Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, provides special protection to the intellectual property of authors, independent of copyright and even after assignment of copyright. This protection includes the right to claim authorship, restrain distortion or mutilation of the work, and protect honor and reputation.

( 1 ) HOW far law protects creative aesthetic expression of an artist 7 Is the intellectual property of an artist governed by the game norms as commercial property ? Where does the freedom (of expression) of the autnor and, where does the Director begin ? What is the scope and width of section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957? These are the questions raised in Mannu Bhandari s suit against M/s. Kala Vikas Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. and its producer and director. Kala Vikas has produced motion picture samay Ki Dhara under assignment of filming rights of her novel aap Ka Bunty. Her complaint is of the multilation and distortion of the novel. She pleads for permanent injunction against its screening and exhibition. Although many authors complain of sueh distortions, few have sought judicial protection. Hence, there is no precedent of any law court to guide the film industry.

( 2 ) THE trial court has refused an ad-interim restraint order. The appeal is against this order.

( 3 ) AT the time of the bearing it was realised that apart from the verbal allegations made by the Plaintiff and the defendants, there was considerable common ground, which if properly explored, would bring the parties to an amicable settlement. But, the plaintiff insisted that as a committed author she would like the Court to authoritatively resolve the question of the rights of the authors as the problem is repeatedly faced by the authors and there is no judicial decision The defendant s grievance, on the other band, was that they had made a hugs iavestment and have entered into contracts with the distributors According to the defendants, the plaintiff has filed the suit with the ulterior motive of extracting more money than that paid under the contract. Due to this extreme position taken by the parties, there was no worthwhile attempt on their part to settle the matter amicably.

( 4 ) AS the arguments proceeded, it was felt that the grievance of the Plaintiff and its treatment by the learned Additional District Judge cannot be properly appreciated without actually seeing the movie. Filming a novel is quite different from literary reproduction There is a change in the medium. The theme of the novel is conveyed through audio-visual effects. The shooting of the film was already complete but the learned Judge did not take the benefit of seeing the movie. The movie samay Ki Dhara, was thereafter screened, in a private auditorium for the benefit of the Court. The resolution of the dispute is not so simple as it belonged to the field of performing arts. The sale of filming rights of a novel is qualitatively different from the ordinary sale of goods. It is also different from selling the publishing rights of a publisher. If a novel is sold for filming it or for producing a play, it is transformed into the realm of performing art. The Court can tread on it but with caution. It is better to have assistance of informal asserssors from the film world, such as story writer, directors and producers. I made this suggestion. But one party was not agreeable to have the assistance of the peers.

( 5 ) AT the bottom of the controversy is the question of demarcating the Boundaries of the rights of the author and that of a director of the film. Does the assignment of the filming rights mean the end of the author s rights 7 Does it mean that the director has absolute freedom to make any changes in the theme and characters ? The basic question is how to balance freedom (of expression) of the author with that of the director in the field of art.

( 6 ) IN para 12 of the judgment the learned Additional District Judge has held, "in my view prima facie the plaintiff has not been able to establish or record that the defeadants have changed the theme, distorted or mutilated the novel or damaged the underlying idea thereof. It is not shown that the defendants have violated the agreement or section 57 of the Copyright Act. The plaintiff had pima facie authorised the defendants to mak