Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1482
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Velu & Another - Appellant
Versus
Pichandi & Another - Respondent
S.A. No. 616 of 2010
Decided On : 05-11-2020
For the Appellants :Leela Raman, T.M. Hariharan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:G. Vinodh Kumar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the author/producer as the first owner of copyright and the ability to assign such rights to any party under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Headnote:
COPYRIGHT - Declaration of Copyright Ownership - Sections 55, 62 of Copyright Act, 1955 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 2(d)(v), 2(uu), 13, 17, and 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which define the author, producer, first owner of copyright, and the assignment of copyright. The court emphasized the rights of the author/producer as the first owner of copyright and the ability to assign such rights to any party. The court's decision was influenced by the lawful execution of documents for adequate consideration, establishing the plaintiff's ownership of copyright and entitlement to a declaration and permanent injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration as the copyright owner of certain movies and permanent injunction against infringement by the defendants. The plaintiff had obtained exclusive copyright rights through a written agreement with the producer of the movies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was the rightful copyright owner based on the lawful agreement and was entitled to a declaration and permanent injunction against the second defendant.
Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of copyright ownership; (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction; and (iii) Relief of costs for the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff, as the assignee of copyright through a lawful agreement, was entitled to the declaration and permanent injunction. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff based on the defendant's deliberate avoidance of judicial proceedings.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the declaration of copyright ownership, permanent injunction against the second defendant, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC., read with Sections 55 and 62 of Copy Right Act, 1955 praying for a decree and Judgment in favour of the plaintiff granting the following reliefs:
(a) for the relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute copy right owner in the suit pictures morefully described in the schedule hereunder having the rights of distribution, exhibition, exploitation rights, inclusive of commercial, non-commercial, theatrical, non-theatrical medias, world Television rights, world Video rights, world Satellite rights, Cable TV rights, DVD VCD, LD, Internet and web based technology rights DTU (Direct to User) and DTH (Direct to Home) rights, audio rights, broad casting rights in All India Radio and other stations and all other rights in whatsoever manner including the future scientific advancement and technological rights for the territories of entire world including India in respect of the suit pictures for a period of 99 years from 31.01.2001;
(b) granting permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendant their agents, servants, each and every person or persons in any manner interfering with infringing the plaintiff-s copy right in the suit pictures morefully described in the schedule hereunder inclusive of commercial, non-commercial, theatrical, non-theatrical medias, world Television rights, world Video rights, world Satellite rights, Cable TV rights, DVD, VCD, LD, Internet and web based technology rights DTU (Direct to User) and DTH (Direct to Home) rights, audio rights, broad casting rights in All India Radio and other stations and all other rights in whatsoever manner including the future scientific advancement and technological rights in respect of the suit pictures; and
(c) the costs of this suit.)
1. The suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the copy right owner of the movies “Rao Gopal Rao”, “Rendu Jadala Seetha”, “Jananee Janma Boomi” and “Merupu Daadi” with exploitation rights for commercial and non-commercial purposes for theatrical and non-theatrical medias, including Video rights, world Satellite rights, Cable TV rights, DVD and such other rights including web based technology rights and also broad casting rights in All India Radio and other stations and any other rights including the future scientific advancement and technological rights for the territories of entire world including India for a period of 99 years from 31.01.2001 and for a permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendants from infringing the rights of the plaintiff over the said movies and for costs of the suit.
2. The plaintiff claimed that the third defendant G.Radhakrishna, Proprietor, Sree Brahmarambika Films at Bangalore was the producer of the Telugu movies “Rao Gopal Rao”, “Rendu Jadala Seetha”, “Jananee Janma Boomi” and “Merupu Daadi”. On 31.01.2001 by way of a written agreement, the third defendant had assigned their exclusive copy rights in the said movies in favour of the plaintiff for exploitation in all forms, including theatrical and non-theatrical medias, including Video rights, world Satellite rights, Cable TV rights, DVD and such other rights including web based technology rights and also broad casting rights in All India Radio and other stations and any other rights including the future scientific advancement and technological rights for the territories of entire world including India for a period of 99 years from 31.01.2001.
3. The plaintiff had paid a total consideration of Rs.50,000/-. This has also been acknowledged by the third defendant by way of a receipt dated 07.02.2001. It was stated that the first and second defendant had illegally telecasted one of the movies, namely, “Rao Gopal Rao” and therefore, the plaintiff sent a telegram on 24.06.2008 through their lawyer. It was stated that since the plaintiff has the exclusive copy right over the said mov
