Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Poi Social Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents
CS(COMM) 646 of 2023 & I.A. 18038 of 2023 & I.A. 20079 of 2023
Decided On : 11-10-2023
Copyright Infringement - Storytelling Platforms - Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 14, 17, 2(c)(i), 2(d)(iv), 17, 51 - The court held that both platforms were prohibited from using each other's copyrighted works, including commissioned photographs, literary works, videos, and the manner of presenting stories. However, no copyright could be claimed for images, photographs, or videos submitted by individuals from their private collections.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, Humans of Bombay, filed a suit against People of India for copyright infringement, alleging that the defendant imitated and copied a large portion of the content from its website, including photographs, literary works, and creative expression. The Plaintiff also claimed wrongful interference in their contracts with the subjects.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was substantial imitation and infringement of photographs/images by the Defendants. However, the court clarified that no copyright could be claimed for images, photographs, or videos submitted by individuals from their private collections.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Defendants infringed the Plaintiff's copyrighted works, and whether the Plaintiff's platform was unique enough to claim copyright protection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while there can be no monopoly over running a storytelling platform, the expression of ideas through creative aspects such as images, literary content, and the manner of depicting stories is protectable under copyright law. The court also clarified that no copyright could be claimed for images, photographs, or videos submitted by individuals from their private collections.
Final Decision: The court decreed that both platforms were prohibited from using each other's copyrighted works, including commissioned photographs, literary works, videos, and the manner of presenting stories. However, no copyright could be claimed for images, photographs, or videos submitted by individuals from their private collections.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Two storytelling platforms i.e. Humans of Bombay (hereinafter, `HoB') and People of India (hereinafter, `PoI') are in dispute with each other in the present suit. 11. The Plaintiff runs a website called www.humansofbombay.in , and the Defendants run a website by the name www.peopleofindia.io.
3. The Plaintiff - Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present suit seeking an injunction restraining the infringement of copyright of content consisting of the following:
(a) photographs,
(b) literary works forming the basis of the stories,
(c) videos,
(d) creative expression, which includes the manner of presenting the said stories.
4. The Plaintiff's case is that it owns and operates a storytelling platform called `Humans of Bombay' since 2014 wherein stories from various individuals are uploaded/presented as interviews, write ups, posts, etc. The Plaintiff claims that it engages in substantial research, and approaches various individuals (hereinafter, `subjects') who are interested in narrating and sharing their life stories. These stories are then converted by the Plaintiff into audio-visual works and uploaded on their respective website and various social media platforms (hereinafter, `platforms').
5. It is averred that the Plaintiff has a unique method of selecting subjects. After selecting and verifying the subjects, the Plaintiff's team or contracted writers and authors craft the literary works that make up the stories, which include synopses, captions, and scripts. The plaint avers that the copyrights for all these literary works, produced as works for hire, are owned by the Plaintiff. It is further stated that before publishing, written consent is obtained from the subjects, ensuring an agreement between the subject and the Plaintiff for a specified period, preventing others from telling the subject's story.
6. The plaint avers that HoB, due to their format, it has become one of the nation's largest storytelling website/platforms. HoB is stated to have successfully partnered with major brands for story sponsorships and calls to action. Additionally, the Plaintiff is stated to be the official storytelling associate for the Rajasthan Royals during the 2023 Indian Premier League season. The Plaintiff has also harnessed the platform's extensive reach to fund-raise for significant causes also. As on date, the Plaintiff boasts of having 26 lakhs followers on their Instagram page, and nearly 10 lakh followers as well as over 750 Million views on their YouTube page.
7. Some examples of the Plaintiff's content have been provided at paragraph 14 of the plaint.
8. The cause of action for instituting the present suit arose in 2022, when the Plaintiff noticed that the Defendant No.1-PoI Social Media Pvt. Ltd. allegedly used the Plaintiff's literary works and creative expression. It is further averred that the content shared by Defendant No. 2-Ms. Drishti Saxena on these handles was, in many cases, either identical to the Plaintiff's content.
9. A Cease-and-Desist Notice was sent by the Plaintiff on 17th February 2022 to Defendant No. 2, asking it to refrain from posting infringing content. Further, another legal notice dated 19th July 2023 was sent, urging the Defendants to refrain from publishing the said content. Thereafter, the Defendants have stated to have responded to the said legal notice vide communication dated 31st July 2023.
10. The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendants have imitated and copied a large portion of the contents from its website. Several of the images were stated to have been replicated. Some of the images alleged to have been replicated from the Plaintiff's website are set out below:
11. The Plaintiff is also aggrieved by the Defendants' wrongful/tortious interference in their contracts with the said subjects.
12. Consequently, a prayer was sought for injunction against the Defendants' website and activities. On 18th September
The expression of ideas through creative aspects such as images, literary content, and the manner of depicting stories is protectable under copyright law, while no copyright could be claimed for imag....
There can be no copyright over an idea or concept, and similarities between works based on the same idea are bound to occur. Copyright infringement requires clear and cogent evidence of literal imita....
The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, while defendants claimed fair use and truth defenses for defamation, necessitating a trial to assess merits.
The court determined that mere ideas cannot be copyrighted under statutory law, and the plaintiff's claims lacked originality and evidence of substantial similarity with the defendants' league format....
Unauthorized exploitation of copyrighted content, previously licensed, does not qualify as fair dealing or de minimis.
The plaintiff lacks authorship and entitlement to special rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act due to being an employee; the employer owns rights to works created during employment.
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
