The Ownership Conundrum of Cinematograph Films – the Copyright Suit of ‘Nayak’

4th March, 2024 - 6:44 am Categories: Intellectual Property 0 Comments

Introduction

A cinematograph film is a creation of different sets of individuals, including singers, dancers, lyricists, composers, scriptwriters, actors, directors, and others contributing to its making. Ideally, the ownership of the copyright of such a film vests with the producer. But does that deprive the contributors of the underlying works of their rights absolutely? This piece analyses the rights of underlying works, with a special emphasis on the rights of the script author, in the backdrop of a landmark case, RDB and Co. HUF v. HarperCollins Publisher India Pvt. Ltd., where the novelisation of the Bengali film ‘Nayak’ was in question.

Background

The film ‘Nayak’ was released in 1966 and was produced by R.D. Bansal. The screenplay of the film was written by Satyajit Ray, who was commissioned by R.D. Bansal to direct the film too. The controversy flared up half a century later when Bhaskar Chattopadhyay novelised its initial screenplay, which was published by the defendants in the given case.

The representatives of R.D. Bansal instituted a suit of infringement against the defendant company, claiming a violation of their rights under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Act”). They sought a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from publishing and distributing the alleged novel and claimed that all the derivative and associated rights relating to the film vest with the plaintiff, in addition to the copyright of the movie.

However, the defendants pleaded that the novelisation was pursuant to the license obtained from Satyajit Ray, the first owner of the copyright of the script and screenplay. This led to the controversy over whether the copyright of a script in a cinematograph film vests with the producer or the author.

The ownership conundrum

The determination of copyright over a script is dependent on the contractual agreements, which could be either a contract of service or a contract for service and are often moulded to vest the rights with the producer. The proviso (c) to Section 17 of the Act employs the phrase “contract of service” to determine the ownership of copyright under the Act. If a person is commissioned under a contract of service, the copyright of that work shall subsist with the employer. The Court enunciated that Ray was operating as an independent contractor rather than a production employee and, therefore, the original author of the screenplay with whom the rights shall vest.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

In the present case, Section 17(c) would not be applicable as there never existed an employer-employee relationship or something that could be compared with the contract of apprenticeship. This means that this proviso is inapplicable where there exists a contract between individuals that are equals and one person merely performs the service for the other, i.e., writing a script for the producer.

However, does this imply that R.D. Bansal has no ownership rights to the film? The answer is negative. The Court ruled that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright of the movie as per Section 17(b) of the Act and that the screenplay would be treated as an original literary work for the purposes of Section 17(a), making it separate from the movie. Thus, Satyajit Ray has copyright over the script and screenplay, and R.D. Bansal owns copyright over the cinematograph film.

Right to assign novelisation

Following the separate recognition of the rights attributed to both, the producer and the author, the Court proceeded to adjudicate upon the assignment of copyright. The legal framework governing this process is delineated by Section 18 of the Act, along with the mandatory requirements for a valid assignment under Section 19 of the Act. The Court observed that the process of novelization constitutes the reproduction of the original work, but will not fall under the purview of “adaptation” as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. This determination is based on the absence of any abridgement of the cinematograph film, a pivotal factor in distinguishing reproduction from adaptation.

The judgement clearly established that all the rights of the cinematograph film do not necessarily vest only with the producer, and therefore, Bansal does not hold the right to authorise novelisation of the screenplay. Any part of the film over which the plaintiff has copyright has not been used by the defendants, and only the screenplay and still photographs from ‘Nayak,’ which constitute underlying works, were utilised under a valid license obtained from Satyajeet Ray. Hence, the Court recognized that although the script forms a part of the cinematograph film, the right over such underlying work shall vest with the author and not the producer.

Nonetheless, it does not mean that all the underlying works in a cinematograph film are alike. In the present case, this assertion has been established by the principles laid down in the case of IPRS Ltd. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association & Ors. where Justice Krishna Iyer opined that the right to reproduce the film under Section 14(c) rests solely with the producer, however, the right of the composer to commercially exploit his work was still protected.

Conclusion

The Copyright Act of India establishes that the producer or employer de-facto becomes the first owner of copyright of a cinematograph film, particularly when such words are created under a contract of service. However, this does not preclude the possibility of the original author retaining rights. The present case intrinsically delineates the contours of the copyright of the screenplay and script and that of the cinematograph film itself by identifying Satyajit Ray as the original owner of the copyright to the screenplay of ‘Nayak’.

In response to questions about novelization, the Court said that although it entails copying the script, it does not qualify as adaptation until it is shortened or transformed into a dramatic work. As a result, the copyright owner retains the right to approve novelization as against the producer. This decision is admirable as it rightly clarified the dichotomy between the underlying works in a cinematograph film, preserving the rights of the authors of the underlying works.

Author: Ayush Singh Verma, A Student at, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

• The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
• K. Ahuja, Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights (Lexis Nexis 2022).
• Narayanan, Law of Copyright and Industrial Design (Eastern Law House 2017).
• IPRS v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association & Ors. 1977 AIR 1443.
• RDB and Co. HUF v. HarperCollins Publishers India Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/3399/2023.
• Nupur Thapliyal, Satyajit Ray first owner of Copyright In ‘Nayak’ Movie, Right To Novelize Screenplay Vested In Him: Delhi High Court, SCC Online (May 23, 2023 7:25 PM) https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-satayajit-ray-nayak-movie-copyright-229325.
• Niyati Prabhu, Delhi High Court clears the air around Copyright of Satyajit Ray’s ‘Nayak’, SpicyIp, (June 02, 2023, 9:29 PM), https://spicyip.com/2023/06/novelization-of-screenplay-and-ownership-of-copyright-the-dilemma-surrounding-the-copyright-of-satyajit-rays-nayak.html.