Back
1985 Supreme(Del) 305
High Court Of Delhi
SHANTI SWAROOP - Appellant
Versus
MAHINDER KUMAR - Respondent
C.M. 495 of 1985
Decided On : 08/19/1985
P.D.GUPTA, R.K.Anand
Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, provides special protection to the intellectual property of an author, independent of the copyright and even after the assignment of the copyright. The scope and width of Section 57 is wide and encompasses both literary and audio-visual manifestations. The freedom of expression of the author and the director in the field of art should be balanced, and modifications made to the original work should not distort or mutilate the original theme and characters.
Headnote:
COPYRIGHT - SECTION 57 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND WIDTH - PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF AN AUTHOR - BALANCE BETWEEN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION OF AUTHOR AND DIRECTOR IN THE FIELD OF ART - DISTORTION, MUTILATION OR OTHER MODIFICATIONS OF THE AUTHOR'S WORK - AUTHOR'S SPECIAL RIGHTS - ASSIGNMENT OF FILMING RIGHTS - CONTRACT OF ASSIGNMENT - MODIFICATIONS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CONTRACT - PUBLICITY TO BE GIVEN TO THE AUTHOR - INJUNCTION UNDER SECTION 57 - DELAY AND LACHES - REPUTATION OF THE AUTHOR - VULGAR DIALOGUES - DELETION OF OBJECTIONABLE SCENES - END OF THE FILM - DEATH OF THE MAIN CHARACTER - MUTILATION OF THE THEME AND CHARACTERS - JOINT APPLICATION FOR SETTLEMENT - WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL AND SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
Mannu Bhandari, an author, filed a suit against Kala Vikas Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. and its producer and director for mutilation and distortion of her novel "aap Ka Bunty" in the film "samay Ki Dhara" produced under the assignment of filming rights. The trial court refused an ad-interim restraint order, and the author appealed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, provides special protection to the intellectual property of an author, independent of the copyright and even after the assignment of the copyright. The court interpreted the scope of Section 57 and the contract of assignment between the parties, emphasizing that the modifications permissible under the contract should not distort or mutilate the original novel and that the author's reputation should be protected. The court also held that the author's right to claim authorship and to restrain or claim damages for distortion, mutilation, or other modifications of the work is independent of the author's copyright and the remedies available under Section 55 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, provides special protection to the intellectual property of an author, independent of the copyright and even after the assignment of the copyright? 2. What is the scope and width of Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957? 3. How to balance the freedom of expression of the author and the director in the field of art? 4. What are the permissible modifications under the contract of assignment between the author and the producer? 5. Whether the author's reputation should be protected? 6. Whether an injunction can be granted under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957? 7. Whether delay and laches on the part of the author can bar the grant of an injunction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, provides special protection to the intellectual property of an author, independent of the copyright and even after the assignment of the copyright. 2. The scope and width of Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is wide and encompasses both literary and audio-visual manifestations. 3. The freedom of expression of the author and the director in the field of art should be balanced, and modifications made to the original work should not distort or mutilate the original theme and characters. 4. The permissible modifications under the contract of assignment between the author and the producer should be limited to those necessary for converting the novel into a film version and should not distort or mutilate the original novel. 5. The author's reputation should be protected, and the author should be given due recognition for their work. 6. An injunction can be granted under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, to restrain the infringement of the author's special rights. 7. Delay and laches on the part of the author may bar the grant of an injunction, but the court should consider the circumstances of each case.
Final Decision: The court upheld the order of the trial court subject to the modifications and deletions suggested in the judgment. The parties later filed a joint application for settlement, and the appeal and the suit were dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the settlement.
( 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 t
