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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. SOMARAJAN, J.
M/s. Saina Video Vision – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Century Films – Respondent
FAO No. 92 of 2018
Decided On : 18-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Varghese C. Kuriakose, P.J. Jose, K.O. Manuel Kopramb, V.P. Poulose, Seenu Sadique.
For the Respondents: Harikumar C., V. Bovan Cherian Varkey, V.V. Sadanandan, P.S. Sidharthan, Vizzy George Kokkat, Renjith Rajappan, Sandra Sunny, Arun Kumar M.A.

IMPORTANT POINT
A complete transfer/assignment of copyright includes rights not contemplated at the time of assignment, unless a contrary intention is evident.

Headnote:

Copyright - Cinematographs - Copyright Act, Section 14, Section 17 - The court discussed the legal position regarding the assignment of internet and internet related rights over cinematographs. It analyzed the provisions of Section 14 and Section 17 of the Copyright Act to determine the scope of copyright assignment and the rights of the first owner of copyright. The court emphasized that a complete transfer/assignment of copyright includes rights not contemplated at the time of assignment, unless a contrary intention is evident. It also highlighted the principle of ownership transfer in the context of tangible and intangible properties.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute involved the ownership of copyright over 32 Malayalam movies, specifically the internet and internet related rights. The plaintiff obtained rights under an assignment deed, while the third defendant claimed to have purchased these rights subsequently. The trial court dismissed the injunction application based on a previous decision and the interpretation of the Copyright Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the assignment of internet and internet related rights should cover all copyright held by the original owner, and any rights not contemplated at the time of assignment would still be transferred unless a contrary intention is evident. It held that the trial court erred in not considering the legal position in its correct perspective and set aside the impugned order, making the interim injunction absolute till the disposal of the suit.

Issues: The main issue was whether the assignment of internet and internet related rights would cover all copyright held by the original owner, and the legal position regarding rights not contemplated at the time of assignment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a complete transfer/assignment of copyright includes rights not contemplated at the time of assignment, unless a contrary intention is evident. It also highlighted the principle of ownership transfer in the context of tangible and intangible properties.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the interim injunction was made absolute till the disposal of the suit. The trial court was directed to expedite the disposal of the suit within six months.

JUDGMENT :

P. SOMARAJAN, J.

1. The dispute is pertaining to the ownership of copy right pertaining to cinematographs (32 Malayalam movies). It is the subject matter of an assignment under Ext.A1 dated 17/04/1996 in favour of the second defendant by the owner/producer of the movies, the first defendant/first counter petitioner, from whom the plaintiff/petitioner had obtained internet and internet related rights under Ext.A2 assignment deed dated 11/11/2006. While so, the original producer, the first defendant had assigned internet and internet related rights to the third defendant and they began to use the said right over the 32 movies scheduled in the plaint. Hence, the plaintiff approached the civil court for declaration of their right over the 32 cinematographs (Malayalam movies) and obtained an ad interim injunction against the defendants. The third defendant in turn contested the interim injunction application claiming that they have purchased internet and internet related rights from the original owner/producer, the first defendant subsequently. Initially, an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted. But on appearance of the defendant and after hearing both the parties, the interim injunction was vacated and the application was dismissed by the trial court. It is against that order, the plaintiff/petitioner came up in appeal.

2. The trial court dismissed the injunction application mainly relying on the decision rendered by the High Court of Madras in Raj Video Vision vs. K. Mohanakannan, 1998 KHC 2341. The claim of third defendant, who is litigating under the original owner of the movies (the producer) based on a subsequent assignment of internet and allied rights claims that the internet facility being a subsequent scientific invention, it was not contemplated at the time when Ext.A2 assignment was given and as such, the parties would stand governed by Section 14 of the Copyright Act and Ext.A2 document, the assignment given will not take away the internet and internet related rights over the movies and it will stand vested with the original producer being the original owner of copyright. Thus, the subsequent purchase/assignment in favour of the third defendant is valid, it was contended. Hence, the question came up for consideration is whether Ext.A2 assignment would cover all the copyright held by the original owner of the copyright and what would be the legal position as to any right, which was not contemplated or in existence at the time when the assignment was given.

3. Section 14 of the Copyright Act is extracted below for reference:

    “Meaning of copyright - For the purposes of this Act, copyright means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely:

(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer programme:

(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means.

(ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation.

(iii) to perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public.

(iv) to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work.

(v) to make any translation of the work.

(vi) to make any adaptation of the work.

(vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub clauses (i) to (vi).

(b) in the case of a computer programme:

(i) to do any of the acts specified in clause (a).

(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for commercial rental any copy of the computer programme:

Provided that such commercial rental does not apply in respect of computer programmes where the programme itself is not the essential object of the rental.

(c) in the case of an artistic work:

(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including:

(A) the storing of it in any medium by electr

    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
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top