IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
Aarur Tamilnadan – Appellant
Versus
S. Sankar & Another – Respondents
C.S. No. 914 of 2010
Decided On : 15-06-2023
Copyright Infringement - Humanoid Robot Story - Sections 55, 62 of Copyrights Act - The court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration as the author and first owner of the copyright of the story 'Enthiran' and for damages, permanent injunction, and account of profits. The court found that the defendants' film 'Enthiran' was not a pirated version of the plaintiff's story 'Jugiba' as the similarities were not fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression. The plaintiff failed to produce evidence to prove that the defendants' story was a literal imitation of his story. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed and he was directed to pay the cost of the suit to the defendants.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming to be the author and first owner of the copyright of the story 'Enthiran' and sought damages, permanent injunction, and account of profits. The defendants denied the allegations and claimed that the story of the film 'Enthiran' was different from the plaintiff's story 'Jugiba'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants' film 'Enthiran' was not a pirated version of the plaintiff's story 'Jugiba' as the similarities were not fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression. The plaintiff failed to produce evidence to prove that the defendants' story was a literal imitation of his story.
Issues: The issues included whether the plaintiff was the author and first owner of the copyright, whether the film 'Enthiran' infringed the plaintiff's story, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages, permanent injunction, and account of profits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there can be no copyright over an idea or concept, and similarities between works based on the same idea are bound to occur. The plaintiff failed to produce evidence to prove that the defendants' story was a literal imitation of his story.
Final Decision: The plaintiff's suit was dismissed and he was directed to pay the cost of the suit to the defendants.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC r/w Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, 1956, r/w Sections 55 and 62 of the Copyrights Act, praying to,
(a) Declaration that the plaintiff is the author and first owner of the copy right of the story “Enthiran” which was stolen/pirated from the original story “Jugiba” written and got published in April 1996;
(b) Declaring that the film “Enthiran” is the infringing copy of the plaintiff''s story “Jugiba”;
(c) Order directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the plaintiff, as damages;
(d) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, successors in business, legal representatives, assigns or any person claiming through them from distributing, screening and exhibiting the infringing copy namely the “Enthiran” film in any cinema hall, electronic media, open air theatre, auditorium in any exhibiting device;
(e) A Preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants to render account of the profit made by the infringing copy namely “Enthiran” to the plaintiff and a final decree in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of profits thus found to have been made by the defendants;
(f) Pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that he is the first owner of the copyright of the story “Enthiran” which was stolen/pirated from the original story “Jugiba” written and got published in April 1996. The plaintiff also sought for further declaration that the film "Enthiran" is the infringing copy of the plaintiff story "Jugiba" and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from distributing, screening and exhibiting, infringing copy namely the feature film "Enthiran". The plaintiff also prayed for direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards damages. He also sought for preliminary decree directing the defendants to render true account of the profit earned by them by infringing the copyright of the plaintiff and for a final decree in favour of plaintiff for the amount of profits thus found to have been earned by the defendants.
2. Plaint Averments
According to the plaintiff, he is a "Prolific" Tamil writer, who claimed that the plaintiff had written a story about Humanoid Robo “Jugiba” and the same was first published in a Tamil monthly Magazine "Iniya Udayam" during April 1996. The Thumb Nail sketch of the story is as follows:
“A Scientist Robin spends a decade in the computer lab to create a super power Robot and succeeds. He names it as “Jugiba”. The Robot has the capacity to store the facts from Adam and Eve to latest Nuclear weapons. It can move its joints in any directions. It can perceive situations and act accordingly. It resembles a man and it is capable of all human activities except pro-creation. The scientist Robin was ready to present his rare scientific creation to the conference next day. Elated by his own achievement, Robin calls his love Josephin to his Robot lab to show her his “Jugiba”. In fact, he had neglected her for about a decade, spending entire life in the lab with equipments in his endeavour to develop super Robot. Robin introduced Josephin to “Jugiba” as his lover. “Jugiba” expresses its love to Josephin and insisted to live with her. Robin explains to Jugiba that it is only a metal and machine and Josephin is flesh and blood and they cannot live together. On hearing this, Jugiba cries that it cannot live without Josephin, sheds tears and jumps from the building into the street and commits suicide.”
3. In the year 2007, the same group of publishers published the very same novel in the book titled "Thik Thik Theepika”, this book was sold in all book stalls and exhibitions. The State Government has also purchased the copies
There can be no copyright over an idea or concept, and similarities between works based on the same idea are bound to occur. Copyright infringement requires clear and cogent evidence of literal imita....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove substantial similarities and clear evidence of piracy to establish copyright infringement. The court emphasized the need f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the treatment of the film and the manner of its presentation were quite different from the plaintiff's novel, and there was no substantial sim....
The burden of proving ownership of copyright lies with the plaintiff, and failure to disprove the defendant's contentions can lead to dismissal of the suit.
Ownership of copyright, validity of assignment agreements, and entitlement to relief of declaration and damages under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The expression of ideas through creative aspects such as images, literary content, and the manner of depicting stories is protectable under copyright law, while no copyright could be claimed for imag....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a plaintiff to prove their right to copyright ownership and exploitation rights, as well as the necessity to comply with the pr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.