what is the remedy available with you as a producer of a movie if your movie is dubbed in a regional...
TRANSCRIPT
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 1
WHAT IS THE REMEDY AVAILABLE WITH
YOU AS A PRODUCER OF A MOVIE IF YOUR
MOVIE IS DUBBED IN A REGIONAL
LANGUAGE WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT?
By Tejaswinee Roychowdhury
B.A.LL.B. (Hons), Department of Law, University of Calcutta
Semester 1- M.A. in Business Laws (Intellectual Property and Cyber Laws),
WBNUJS
Written while pursuing the NUJS MA in Business Laws. A producer of a movie
is the one with whom the copyright of the movie rests. In legal copyright
terminology, a producer of a movie is the author of a cinematograph film and
so his consent or licence is mandatory for a third party to put his work into any
marketable / profitable use. So, what does a producer do when his movie is
dubbed in a regional language without his consent? It is an obvious copyright
infringement and the producer has legal remedies for his situation. But before
we venture into the aspect of the remedies, let us do a comprehensive study on
the matter.
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 2
INTRODUCTION
The first question that arises is – What is Copyright? If the word ‘copyright’ is
to be explained in layman terms, it is the right a person has over the work he
creates. A man’s creative work can be one of literature or art or music or movies
and many more. Such a work is the man’s intellectual property and the principle
behind copyright law is very simple – one must have complete rights over one’s
property and may use it any way he pleases. Other’s cannot claim that property
to be their own and use them commercially as if it is their own. Copyright law
while protecting the rights of the author, prevents others from misusing the
intellectual property of another. In essence, it is more of a negative right than a
positive one. This is because it protects the right of one man while preventing
the rest of the world from abusing the right. It is a preventive right in nature. In
India, copyright law is governed by the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
According to the World Intellectual Property Rights Organization (WIPO)
website, “Copyright (or author’s right) is a legal term used to describe the
rights that creators have over their literary and artistic works. Works covered
by copyright range from books, music, paintings, sculpture, and films, to
computer programs, databases, advertisements, maps, and technical drawings.”
[1]
There are numerous and varied reasons why copyright is essential. There are
multiple rights an author has surrounding his creation. These are mostly socio-
economic rights. We will discuss more of that later.
WHO IS THE PRODUCER OF A MOVIE?
It is a well-settled fact that a movie / a cinematograph film falls within the ambit
of copyright law. So a question in everyone’s mind is – who is the author of
such cinematograph film. A lot of people think that it’s the script-writer or the
director, but that’s a mistake. Let’s answer this question with the help of the
Indian Copyright Act, 1957. According to Section 2 (d) of the Act,
“author" means -
(i) in relation to a literary or dramatic work the author of the work;
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 3
(ii) in relation to a musical work the composer;
(iii) in relation to an artistic work other than a photograph, the artist;
(iv) in relation to a photograph the person taking the photograph;
(v) in relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording the producer; and
(vi) in relation to any literary dramatic musical or artistic work which is
computer-generated the person who causes the work to be created;
Therefore, the producer of a movie is the copyright holder of the movie.
COPYRIGHT OF A CINEMATOGRAPH FILM
The question is, how far does copyright law protect the use of a cinematograph
film by the public? Section 14 (d) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, states –
Section 14. Meaning of copyright. —For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”
means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise
the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial
part thereof, namely: —
(d) in the case of a cinematograph film, —
(i) to make a copy of the film including a photograph of any image forming part
thereof;
(ii) to sell or give on hire or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the film,
regardless of whether such copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier
occasions;
(iii) to communicate the film to the public;
On this point, let us make a reference to the judgment given by F.I. Rebello, J.
in the case Star India Private Limited vs Leo Burnett (India) Private, (2002)
to understand what constitutes a ‘copy’ of a work given the fact that the term
has not been defined by the Act. It states –
It will, therefore, the essential to find out as to the meaning of the word ‘copy’
in the absence of it being defined in the Act. Reference can be made to Copinger
and Skone James on copyright, Thirteenth Edition, at paragraph 3.29, some
portions of which may be reproduced: "......it has been stated that skill labour
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 4
and judgment merely in the process of copying cannot, confer originality and
the mere copyist cannot have protection of his copy. Particularly, therefore,
where the reproduction is in the same medium as the original, there must be
more than an exact reproduction to secure copyright; there must be some
element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the
totality of the work an original work. If the original, in the case of a painting,
is used merely as a model to give the idea of the new work or, in the case of a
photograph, merely as a basis to be worked up by photographic process to
something different, then the net work may be entitled to protection; but, if the
result is simply a slavish copy, it will not be protected." [2] It can thus, be
understood in light of the highlighted portion that dubbing of a movie, in
essence, is not an exact copy as there is some material alteration in it. The
original language is translated to another language which may also alter the
meaning of the dialogues, thus altering the audiences’ perceptibility to some
extent.
