Back
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
K.R. Ravi Rathinam
Versus
The Director General of Police & Others
Writ Petition (MD) No. 18210 of 2014 & M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014
Decided on : 03-12-2014
Writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to act upon his representation dated 1/11/2014 by conducting a detailed enquiry after appointing a Fact Finding Committee into the true authorship and ownership of the single story line found in both feature films 'Mullai Vanam 999' and 'Linga' was dismissed by the court. The court held that the grievance of the petitioner that his intellectual property/story 'Mullai Vanam 999' was stolen by the respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 from 'You Tube' is a private dispute and the merits of the rival claims made by the parties in the subject matter in issue before this Court cannot be investigated in a summary proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a debutant director, claimed that his story 'Mullai Vanam 999' was uploaded by him in 'You Tube' a social website on 24/2/2013 itself and that it was telecasted on 26/2/2013 in channels like Ottran Seithi, Sun Network, Kalaingnar Network, Raj Network, Jaya Network, Mega T.V and Vasanth T.V and further, from 26/2/2013 onwards 'You Tube' floated the same in public domain. The petitioner gave a complaint to the respondents 1 to 3 on 1/11/2014 stating that all the offences committed by the respondents 7, 8,10 and 11. So far no First Information Report has been registered either by the Cyber Crime or by any other authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the grievance of the petitioner that his intellectual property/story 'Mullai Vanam 999' was stolen by the respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 from 'You Tube' is a private dispute and the merits of the rival claims made by the parties in the subject matter in issue before this Court cannot be investigated in a summary proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner has a copyright over the story 'Mullai Vanam 999'? 2. Whether the respondents have infringed the petitioner's copyright? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner cannot claim copyright in an unpublished work and the statements in 'You Tube' do not constitute publication of petitioner's story. 2. The court also held that no one can claim copyright over Penny Quick's life or the theme of a hero constructing a dam and protecting it from anti-social elements and the concept of a story, qua an intellectual property is something wider and would not apply to mere themes and historic facts. 3. The court further held that the petitioner's remedy is not to file the present Writ Petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the concerned persons who have alleged to have been infringed his Copy Right/stolen his intellectual property and in this regard, the appropriate remedy for him is to file a Civil Suit before the Competent forum or to avail other remedies available under General Law or in Criminal Law and that too in the manner known to law and in accordance with Law, if he so desires/advised and also deems fit and proper based on the facts and circumstances of the case which float on the surface.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the parties to be bear their own costs.
1. Heard both sides.
2. The Petitioner has projected the present Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 to 6 to act upon his representation dated 1/11/2014 by conducting a detailed enquiry after appointing the Fact Finding Committee into the true authorship and ownership of the single story line found in both feature films 'Mullai Vanam 999' and 'Linga' so as to legalise the production and release of both on or before 12/12/2014.
3. THE RESUME OF FACTS OF WRIT PETITION:-The Petitioner is a debutant Director for the Tamil feature film 'Mullai Vanam 999' to be produced by Ranga Pon Solai Films. He was in the serial field and for the first time, he is entering into the Tamil Nadu Tinsel Film Industry as Director through the aforesaid 'Mullai Vanam 999' and further, he is the owner and author of the story, screenplay and direction.
4. According to the Petitioner, 'Mullai Vanam 999' is a story back grounding the Mullai Periyar and the construction done by 'Penny Quick' apart from National Unification of Rivers and Rivulets. The entire story was uploaded by him in the 'You Tube' a social website on 24/2/2013 itself. All the film stories are being floated in the social websites to show the ownership of films when the same is not patented at Chennai. Further, a number of new channels like Ottran Seithi, Sun Network, Kalaingar Network, Raj Network, Jaya Network, Mega T.V and Vasanth T.V telecasted the same. Also from 26/2/2013 onwards 'You Tube' floated the same in public domain.
5. On 24/2/2013 at 10.00 a.m., pooja for 'Mullai Vanam 999' was celebrated in AVM Studios which was presided over by several VIPs, Dignitaries and the shooting for his new film is to be shot from January 2015 onwards, both indoors and outdoors. Further, pre-shooting initiations were conducted around Theni - Madurai Districts and Kerala for the past ten months while staying at Theni International Guest House along with the Producers, Artists, Cameramen and other off-screen Technicians.
6. To the Petitioner's great shock and surprise, on 2/5/2014, while browsing 'You Tube', his story was appearing in the film named 'Linga', as if produced by the Seventh Respondent directed by the Tenth Respondent, story by the Eighth Respondent and to be acted and distributed by the 11th Respondent. The aforesaid Respondents had clandestinely stolen his property from 'You Tube' and posted the same on 2/5/2014. Whereas the very same story was floated by him in the name of 'Mullai Vanam 999' as early as 24/2/2013 itself.
7. His feature film 'Mullai Vanam 999' is to be produced at the cost of Rs.3,31,20,000/-and the same is expected to fetch a commercial revenue of Rs.15 crores through his dream story and screenplay. Whereas the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 are shooting the feature film 'Linga' at a lightening speed both in Mysore, Kerala and Tamil Nadu with his stolen story 'Mullai Vanam 999'.
8. The Petitioner had invested 47 years of labour in the film industry and for the first time, his story 'Mullai Vanam 999' is to be released during Tamil New Year's day 'Chithirai 2015' whereas his maiden stolen story is to be released during 'Pongal' 2015 by the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 which will bring his entire life and future into the dark gallows for ever. Further, in 'Kungumam' magazine dated 19/5/2014, the stolen story was reproduced through the auspices of the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11.
9. The Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 have committed offences under Sections 66 B, 66 E, 72, 72 A r/w. 76 and 77 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 109, 379, 403, 420, 468, 470, 471 along with 120 (b) of IPC. The intellectual property from the 'You Tube' was stolen by the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 for illegally gaining and thereby bringing loss to his personal exchequer.
10. A complaint was preferred to the Respondents 1 to 6 on 1/11/2014 stating that all the offences committed by the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11
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
