The judgment established the importance of an existing work for claiming copyright, the limitations on assignment of copyright, and the conditions for commercial exploitation of privacy rights under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Judgment

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the defendants in the original suit challenging the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby the interim application filed by respondent No.l-plaintiff was allowed while restraining the appellants-defendants from producing, telecasting, selling or releasing the movie under the name of “Dear Jassi” or with any other name till final decision of the case.

2. The facts, as involved in the present case are that the appellants intended to produce a film namely, “Dear Jassi” on the story of one Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu @ Jassi. For the said purpose the appellants came across a book written by Mr. Fabian Dawson of Canada. As per the case of the appellants they purchased the right to make a film on the book written by Mr. Fabian Dawson, by paying authorization fee of about 5000 C$. Accordingly, the appellants have made a film named “Dear Jassi”, as based upon the book written by Mr. Fabian Dawson. When the appellants intended to release the said film, the respondent No.1-plaintiff, who claimed to have purchased the rights to make film from respondent No.5-Sukhwinder Singh @ Mithu, who is stated to be husband of the above Jaswinder Kaur, filed a suit for injunction praying for restraining the appellants from exhibiting the film made by them. The respondent No.1 relied upon an agreement entered into with above said Sukhwinder Singh, which is claimed to be prior in time than the production of the movie by the appellants. The essence of the case of the respondents is that since Sukhwinder Singh happens to be husband of the above said Jaswinder Kaur, therefore, his life story is also involved in the film, therefore, the appellants could not have made a movie on the events relating to even Jaswinder Kaur; without his permission. Since the said permission has been purchased by the respondent No.1; therefore, the respondent No.1 has got right to make the film and have got a copyright over the story of Sukhwinder Singh. Hence, the suit was filed.

3. At the time of filing of the said suit, the respondents also filed an application for interim injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from exhibiting the film. That application has been allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved against the said order the present appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

4. Arguing the case learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants had acquired the bona fide rights to make the film from the person who had intellectual property rights over the work of the book written by him. Since the story of Jaswinder Kaur was widely published by media and even five movies had already been made on that subject, therefore, the information which has been used by the appellants in the film was already in public domain. Besides the appellants have purchased the rights, specifically from author of the book on the subject. Not only that the entire story has been part of the court record in the Canada in the extradition proceedings of the persons accused for the murder of Jaswinder Kaur, as well as, of the courts in India where the trial of the accused was conducted and, they were ultimately convicted. Moreover, the film made by the appellants is depicting the series of facts constituting common human behavior. Therefore, no right can be claimed by the respondents qua the series of facts constituting human behavior which is already in the public domain. The counsel has relied upon Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 to support his argument and has submitted that the copyright exits only in case of accomplished intellectual work; in the form of cinematograph, books or music. In the present case, neither respondent No.5-Sukhwinder Singh claims to have created any intellectual property nor does the respondents-plaintiffs claim to have created any intellectual property, qua which they could claim any copyright, as such. Not only that the claim of th