Why does the copyright of a movie producer need protection?
Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 protects the economic rights of the
copyright owner. This is because the exploitation of these rights may bring
economic benefit to the persons committing the exploitations. Only the author
has the exclusive right to exploit his own work. The Copyright Act also confers
moral rights upon the copyright owner through Section 57. They are – (i) droit
au respect de l’oeuvre – integrity right; (ii) droit de divulgation – divulgation
right; (iii) droit a la paternite – attribution rights; and (iv) droit de retrait –
retraction right. [3]
The rights of the copyright owner can also be understood in the light of the
WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) which is a special agreement under the
Berne Convention and deals with the digital protection of works and the rights
of their authors. As to the rights granted to authors, the Treaty grants: (i) the
right of distribution; (ii) the right of rental; and (iii) a broader right of
communication to the public. The right of distribution is the author’s right to
distribute his work by making their originals and copies available to the public.
The right of rental is the right to authorize commercial rental of originals and
copies to the public, for example, cinematographic works (but only in cases
where commercial rental has led to widespread copying of such works,
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 5
materially impairing the exclusive right of reproduction). The right of
communication to the public is the right to authorize any communication to
the public, by wire or wireless means, including "the making available to the
public of works in a way that the members of the public may access the work
from a place and at a time individually chosen by them". [4]
Dubbing a Cinematograph Film, The Right Way
It can thus be well understood that the copyright of a cinematograph film also
covers translating the work, for example – dubbing. This is because if someone
dubs a film without the consent of the producer or the license from the
producer, it is to be understood that the author’s work is being exploited. It is
only common sense that a person would want to dub a movie into a regional
language so as to exploit it commercially by making it more accessible to the
public who may have difficulty in following the original language used in the
movie. For example, a Hollywood movie may be dubbed in Bengali on a local
Bengali cable network so as to increase viewers and earn some cash while doing
so.
Now one might say that it is not always viable to think that everyone will be
well acquainted with a language that isn’t their mother-tongue. People releasing
such unauthorized dubbed versions may want to only help the audiences to
understand and there is no harm in making some extra cash while helping
people! – This is exactly the kind of attitude copyright law seeks to change.
There are legal and authorised ways to dub a film in a regional language and not
get sued over it or not infringe the producer’s copyright. Some of the globally
recognized ways are as follows –
Distribution Agreements – It is advisable that the producer of a movie and the
distributors of the movie draft proper distribution agreements which enables a
distributor to dub a movie in a regional language as that would make the movie
more popular among a wide range of viewers and also collect a greater revenue
that would be proportionately distributed between the distributor and the
producer. Such clauses in distribution agreements must not be in the format of a
standard form contract but one that needs to be drafted specifically for each
distributor who wishes to dub the movie into a regional language. It must
contain the number of languages, rules for dubbing – promise of a proper
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 6
translation and verification of such translation before telecast, profits made and
the proportion in which they are to be divided, duration of telecasting such
dubbed film and so on. Through a distribution agreement, apart from
granting licences, the producer can also designate the distributors as
assignees.
Compulsory Licenses – The Section 32 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957
provides for the licence to produce and publish translated versions of already
published works. Clause (1) of the Section states – “Any person may apply to
the Copyright Board for a licence to produce and publish a translation of a
literary or dramatic work in any language after a period of seven years from the
first publication of the work.” Clause (1A) further states – “Notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (1), any person may apply to the Copyright
Board for a licence to produce and publish a translation, in printed or
analogous forms of reproduction, of a literary or dramatic work, other than an
Indian work, in any language in general use in India after a period of three
years from the first publication of such work, if such translation is required for
the purposes of teaching, scholarship or research: Provided that where such
translation is in a language not in general use in any developed country, such
application may be made after a period of one year from such publication.”
Further, Clause (2) states – “Every application under this section shall be made
in such form as may be prescribed and shall state the proposed retail price of a
copy of the translation of the work.” Thus, it is clear that only non-Indian films
can be dubbed / translated and sold at a ‘reasonable price’ by virtue of this
Section.
