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

2007 Supreme(Del) 1045

High Court Of Delhi
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,SANJIV KHANNA
TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L. P. - Appellant
Versus
RPG NETCOM - Respondents
FAO (OS) 293 Of 2006
Decided On : 05/15/2007

Advocates Appeared:
ASHISH PRASAD, C.M.LAL, Chetan Chopra, PRATIBHA M.SINGH, RAJEEV KAPOOR, SANJEEV SACHDEVA, SHRUTI KAKAR, SUMESH DHAWAN

The main legal point established is that copyright exists and can be claimed only in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 or any other law in force at the time of enactment, and common law rights in copyright were abrogated by the Act.

Headnote:

Copyright Act - Infringement of Cinematographic Films - Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 55, 177, 188, 309, 31, 3810 - The judgment discusses the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and their application in cases of infringement of cinematographic films. It emphasizes the definition of 'author' in relation to a cinematographic film, the rights of the owner of the film at the time of its completion, and the limitations on claiming infringement in future works. The court also highlights the statutory rights and remedies provided under the Act, and the inapplicability of common law rights in copyright cases.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants filed suits seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for alleged violation of the Copyright Act, 1957 by broadcasting cinematographic films on their cable network. The Single Judge passed an interim order restraining the defendant from telecasting the films, but rejected the prayer for interim injunction for future films. The appellants claimed infringement under common law rights, which the court rejected.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants were not entitled to injunction under the law of tort, as the Copyright Act specifically confers statutory rights and remedies for copyright infringement. It emphasized that copyright exists only in accordance with the provisions of the Act or any other law in force at the time of enactment.

Issues: The issues involved the entitlement to injunction under common law rights, the definition of 'author' in relation to cinematographic films, and the applicability of statutory rights and remedies provided under the Copyright Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that copyright exists in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act, and common law rights in copyright were abrogated by the Act. It emphasized that the owner of the film at the time of its completion is the author of the work and the first owner of the copyright. The court also highlighted the limitations on claiming infringement in future works and the requirement for necessary pleading in the plaint for passing off claims.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.


SANJIV KHANNA, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals involve a common question of law and arise out of a common impugned Order dated 30th January, 2006 passed in eight different suits. As the facts and issues involved in these Appeals are similar, they are being disposed of by this common Order.

( 2 ) THE appellants herein are plaintiffs who have filed eight suits seeking permanent injunction against the defendant in each suit. Each defendant is providing cable television services through their associate or affiliated companies, agents, franchises or distributors.

( 3 ) THE appellants-plaintiffs in the plaint have alleged violation of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) by the defendant/ respondent. It is alleged that the appellants-plaintiffs are the owners of copyright in respect of the cinematographic films either as film producers or as assignees and their right as owners of copyright in cinematographic films is being violated by the respondent-defendant who should be stayed from broadcasting the said films on their cable network. Some instances of the alleged violations have been mentioned in the plaint.

( 4 ) LEARNED Single Judge by the impugned Order dated 30th January, 2006 after referring to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mirabai Films Pvt. Ltd. versus Siti Cable Network and others reported in 2003 (26) PTC 473 (Del) DB has passed an interim order restraining the respondent-defendant from telecasting/screening/ exhibiting the said cinematographic films on their network and/or from allowing feed signals to be used by the distributors, franchises, assignees and cable operators for the purpose. However, it has been clarified by the learned Single Judge that the said interim order would operate only for the films, the list of which has been enclosed with the plaint. Learned single Judge specifically rejected the prayer of the appellants-plaintiffs that interim injunction order should also be passed in respect of cinematographic films which have not yet been produced and will be made in future. Learned single Judge referred to Section 18 of the Act and held that copyright in a cinematographic film comes into existence only after the film has been produced and cause of action for any violation in respect of the said cinematographic film would arise only thereafter.

( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent and will refer to their contentions during the course of this Order.

( 6 ) THE object of copyright law is to prevent copying of physical material and form in the field of literature and art. It is essentially a negative right given to the author, in the sense that the Act does not confer the owner with a right to publish his work but the right to prevent third parties from doing that which the owner is solely allowed to do under the Act. The term "author" has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act in relation to a cinematographic film to mean 'owner of the film at the time of its completion'. For determining the "author" in relation to a cinematographic film we have to find out the time when the film was completed and the person who was the owner of the film at the time of its completion. "owner" of the film when it is under production or before its completion is not regarded as the author of a cinematographic film within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act. Copyright exists in the material object but not in the idea. The object of copyright is not to create any legal or intellectual property rights in the idea but in the final object or the work which is created as a result of the effort made to give a "physical" shape to an idea. Copyright exists in the "work"2 as defined in Section 2 (y) of the Act and includes a cinematographic film.

( 7 ) SECTION 13 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of the said Section and other provisions of the Act, copyright shall subsist throughout india in the classes of works spe






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top