IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.11.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU OSA No.138 of 2021 S.J.Suryah (a.k.a. S.Justin Selvaraj) .. Appellant Vs.

1. S.S.Chakravarthy

2. Fakrudeen Ali (a.k. Raahul) ... Respondents Appeal filed against the Fair and Decretal Order of this Court dated 09.02.2021 in O.A.No.521 of 2020 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.282 of 2020.

For the Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, S.C.

For Mr.Roshan Balasubramanian For the Respondents : Mr.Abdul Hameed For AAV Partners for respondent-1 Mr.P.S.Raman, S.C.

For Mr.Sanjay Ramaswami for respondent-2

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of February

09, 2021 passed on a perceived copyright infringement action. By the impugned order, the trial court willy-nilly found that no prima facie case has been made out for the issue of any injunction.

2. The essential facts appear to be admitted. There is no dispute that the first respondent herein produced a film by name “Vaalee” which was directed by the plaintiff-appellant. According to the appellant, credit for the story, screenplay and dialogue pertaining to film “Vaalee” was also given to the appellant.

3. The appellant suggests that irrelevant considerations were taken into account in holding that no prima facie case had been made out by the appellant, despite it being the admitted position that the appellant had been credited with the story as the author of the story and the appellant admittedly being the director of the film. In particular, the appellant says that merely because the appellant could not produce the written agreement with the first respondent herein regarding the appellant having been appointed as the director of the relevant film, the trial court refused to accept the case as made out that the appellant was entitled to exclusively exploit the appellant's copyright in the story, screenplay and dialogue and, to such extent, the rights conferred by the first respondent to the second respondent herein under the so-called remake agreement dated July 09, 2020 were in excess of the rights available to the first respondent as the producer of the relevant film.

4. Indeed, it is a very high case that is asserted by the appellant herein, that the producer of a cinematograph film has no right to assign the copyright in the relevant film for it to be remade. Apart from the fact that such a proposition may be completely flawed, it may not lie in the mouth of the appellant herein to protest any remake under the present agreement, since it is the undisputed position that previous remakes of the film have been made in Kannada and Telugu without any protest by the appellant herein, as rightly noticed in the impugned judgment. It is not even the appellant's case that the appellant had acquiesced in the remaking of the film “Vaalee” in Kannada or Telugu for the appellant to assert that he is entitled to now protest the remaking of the said film under the present agreement.

5. There is no doubt that several persons own different aspects of copyright, all of which go into the making of a cinematograph film. While the music that is incorporated in a cinematograph film is differently treated from the rest of the works in the cinematograph film, the story, screenplay and dialogue, which go into the making of the film, may also be capable of independent copyright. However, the difficulty arises in a quia timet action where the plaintiff cannot indicate the infringement or the degree thereof that may be proposed.

6. Copyright is a statutory right and the law in such regard is captured in the Copyright Act, 1957 and there is no common law right beyond the statute. As to who is the first owner of a copyright, the extent of the work in which copyright subsists, the manner in which copyright can be exploited and even the mode, manner and circumstances in which it may be licensed or assigned, are provi