Back
High Court Of Calcutta
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
GEE PEE FILMS PVT.LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
PRATIK CHOWDHURY - Respondent
G. A. 2756 Of 2001
Decided On : 08/08/2001
COPYRIGHT - LYRICS, MUSIC, SOUND RECORDING - OWNERSHIP - CONTRACT OF SERVICE - PRODUCER - INJUNCTION - COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 - SECTIONS 2(D), 2(UU), 17.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff commissioned defendants 3 and 5 to compose Bengali non-film lyrics and music for defendant 1 to sing. Plaintiff recorded the performance and claimed copyright over the lyrics, music, and sound recording. Defendants contended that the lyricist and composer are the authors and first owners of copyright unless created under a contract of service.
Finding of the Court:
1. No contract of service existed between plaintiff and defendants. 2. Plaintiff did not take responsibility for the sound recording and was not the producer. 3. Plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of copyright infringement.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants were employed by the plaintiff under a contract of service, resulting in the transfer of copyright to the plaintiff. 2. Whether the plaintiff was the producer of the sound recording, granting them copyright ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and held that the author of a work created during employment under a contract of service is the first owner of the copyright, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. 2. The court analyzed the definition of 'producer' under Section 2(uu) of the Act and concluded that the plaintiff, by merely financing the recording, did not assume the responsibility and consequential legal liability required to be considered a producer.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an injunction, finding no prima facie case of copyright infringement. The interim order granted earlier was vacated.
Key Points: - The author of lyrics and composer are authors; copyright ownership typically with them unless contracted under service/apprenticeship (Section 17) (!) . - No contract of service established between plaintiff and defendants; plaintiff not producer of sound recording; no prima facie infringement established (!) (!) (!) . - Court dismissed injunction; interim order vacated; receiver discharged; costs none; final outcome denies plaintiff’s relief (!) (!) .
( 1 ) BY this application the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs :-'a) Injunction restraining the defendants and each of them whether by their servants or agents or assigns or otherwise howsoever from manufacturing or marketing or selling any cassette relating to the inlay card being Annexure 'a" hereto or containing any work which is similar and /or identical to the petitioner's work entitled 'tanche Jakhan" and 'tomar Chhoante" in any colourable imitation thereof in any manner whatsoever; b) Injunction restraining the defendants and each of them whether by themselves or by their servants or agents or assigns or otherwise howsoever from infringing the petitioner's copyright in the numbers originally entitled 'tanche Jakhan" and Tomar Chhoante" in any manner whatsoever; (c) An order directing the defendants to deliver up all cassettes, inlay cards, labels,cartoons, packing and publicity material relating to the defendants' 'swapno Bikri Aache" cassette and the inlay card being Annexure 'a" hereto and destruction upon oath of the defendants that the defendants do not have their in control any of the aforesaid infringing materials; d) Injunction restraining the defendants and each of them whether by themselves or by their servants or agents or assigns or otherwise howsoever from marketing or distributing the cassettes entitled 'swapno Bikri Aache" in any manner whatsoever; e) A Receiver be appointed overall the cassettes, inlay cards, labels, carton packing and publicity material relating to the defendants' 'swapno Bikri Aache" cassettes and the inlay card Annexure 'a" hereto with a direction upon the Receiver to forthwith take physical possession thereof; f) Ad-interim orders in terms of prayers above; g) Costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the defendants; h) Such further or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. "
( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the present suit thereby praying for the following reliefs :'a) Declaration that the defendants are not entitled to exploit the copyright in the lyrics, music or literary and dramatic works contained in the songs originally entitled 'tanche Jakhan' and 'tomar chhonate' and now purported to be entitled as 'door Bohu Doore' and 'ke Ki Bhabe Nabhabe Janina' respectively in any manner whatsoever; b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants and each of them, whether by themselves or by their servants or agents or assigns or otherwise howsoever from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the numbers originally entitled 'tanche Jakhan' and 'tomar Chhonate' in any manner whatsoever; c) Premanent injunction restraining the defendants and each of them whether by themselves or by their servants or agents or assigns or otherwise howsoever from manufacturing or marketing or selling any cassette relating to the inlay card being Annexure 'a" hereto or containing any work which is similar and/or identical to the plaintiff's works entitled 'tanche Jakhan' and 'tomar chhonate' or any colourable imitation thereof in any manner whatsoever; d) Decree for delivery up of all cassettes, inlay cards, labels, cartoons, packing and publicity material relating to the defendants' 'swapna Bikri Aache' cassette and the Inlay care being Annexure 'a" hereto and destruction of the same upon oath of the defendants that the defendants do not have in their possession or control any of the aforesaid infringing material; e) Receiver; f) Interlocutory injunction; g) Costs; h) Such further or other reliefs. "
( 3 ) THE case made out by the plaintiff is as follows :-A) the defendant No. 1 is a singer of Bengali Songs. The defendant No. 2 is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cassettes, compact discs and other sound recording systems. The defendant No. 3 is a song lyricist and music composer and defendant No. 4 is a relative of the defendant No. 3 and claimed to be a lyrici
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