It is very clear from the above mentioned points that litigations from
unauthorized dubbing can be avoided by following two ways – Distribution
Agreements (i.e., Licencing or Assigning) and Compulsory Licensing. While
the former comes with a lot of prospects, the latter is mostly restrictive in nature
and narrow in scope. So, it is advisable for a producer and the distributor(s) to
enter into Distribution Agreements which will cover both licensing and
assigning or either of them. Scoring a compulsory licence is clearly a tough job
and only applicable to non-Indian film producers. However, it is important to
note that while dealing with copyright infringement, it is important that we keep
in mind the film producers from all over the world while making a
comprehensive study of Indian statutes and case laws.
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 7
DUBBING A CINEMATOGRAPH FILM – INFRINGEMENT OF
RIGHTS AND THEIR REMEDIES
When the aforementioned rules and statutory provisions are disregarded, there
arises copyright infringement. Now, the question is – what are the remedies
available to the producer of a movie if his movie is dubbed in a regional
language without his consent? The answer is three-fold – Civil Remedies,
Criminal Remedies and Administrative Remedies. Let’s discuss these remedies
in a more detailed fashion.
CIVIL REMEDIES
The civil remedies that are available to the producer are – Anton Piller Order,
Interlocutory Injunction, Mareva Injunction and Damages or Accounts of
Profits. These are known as civil remedies as they are awarded by way of a civil
suit. Once a civil suit is filed in a proper jurisdiction, the procedures are
followed and the Court may award any of the abovementioned remedies.
Jurisdiction of Courts
Section 62 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, states that every suit or civil
proceeding in respect of infringement of copyright in any work or the
infringement of other rights shall be instituted in the District Court having
jurisdiction.
In Dabur India Ltd. V. K. R. Industries, (2008) 10 SCC 595, the Supreme
Court was of the opinion that in terms of Section 62, the plaintiff could not
institute a suit of infringement and passing-off at the place where he resides or
carries on his business. Therefore, it can be clearly asserted that the plaintiff
need to institute the suit at the place where the infringement occurred. For
instance, if the producer’s place of business and residence in Kolkata and his
movie has been dubbed without his consent and released in Mumbai, then he
has to institute a suit against the infringer in the Bombay District Court as the
infringement is deemed to have occurred in Mumbai.
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 8
As per the Code of Civil Procedure, the place of suing is determined by
Sections 15 to 20 of the Code. Section 15 of the Code deals with pecuniary
jurisdiction. This section says that a suit of civil nature must be instituted in the
lowest court unless it is otherwise provided. Since Section 62 of the Copyright
Act provides for the District Court as per the forum of the suit, the District
Court will be considered the lowest forum in this situation. But suppose, the
plaintiff values the damages at Rs. 40,000 and the District Court in question can
adjudicate upon suit up to valuation of Rs. 50,000, and the District Court makes
the finding and determines that the plaintiff has unintentionally undervalued and
the actual valuation is Rs. 55,000, then the adjudication of the District Court
will not be a one of nullity. Similarly, if the suit is unintentionally overvalued
and filed in the High Court of proper territorial jurisdiction, then too the
decision of the High Court will be valid as the suit will be filed well within the
jurisdiction. Section 19 of the Code deals with territorial jurisdiction of
immovable property and Section 20 deals with territorial jurisdiction of
other suits. Now intellectual property may either be deemed to be an
immovable property under Section 19 or a suit of copyright infringement may
be deemed to be an ‘other suit’ under Section 20. Either way, the rules are – the
suit must be instituted “within the local limits of whose jurisdiction – (a) the
defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time
of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on
business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where
there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually
and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain,
provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the
defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain,
as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or
in part, arises.” There is also jurisdiction based on subject-matter of the
suit. This is based on statutory provisions of special Acts. For example –
Section 62 of the Copyright Act limits the jurisdiction of the subject-matter of
copyright to a Court which is not below a District Court.
Limitation
It is to be kept in mind that in copyright infringement suits, a limitation of 3
years from the date of infringement subsist as per the Article 88 of the
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 9
Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, a copyright infringement suit
even if not barred by jurisdiction should not be barred by limitation as well.
Anton Piller Order
The law aims to provide equal opportunities to parties. But in certain cases,
under certain circumstances, the Court may think it fit to pass an ex-parte order
or a one-sided order allowing the plaintiff to make necessary and required
inspections in the premises of the defendant in order to take possession or
remove the infringed copies which may be used for commercial purposes. This
is an Anton Piller Order. It is provided for in Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
It is a preventive step and is generally granted when the plaintiff is under the
apprehension that there exists substantial amount of copies of his work which
can be used to put him through a considerable financial loss and there is not
sufficient time to follow the regular judicial procedure. It is important to note
that the Court will not pass such an order until all the material evidence
available is brought before it and been assessed by it.
