Introduction

• This case deals with the issue that if the author has been commissioned to write the screenplay of a movie by the producer, who owns the copyright over the screenplay, author of the screenplay or the producer?

Facts

• Satyajit Ray was commissioned by R.D Bansal (whose L.R’S are plaintiff here) to write the screenplay of a film (“Nayak”) and direct it.
• Sometime in or around 2018 Mr. Bhaskar Chattopadhyaya (defendant) novelized the screenplay of the film.
• It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the copyright of the screenplay and therefore the novel was infringement of copyright under Section 51 of Copyright Act, 1957 (C.A.).
• It is the case of the defendant that the copyright in the screenplay vested in Satyajit Ray and after his death the copyright vested in his son Sandip Ray and Society for Preservation of Satyajit Ray Archives. It is the case of defendant that he had obtained license from the above to novelize the screenplay.
• It is to be noted that the defendant in this case pleaded summary judgment under Order XIIIA of Civil Procedure Code, 1808 (CPC).

Issues Involved

• Whether copyright in the screenplay vested in Satyajit Ray or R.D. Bansal?

Observations

• The Court held that in this case there is no requirement of leading oral evidence and hence this case clearly falls under Order XIII-A Rule 3 (b) of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act.
• Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (C.A.) lays down the works in which copyright subsists. While clause (a) provides for original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, clause (b) covers cinematographic films which is a separate category.
• Further, Section 13(4) of the C.A. provides that where a cinematograph film is based on a work in which separate copyright exists the copyright existing in the cinematograph film shall not affect such separate copyright.
• Thus, in order to invoke Section 13(4) of C.A. first of all it has to be seen if the copyright exists separately in the screenplay of the film.
• Section 13(1) of C.A. is exhaustive regarding the works on which copyright exists and no copyright can exist outside Section 13(1).
• In this context the Court analyzed as to what would fall under the definition of ‘literary work’. Section 2(o) of C.A. defines literary work as “includes computer programmes, tables and compilations including computer databases.”
• The Court held that the words that follow ―includes in an inclusive definition expand the definition by augmenting the meaning of the expression as normally understood. Therefore, this would include within it’s sweep the normal etymological understanding of the expression.
• The Court here cited the case of Burlington Home Shipping (P) Ltd. v. Rajnish Chhiber (1996, Delhi HC) wherein it was held that literary work would include a compilation of a list of clients or customers developed by a person by devoting time, money, labour and skill, even from commonly available sources.
• Finally, it was concluded that screenplay of the film “Nayak” is a literary work for the purpose of Section 13(1)(a) of C.A.
• Hence, copyright in the screenplay is unaffected by the copyright in the cinematographic film by virtue of Section 13(4) of C.A.
• Next question that the Court considered was on whom does the copyright in the screenplay of the film subsist.
• Section 17 of the C.A. makes it clear that the author of the work is the owner of the work. The conclusion that can be drawn here is that Satyajit Ray is the owner of the screenplay.
• The rights vested in the owner are captured under Section 14 of C.A. The Court held that novelization would certainly involve reproduction of screenplay in material form.
• This right could be assigned by him and upon his death by his sons under Section 18(1) of C.A.
• Thus, the Court held that the plaintiff had no right to injunct the defendant from novelizing the screenplay

Conclusion

This is a very important judgment delivered by Delhi High Court. It lays down that the copyright in the screenplay of a work commissioned by the producer is vested not in the producer but in the screenplay's author. Thus, the author of the screenplay will have the right to issue the license to novelize the screenplay.