8/16/2019 Acopy

1/3

 

In a recent ruling regarding a remake of well-known Bollywood film Zanjeer , the

Bombay High Court held that the copyright owner of a cinematograph film may

not also be the owner of the underlying works (eg, the screenplay and story)unless such works have been assigned to it in a manner prescribed under

ection !" of the Copyright #ct !"$%&

Facts

In the early !"%'s rakash ehra*s production house, rakash ehra

roduction (), produced the film Zanjeer & In +'!! rakash ehras son, #ay

ehra, entered into a co-production agreement for a remake of the film with

.lying /urtle .ilms (./.)& It was stated that the rights of the film were with the

late rakash ehra& In +'!+ #ay ehra accepted and recognised the rights of

two other owners (two other sons of the late rakash ehra), who later entered

into an agreement with #ay ehra roduction vt 0td (#0) granting the right

to remake the film in Hindi and /elugu&

In #pril +'!+ storywriters alim 1han and 2aved #khtar issued a notice claiming

moral rights in the film*s screenplay and contending that they had never

authorised #mit ehra, or any other person to make a film based on their

copyright possessed in the original screenplay and dialogue& /hey called on

 #0 and to procure the necessary licence from them before commencing

production of the remake& /he writers also alleged that any remake

of Zanjeer would amount to infringement of the copyright vested in them&

.urther, #0 called on to provide all the relevant documents to establish

*s ownership in the writers original screenplay& contested the writers

claim, asking them to provide documentary evidence to support it& In

addition, owing to a default in the payment of consideration instalments by #0

to , terminated the agreement, which was subect to opposition by

 #0&

later invoked the arbitration clause of the agreement and filed a petition

under ection " of the #rbitration and Conciliation #ct !""3 seeking an interim

8/16/2019 Acopy

2/3

inunction& /he court appointed an arbitrator, who held that the balance of

convenience was in favour of and restrained #0 from proceeding with

the remake of the film& 4isagreeing with this ruling, #0 filed a petition under

ection 5% of the #rbitration and Conciliation #ct&

Underlying work to cinematograph film has separate copyright

/he foremost 6uestion for consideration before the court was whether there

was separate copyright for a cinematograph film and a literary work, and the

effect of such copyright on the subect matter of this dispute& /he court held that

the definition of 7cinematography film7 under the Copyright #ct indicates that it

includes any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography&

.urther, the owner of the cinematograph film at the time of its completion is the

author thereof& ection !5 of the act further establishes that there is separate

copyright in respect of a cinematograph film and in relation to original literary,

dramatic, musical and artistic works& /he courts also relied on ections !8(a) and

(d) of the act, which deal with the meaning of 7copyright7 in relation to a literary

work and a cinematograph film separately, thereby indicating that there is

separate copyright for the film and the literary work&

Based on the definitions of 7author7 and 7work7, along with ections !5 and !8,

the court affirmed that the literary work underlying a cinematograph film is

entitled to a separate copyright& /hus, simply having copyright in a

cinematograph film without having copyright in the underlying work may not

entitle the copyright owner of the film to assign 7remake rights7 (ie, rights to

remake a new cinematograph film based on the story, storyline, script,

screenplay or dialogue of the original film) to a third party&

Owner of cinematograph film can have copyright in underlying work

/he court further held that ections !% to !" of the Copyright #ct make it clear

that in the absence of a contract of service, employment or apprenticeship by the

first owner of the copyright therein in favour of a third party, the author continues

to be the owner of the copyrights therein& .urther, a reading of ection !"(!) of

the Copyright #ct indicates that an assignment of copyright in any work is valid

8/16/2019 Acopy

3/3

only if it is in writing and duly signed by the assignor or its authorised agent&

/hus, it is clear that a copyright owner can assign its rights to a third party in a

mode and manner as prescribed in ection !" of the Copyright #ct&

/herefore, the court held that since the literary work underlying the

film Zanjeer  had separate copyright, the assignment of the copyright in the film in

favour of the petitioner would not amount to assignment of the copyright in the

underlying literary work as well&

In addition to the copyright issue, the court also discussed the issue pertaining to

termination of the agreement by the respondents at length&

.inally, the court held that during the pendency of arbitration proceedings, #0

would be at liberty to proceed with remaking the film and that the release of the

film would be subect to the final outcome of the arbitration proceedings, since

more than 9': of the film had been completed&