Bucyrus Europe Ltd. v. Vulcan Industries Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. [5] –
In this case, the Court granted the plaintiff an ex-parte order of injunction to
restrict the defendant from continuing his act of copyright infringement by
stopping further production, selling, stocking, marketing and advertising.
Although this remedy is usually not visited by the Courts, and also not prayed
for by the plaintiff, the Courts grant them in special cases.
Interlocutory Injunction
This kind of remedy is the most sought for in copyright infringement cases. It is
provided for in Order 39 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This kind of
order seeks to protect copyright immediately to stop the continuance of
infringement or anticipated infringement. Therefore, if the producer suspects
that his work’s copyright may be infringed, he may file a suit and get an
interlocutory injunction order against the anticipated infringer. However, since
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 10
the topic at hand concerns the remedies of infringement that has already
occurred, the producer shall seek an interlocutory order against the infringer in
order to stop the continuance of infringement. The plaintiff may also pray for
such an order pending trial or further orders.
For obtaining an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff must establish the
following conditional circumstances – (1) a prima facie case exists, (2) there is a
balance of convenience in his favour, and (3) the refusal to grant injunction will
cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff. [6] All this has been held by the
Supreme Court in the landmark case of Shiv Kumar Chadha V. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161. The Bombay High Court rejected the
stand of the plaintiff as he failed to establish the existence of a prima facie case
in a dispute relating to the Bollywood movie “Ghajini” in KBC Pictures V. A.
R. Murgadoss, 2009 AIHC 2852 (Bom).
The producer can get an interlocutory injunction order against a person who has
dubbed his movie without his consent by establishing all off the above
mentioned conditions. It is essential that the conditions co-exist for the plaintiff
producer to sustain his stand.
Mareva Injunction
The Mareva Injunction has originated in an English Case and is not explicitly
defined or discussed in the Code of Civil Procedure. The Code impliedly
provides for this remedy in Order 38 Rule 5. The Courts have, however,
visited this remedy several times while pronouncing an ex-parte order in order
to meet natural justice and equity. It basically means freezing of the assets of
the defendant which may also include assets in dispute, such as, infringed
copies of copyrighted works. “The main ingredients, which an applicant should
satisfy on an ex-parte application to become entitled to a Mareva injunction,
are – (a) There must be an arguable claim; (b) There must be a real risk that
the final judgment in applicants’ favour would remain unsatisfied; (c) There
must be full and frank disclosure of all the material facts; and (d) The exercise
of discretionary power by the court.” [7] Thus, a producer whose movie is
dubbed without consent and illegally distributed may seek for an ex-parte
decree of Mareva injunction and the Court, if satisfied, may freeze the
circulation of the infringed copies and other necessary assets of the infringer to
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 11
stop further infringement. Although not much in use, it would be a very
effective remedy in case of copyright infringement.
Damages on Account Profits
In a civil suit for infringement of copyright, the plaintiff is entitled to damages
from the defendant. These damages can be of two types – (1) one for
infringement of his copyright, (2) and the other for conversion of his
copyrighted work into another form. [8] Thus, the aggrieved producer of a
movie can get damages not only for infringement of his copyrighted film but
also for converting his work into another form. This is because, as far as the
language of the movie is concerned, the dubbing converts an intricate and
essential part of the movie – this will include vocalisation, i.e., new voice artists
need to be used for dubbing. It may also happen that the dubbing is not a perfect
translation in which case there will be conversion too as the dialogues will
become inconsistent with the screenplay and this will alter the meaning of the
scenes thus, in essence, there will be complete conversion of the producer’s
copyrighted work.
If the plaintiff is successful in claiming damages, that is, if the Court awards
damages, the plaintiff is entitled to account of profits. This means that whatever
profits are made by the infringer by commercial use of the infringed copy will
be deemed to be the profit of the original owner. Thus, a movie producer is
entitled to all profits which the infringer made out of screening, renting and
selling the dubbed version of the movie.
CRIMINAL REMEDIES
The plaintiff can also initiate a criminal proceeding against the infringer in
addition to the civil proceedings. One kind of proceeding does not procedurally
bar the other and therefore the plaintiff can invoke both the remedies
simultaneously.
