Defendant had copied the Plaintiff’s work?
III. Is there a substantial and material overlapping or commonality of the original elements in the Plaintiff’s work?
Judgment:
The Court observed that on the issue of access to scripts, there is no prima facie evidence that the defendant had the access to scripts even after three years, as the Plaintiff left the scripts at the door of the defendant.
The Court further observed that the film “Dhoom 3” is not and cannot possibly be said to be a copy of the Plaintiff’s work “ONCE”. The material propositions and premise of the two works are entirely dissimilar. The mere use in both of certain well-established and commonly used motifs, themes, elements or even the perhaps co-incidental placing of these in a certain juxtaposition gives the Plaintiff no rights against the rival work.
The Court also held: “It has been accepted as a matter of law that the identity between the two works must be substantial. The appropriation must be of a substantial or material part of the protected work. Infringement exists when a study of the two works plainly shows that the answering defendant’s work is a transparent reproduction (or translation into another medium) of the plaintiff’s protected work. Coincidence or similarity may be due to one or more of several factors. Mere chance is only one of them. They may both have a common inspiration or source. To claim copyright in the expression of an idea, one must be careful not to attribute copyright protection to the narration or use of what I will call standard or stock incidents such as those that abound in everyday life, history and traditional fiction. For instance, in order to establish that a particular scene from a particular film is set in Bombay, a film-maker may choose to show a view of the CST Railway Station”[iv]
Lastly, the Court held that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for the grant of interim relief, for the violation of copyright, irretrievable injury or prejudice and balance of convenience. Moreover, the Plaintiff could not prove that the script was seen by the Defendant. Further, the Court took adverse note of the discrepancies in the stand taken by the Plaintiff at various stages (like the discrepancies between the plaint and rejoinder filed before the Court) and his delay at various stages for pressing the claims.
Critical Analysis:
The case analyzed above re-affirmed the principles laid out in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films[v]. Further, there would be no copyright in the elements that constitute a scène à faire genre. Robbery in movie followed by a chase will fall under scène à faire. The Plaintiff lost out on all the vital issues:
- He could not prove that the Defendant had access to his work;
- He failed on intrinsic test; and
- He could not prove that there was substantial and material overlapping or commonality of the original elements in the Plaintiff’s work.
The judgment reflects only a prima facie evaluation of the facts in hand. Even then, this is definitely a major setback for the Plaintiff. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy, it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence. Therefore, the Plaintiff could consider conducting legal due diligence at this juncture before deciding on the future course of action.
The Copyright Act was amended in 2012 and substantial changes were made in the legislation to comply with the changing nature of technology and to cover the new challenges faced by the copyright regime at the domestic as well as international level. The case which is analyzed above signifies that the concept of idea-expression dichotomy remains unchanged even after the substantial amendment of 2012.
In India, with respect to idea-expression dichotomy and infringement, the landmark Supreme Court judgment of RG Anand still constitutes law and is followed in the same manner as that in 1978. Though there have been new additions and development, the essential legal practice remains the same as discussed above in the analysis.
REFERENCES:
[i] Angel Dsouza, Intepat, Idea-Expression Dichotomy Under Copyright Law, https://www.intepat.com/blog/copyright/idea-expression-dichotomy-copyright-law
[ii] Vaibhav Pandey, The Relevance Of Doctrine Of Scène À Faire In Copyright Law, Mondaq, https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/365210/the-relevance-of-doctrine-of-scne-faire-in-copyright-law
[iii] Mathew P. George, Interim Injunction Application Against Release of “DHOOM 3” via Satellite Broadcast Denied, SpicyIP, https://spicyip.com/2014/07/interim-injunction-application-against-release-of-dhoom-3-via-satellite-broadcast-denied
[iv] Mansoob Haider vs. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., 2014 (59) PTC292 (Bom), Para no. 31.
[v] AIR 1978 SC 1613.
