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

1991 Supreme(Mad) 4

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LAKSHMANAN
P. Thulasidas
Versus
K. Vasanthakumari
C.S. No. 1286 of 1988
Decided On :Decided on : 03-01-1991

Advocates Appeared:
C. Madhavaraj for M/s. Kurian Associates for plaintiff. M/s. V. Veeraraghavan & A. Prabhakara Reddy for defendant.

Copyright in a cinematograph film includes the exclusive right to do or authorise the doing of any of the acts mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (c) of Section 14(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Headnote:

COPYRIGHT - CINEMATOGRAPH FILM - COPYRIGHT IN CINEMATOGRAPH FILM INCLUDES VIDEO AND TELEVISION RIGHTS - SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE - ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO NEGATIVE RIGHTS - INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT - ACCOUNTING OF UNLAWFUL GAINS - DAMAGES.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his sole and exclusive copy of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the Tamil Talkie picture titled as ‘BHAGA PRRVTNAI’ in all dimensions, including dubbing rights of Hindi and other Indian languages or foreign languages, Television rights, Video transfusion rights, Audio Cas-setts rights etc. through out the world; for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and others from infringing in any manner with the plaintiffs sole and exclusiv e copyright mentioned above and for a mandatory injunction defendant and others to withdraw all the Video Cassetts produced, published and marketed for sale and surrender them into Court of the said film. The plaintiff also prayed to direct the defendant to render true and proper account of the realisation made by them by selling the Video Cassetts of the said film through-out country and elsewhere and direct the defendant to pay such a sum to the plaintiff as might be found payable and for costs.

Finding of the Court:

1. The plaintiff is the absolute copyright holder of Tamil film ‘Bhaga Pirivinai’ which includes Video and Television rights as claimed. 2. The plaintiff is also entitled to the Copyright as per the Sale Certificate dated 25.9.1974. 3. The defendant is liable for accounting to the plaintiff for unlawful gain and compensate the plaintiff for the wrongful loss caused to him.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute copyright holder of Tamil film ‘Bhaga Pirivinai’? 3. Whether the copyright claimed by the plaintiff includes video and television rights as alleged? 4. Whether the plaintiff can claim copyright as per the sale certificate dated 25.9.1974? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as claimed, and if so, to what extent? 6. To what relief are the parties entitled?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Copyright in a cinematograph film includes the exclusive right to do or authorise the doing of any of the acts mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (c) of Section 14(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957. 2. A sale certificate issued by the Official Assignee of the High Court, Madras, in respect of the negative rights of a cinematograph film conveys absolute rights to the purchaser, including the right to exploit the film in any manner he likes. 3. The infringement of copyright in a cinematograph film includes the making of copies of the film, causing the film to be seen or heard in public, making any record embodying the recording in any part of the sound track associated with the film by utilising such sound track, and communicating the film by radiodiffusion. 4. The owner of the copyright in a cinematograph film is entitled to an account of the unlawful gains made by any person who infringes the copyright, and to compensation for the wrongful loss caused to him.

Final Decision: The suit is decreed with costs of the plaintiff. It is declared that the plaintiff is the absolute copyright holder of the Tamil film ‘Bhaga Pirivinai’ which includes Video and Television rights as claimed. The plaintiff is also entitled to the Copyright as per the Sale Certificate dated 25.9.1974. The defendant is directed to disclose the real and true account of the transaction of their business in the Video Cassette of the Tamil talkie picture ‘Bhaga Pirivinai’ as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint. On such account being filed in this Court, a separate enquiry will be conducted by the learned Master of this Court to ascertain and fix the damages which the plaintiff will be entitled.

Judgment :-

1. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaring his sole and exclusive copy of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the Tamil Talkie picture titled as ‘BHAGA PRRVTNAI’ in all dimensions, including dubbing rights of Hindi and other Indian languages or foreign languages, Television rights, Video transfusion rights, Audio Cas-setts rights etc. through out the world; for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and others from infringing in any manner with the plaintiffs sole and exclusiv e copyright mentioned above and for a mandatory injunction defendant and others to withdraw all the Video Cassetts produced, published and marketed for sale and surrender them into Court of the said film. The plaintiff also prayed to direct the defendant to render true and proper account of the realisation made by them by selling the Video Cassetts of the said film through-out country and elsewhere and direct the defendant to pay such a sum to the plaintiff as might be found payable and for costs.


2. The plaintiff is a Film Distributor and is having his business at Salem and branch offices at Madras and Coimbatore. He is having the absolute and exclusive Copyright of distribution, exhibition and exploitation in many talkie pictures. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and is having absolute and exclusive copyright of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the film in all dimensions and other rights as mentioned above. He purchased the above said right in Court auction sale held in the insolvency proceedings of G.N. Velumani in I.P. No. 64 of 1972 on the file of this Court and the sale in his favour was confirmed by the Official Assignee, High Court, Madras on 25.9.1974. The plaintiff, till date is exercising all his rights over the distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the said picture. He has leased out the distribution rights of the said picture to various persons to various areas, permitted Doordharsan Kendras to telecast the said picture in the programmes and received his royalties. None else except the plaintiff has any title, interest or Copyright in the said picture. While so, on 17.8.1988 he came to know that the defendant herein has produced, published and distributed Video Cassettes of the said picture for sale all over India and other places, infringing the plaintiffs copyright in it knowingly for loss and damages to the plaintiff unlawfully. The plaintiff submits to state that the copy right of the said picture is still with him and he has not given any licence or consent to anyone for producing, and publishing such Video Cassettes for public sale or for any other purposed much less to the defendant. The defendant has dealt with the plaintiffs copyright in a manner inconsistent with the right and interest of the plaintiff to their self gain. Due to the illegal act of the defendant the value of his copyright to produce Video Cassettes or to licence to others of such right is considerably diminished and the plaintiff has incurred a considerable loss. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration of his Copyright and the defendant has to be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from infringing the plaintiffs Copyright in the said picture in any manner and also by a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to withdraw all the cassettes distributed by them for sale in the open market. The plaintiff has issued a lawyers notice on the defendant to withdraw the Video Cassettes of the said picture and to surrender the same to him and to pay damages for their illegal act on 25.8.1988. After receipt of the said notice the defendant sent a reply dated 17.9.1988, through the counsel, with false averments and unlawful claims. The defendant has also denied the plaintiffs rights in the said picture and claimed the rights of the defendant as her own as if she has acquired legally. The plaintiff has also prayed this Court to conduct an enquiry in respect of the loss caused to t


























































































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