Section 63 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, states that – “Any person who
knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of— (a) the copyright in a work,
or (b) any other right conferred by this Act, …, shall be punishable with
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 12
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand
rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that where the
infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business the
court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment,
impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine
of less than fifty thousand rupees.” Thus, while the producer has already
instituted a civil suit, he may also file a complaint for criminal prosecution
against the infringer. It must be noted that a crime is not the same as a civil
wrong even though there may be both remedies available for a particular act /
omission. When the infringement is seen in the light of an offence, it is a wrong
against the State and unless otherwise stated, the amount collected through fines
goes into the state treasury. But since the criminal proceeding is instituted by
the plaintiff and not the State, the Court will decide where the amount will go.
Section 66 further states that – “The court trying any offence under this Act
may, whether the alleged offender is convicted or not, order that all copies of
the work or all plates in the possession of the alleged offender, which appear to
it to be infringing copies, or plates for the purpose of making infringing copies,
be delivered up to the owner of the copyright.” So, even if the infringer is not
convicted, the infringed copies will have to be seized to prevent the loss of the
copyright owner. In a way, this section has the essence of an Anton Piller Order
and an Interlocutory Injunction.
It is however to be noted that if a question of fact or of law regarding the
infringement is pending before a civil court, the criminal court may not make or
strive to make any findings upon that question. [9] This is to avoid a cliché in
judgment of two different courts and to avoid the hardship of the parties. In
essence, this is loosely based on the principle of res sub judice.
Jurisdiction of Courts
Section 70 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 states that – “Cognizance of
offences. — No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial
Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act.” The offence is
to be tried in a court within whose jurisdiction the offence has been committed
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 13
or within whose jurisdiction the distributed copies are being sold, rented or
screened. The procedure is to be governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Thus, the aggrieved producer can file a police report (F.I.R.) under Section
154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure following which the police will
investigate and make arrest. The producer may also file a complaint directly
before a Magistrate as per Section 190 of the Code. After the procedures of a
criminal proceeding are followed, the Magistrate will decide upon the
imprisonment period of the infringer and the amount of fine he must pay.
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
The producer can also opt for administrative remedies. This consists of moving
the Registrar of Copyrights to ban the import of infringed copies and to
deliver to the rightful owner, the confiscated infringed copies. Generally, if the
movie is dubbed in the regional language of another country, say for example,
Russia, the producer must make an application to the Registrar of Copyright in
India, as his copyright registration was done in India, and ban the import of such
infringed copies. The producer will also by the virtue of the application, be able
to get back the seized or confiscated infringed copies.
CONCLUSION
Thus, it can be seen that a producer of a movie has multiple remedies available
if his movie has been dubbed into a regional language without his consent. It is
up to him that which remedy he wants to avail. He may choose the form of
remedy he wishes based on his convenience while keeping in mind the
procedural laws relating to jurisdiction and limitation.
The law of copyright is an unexplored one in India. Every year, thousands of
Bollywood films are released and most of them are dubbed into regional
language without the consent of the producer. But we do not hear of as many
copyright infringement cases. Maybe the producers don’t see it as a massive and
harmful infringement of their copyrights or maybe they are unaware that
dubbing without their consent actually amounts to copyright infringement.
Whatever the reason may be, this particular infringement is in abundance. And
TEJASWINEE ROYCHOWDHURY 14
when the infringers get away with it every day for several years, it is not
possible for them to see that they are making a mistake. They might not even
know that dubbing without the producer’s consent is an actionable wrong or an
offence. Either way, a part of the society is still unaware of this right and the
essence of this right and it is high time that the implications of this infringement
are made known to the public.
This unawareness and declined importance may result in heavier prices in the
future. For example, hundreds of popular Hollywood films such as Harry Potter,
Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, etc. are constantly being dubbed into regional
languages of India such as Bengali, Tamil, Marathi, Kannada, Bhojpuri and so
on and without a doubt, all of these dubs are made without the consent of the
respective producers. This paints a bad picture of the Indian Legal System in the
light of copyright law as India has been signatories to international treaties and
agreements such as the TRIPs Agreement and Berne Convention and this casual
take on this law acts as a contravention to these. However, for the legal system
to act, the citizens must first be made aware and until that is done, this will
continue to be a grey unevolved area in the Indian Legal system.
FOOTNOTES AND CITATIONS
[1] http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1271015/
[3] Dr. B. L. Wadhera, Law Relating to Intellectual Property, 5th Ed, 2011,
Universal Law Publishing Co.
[4] http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/summary_wct.html
[5] 2005 (30) PTC 279
[6] Ibid 3.
[7] http://ipassociatesindia.blogspot.in/2009/12/mareva-injunction-india.html
[8] Ibid 3, 6.
[9] Cheran P. Joseph V. K. Prabhakarn Nair AIR 1967 Kar, 234