SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(AP) 223

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAGHUVIR, P.RAMACHANDRA RAJU
Pillalamarri Lakshmikantham - Appellant
Versus
Ramakrishna Pictures - Respondent
Decided On : 08-20-80

Damages and an account of profits are incompatible remedies for copyright infringement. A copyright owner who is awarded damages cannot also obtain an account of profits.

Headnote:

COPYRIGHT - INFRINGEMENT - REMEDIES - DAMAGES AND ACCOUNTS - INCOMPATIBLE - DAMAGES AWARDED - NO RELIEF OF ACCOUNTS - COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957, SECTION 55.

Fact of the Case:

The publishers of a book, "Tara-sasankam," filed a suit for infringement of copyright against the producer and distributors of a film based on the book. The publishers claimed that they had obtained the copyright assignment from the author in 1945 and that the film infringed their copyright. The producer defended the suit by claiming that the copyright assignment was not valid, that the book was a "national property" not subject to copyright, and that there was no substantial similarity between the book and the film.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court found that the copyright assignment was valid and that the film infringed the publishers' copyright. The court granted an injunction restraining the producer and distributors from further screening the film and awarded damages of Rs. 3,000 to the publishers.

Issues: 1. Whether the copyright assignment in favor of the publishers was valid. 2. Whether the film infringed the publishers' copyright. 3. Whether the publishers were entitled to both damages and an account of profits.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the copyright assignment was valid and that the producer had failed to prove that it was not genuine. 2. The court found that the film infringed the publishers' copyright by converting substantial parts of the book, including three important characters, twelve padyams, and some dialogues. 3. The court held that the publishers were not entitled to both damages and an account of profits, as these remedies are incompatible. Since the publishers had been awarded damages, they were not entitled to an account of profits.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the publishers and the producer, upholding the trial court's decree.

RAGHUVIR, J.

( 1 ) THE proprietor of the Modern Publishers at Tenali who have now changed their business name to be "pillalamarri Publishers" (the Publishers) complain in the suit of infringement of copyright in a book "tara-sasankam" printed by them in 1945. The author of the book, Kopparapu Subba-rao, they aver, had assigned copyrights to the publishers on 17/01/1945, under Ex. A-1 deed. The book appears to have been written at the suggestion of late Suri Babu, a well known stage and cine actor. Having written, the author assigned the stage rights to Suri Babu and imposed a condition that he (the actor) and another actress Ch. Rajeswari to perform "in combination" the play -- the theme in the book. Suri Babu died in 1966, and on his death, under the terms of Ex. A1 deed the publishers aver that absolute copyrights vested in them. The author died on May, 7, 1957, after the book was printed in three editions by the publishers. The spouse of the author, notwithstanding the transfer in Ex. A1, caused citation once on 28/12/1962, in Andhra Prabha and for the second time on 1/01/1970, in Andhra Jyothi that copyrights in the book vest in her person and that any conversion of the play or theme in the book without her consent will be treated as infringement of rights vested in her. The citations were published, for at that relevant time in particular when the latter citation was published, to impute notice to Ramakrishna Pictures, Vijayawada, (the first defendant) who between 1965, and 1969, filmed the theme of the book. The Film was released in 1969, in as many as twenty-three cinema houses (defendants 6 to 28 ). The instant suit was laid on 4/12/1969, before the District Judge at Guntur by the publishers to restrain K. Satyanarayana the producer, the five distributors Ramakrishna Pictures, Vijayawada (the first defendant), Purna Pictures (P) Ltd. , Viiayawada (the second defendant), Usha Films, Secunderabad (the third defendant), Gowri Film (P) Ltd, Secunderabad (the fourth defendant) and Suresh Films (P) Ltd. , Secunderabad (the fifth defendant) and twenty three cinema exhibitors (defendants 6 to 28) to desist screening the picture any further and for having infringed the publishers rights, they have prayed to render account of the collections made by the date of suit. In addition damages were claimed against the producer and the distributors.

( 2 ) THE suit was resisted principally by the producer of the film to hold that Ramakrishna Pictures were the assignees of copyrights in the book by virtue of assignment made by the spouse of the author on 1/04/1967, that they were transferees for value without notice of earlier transfer in Ex. A-1 in favour of the publishers. In the alternative, it was averred the assignment in Ex. A-1 was not true. In the event of Ex. A-1 being true, the publishers having transferred their rights to the Gramophone Company of India at Madras, therefore, have no subsisting rights in the book. In the further alternative it was alleged there was no infringement of the book because the deed in Ex. A-1 was not registered under Section 13 of the Indian Copyright Act III of 1914 read with the provisions in the Copyright Act of 1911 passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In the final alternative it was averred the book is a "national property" referable to a known epic in Sanskrit which in Telugu was dealt by several writers. Sesham Venkatapathi wrote the theme in Telugu in "prabandham" style in 1704 and in recent times authors like Veera Raghavaswami dealt the theme in Telugu. Therefore, in the theme, there was no monopoly either in the author or the assignee under Ex. A-1 deed and cited as an instance, a picture filmed in 1939, again filmed in Telugu in 1941 by the Director-producer R. S. Prakash.

( 3 ) THE trial Court on 29/05/1973, found that the deed in Ex. A-1 was "not false" but a true transfer in favour of the Publishers. The deed was valid and acted upon by the publishers who printed the book in












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top