Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3809
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
S.M.Ashokan - Plaintiff
Vs.
Raj Television Net Work Ltd. - Respondent
CS.No.60 of 1995
Decided on : 09-12-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the plaintiff : Mr. B.Arvind Srevatsa
For the Defendants : Mr.M.C. Ramesh
Headnote:
Copyright Act - Section 19 (5) - Tamil talkie pictures - Illegally telecasted Tamil talkie picture - Copyright – Agreement - Letter of assignment - Plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of negative rights, title and interest in respect of two Tamil talkie pictures, "Bhuvana Oru Kelvikkuri" and "Vattathukkul Saduram", black and white, which have been transferred by previous owner, who is Proprietor of M.A.M. Film - Based on written letter by M.A.M.Film, the A.V.M.Laboratory Service has confirmed arrangement and transferred picture and sound negatives in favour of plaintiff irrevocably - While so, N.S.Mani, Proprietor of M.A.M.Films, seems to have entered into an agreement with one Nadarajan Varatharajan, in respect of video rights of aforesaid pictures for Indian Union only and also received amount- However, there is no record to show assignment of video rights - It is stated that one S.Rajeswari assigned entire copyright of above said pictures in favour of the plaintiff by letter of assignment and the same was confirmed by A.V.M.Cine Lab - Thus, plaintiff is absolute owner of suit pictures - Held, It is clear that original negative rights, which were given in year 1979, did not acquire video rights or satellite rights, and that plaintiff has not acquired any of above rights in subsequent assignment said to have been made - Though it is case of plaintiff that he has acquired rights under Exs. P10 and P11 letter of assignment, as already discussed, there is no mention with regard to period of such rights - Once period of assignment is not stated in assignment letter or agreement, as per Section 19 (5) of copyright Act, it shall be deemed to be five years from date of assignment - Therefore, even if any right was acquired by plaintiff, same could have expired in year 2006 itself - Court is of view that plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case - Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of the copyrights of Distribution, exhibition and exploitation in Tamil talkie picture "Bhuvana Oru Kelvikuri" and " Vattathukkul Sathuram", in all dimensions including the right to telecast in all Televisions and all other rights - - Plaintiff failed to establish that defendants telecasted At most he can have his right only which is derived from original assignment - Plaintiff has not established fact that he has acquired Television and satellite rights, permanent injunction also cannot be granted against him Movie in Television and as a result, he suffered huge damages - Suit is dismissed.
The suit is filed for declaration and permanent injunction of the suit pictures.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:
The plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the negative rights, title and interest in respect of the two Tamil talkie pictures, "Bhuvana Oru Kelvikkuri" and "Vattathukkul Saduram", black and white, which have been transferred by the previous owner, M.S.Mani, who is the Proprietor of M.A.M. Film. Based on the written letter dated 16.3.1979 by M.A.M.Film, the A.V.M.Laboratory Service has confirmed the arrangement and transferred the picture and sound negatives in favour of the plaintiff irrevocably.
2.1. While so, N.S.Mani, Proprietor of M.A.M.Films, seems to have entered into an agreement dated 27.4.1985 with one Nadarajan Varatharajan, in respect of video rights of the aforesaid pictures for Indian Union only and also received a sum of Rs.250/- on 27.4.1985 and Rs.4,250/- on 27.5.1985. However, there is no record to show the assignment of video rights.
2.2. It is stated that one S.Rajeswari assigned the entire copyright of the above said pictures in favour of the plaintiff by letter of assignment dated 15.01.2001 and the same was confirmed by A.V.M.Cine Lab on 30.8.2001. Thus, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit pictures. Subsequently, S.Rajeswari died on 12.8.2001.
2.3. According to the plaintiff, the Video Rights means only taking video tapes of the pictures to be put in home exhibition and nothing else. Copyright is a bundle of rights and only the specific rights will go to the assignee and all other rights will remain with the assignor. The plaintiff is having the exclusive copyright to distribute, exhibit and exploit the aforesaid two pictures in public by screening the same in theaters for public and also for commercial screening and all other rights including satellite Television. It is stated that the plaintiff has already committed distribution of rights in all over Tamil Nadu by executing agreements.
2.4. When things are such, the defendants have screened the picture "Bhuvana Oru Kelvikkuri" in Raj T.V. satellite Television on the evening of 26.12.1994. In view of the said act of the defendants, all the assignee cancelled the agreement and due to the same, the plaintiff has incurred heavy loss. It is stated that there was an offer from Sun TV. To the plaintiff for the picture "Bhuvana Oru kelvikurri" for a sum of Rs.60,000/- but the plaintiff did not agree because this will affect distribution rights.
2.5. Therefore, the plaintiff sent a telegraphic notice to the first defendant. Having received the telegraphic notice, the first defendant again telecasted the Tamil talkie picture "Bhuvana Oru Kelvikkuri" in Raj TV. In spite of protest from the plaintiff the defendants are continuing the infringe the plaintiff's copy right without any iota of right. The defendants are threatening that they will infringe the copyright of the plaintiff in the other Tamil talkie picture" Vattathukkul Sathuram" Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
3. The case of the first defendant, in nutshell, is as follows:
The defendant denied the allegations made in the plaint. The plaintiff is not a party to the transactions between the said N.S.Mani and the 4th defendant. The first defendant also denies the allegation that they had illegally telecasted the Tamil talkie picture "Bhuvana Oru Kelvikkuri" through their Television Net work and they had not telecasted the said picture on 26.12.1994 or any other subsequent dates. The plaintiff has not chosen to furnish the actual date and time on which the said picture was telecasted. The plaintiff has not sent any notice calling for explanation about the alleged infringement. The suit is filed to make a wrongful gain and to make a unjust enrichment. The claim for damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff is
