N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

The present O.S.A has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in C.S.No.635 of 2017, dated 03/07/2017, in and by which the suit filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant in brief:

2.1. The appellant is a popular actress and the respondent approached her to endorse, promote and support their products of hair oil and coconut oil through advertisements and requested the appellant to act in the advertisement film and photo shoot for two days endorsing their oil products. On mutual negotiations, the terms were finalised and the appellant agreed to the offer made by the respondent. On finalisation of the terms with the respondent, the appellant completed the shooting and photo session for two full days believing that the respondent would honour their commitment. After the completion of the shoot, the respondent did not keep up their commitment and violated the terms agreed upon by both the parties. The terms which were orally agreed upon were not incorporated in letter and spirit in the agreement that was prepared on 29/12/2008. In fact this agreement was signed only by the respondent and the appellant did not sign the agreement since it did not incorporate all the agreed conditions. The respondent even without incorporating the agreed conditions and finalising the written agreement, started using the advertisement materials for their product marketing. Legal notices were exchanged between the parties.

2.2. Even as per the written agreement to which the appellant did not subscribe her signature, the respondent can use the advertisement material only for a period of one year from 29/12/2008 to 28/12/2009. However in violation of this specific term in the agreement, the respondent continued to use the advertisement materials without even obtaining any consent from the appellant. In the meantime, the appellant became a very popular actress and there was more demand for her presence as brand ambassador for the products of many reputed multinational Companies. The appellant issued a legal notice dated 12/09/2011 and called upon the respondent to immediately desist from using the advertisement materials. In spite of the receipt of notice, the respondent continued to use the advertisement materials. Left with no other alternative, the appellant filed a suit seeking for the relief of compensation and for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from using or publicising or promoting or advertising the materials with the presence of the plaintiff s profile or her presence in any form.

3. The case of the respondent in brief:

3.1. The appellant at the time of making this advertisement film was an ordinary model and only later she became an actor in movies. The appellant is trying to take advantage of her growing popularity. The respondent has already paid the remuneration of rupees 3 lakhs to the appellant for the advertisement film as per the terms of the agreement. The respondent has been using the advertisement material strictly in accordance with the agreement and none of the terms of the agreement was violated. The respondent holds the copyright over the advertisement film and all the rights in the film vests with the respondent and the appellant does not have any right over the same. The respondent has fulfilled their obligation in making the payment as agreed, to the appellant. The Video Film is a cinematography work over which the respondent holds the copyright having paid for and produced the same and has every right to exercise its rights under the Copyright Act. The appellant who has already received the remuneration for her performance, has no subsisting rights in the cinematography work for which the respondent holds the copyright. The appellant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the suit.

4. The learned Single Judge framed as much as 14 issues for determination. One witness was examined on the side of the appellant and Exs.P-1 to P-18 w