Dhanush, a renowned South Indian actor also famous for his work in Bollywood films like ‘Raanjhana’ and ‘Atrangi Re’ has recently issued a notice seeking 10 crore as compensation for copyright infringement against Nayanthara, a famous actress herself. The alleged copyright infringement took place due to the usage of a three second clip which actress Nayanthara claims to be a BTS (behind the scene) video from the shooting of the film of ‘Naanum Rowdy Dhaan’ which stars Dhanush (also the producer of the film) and Nayanthara. Dhanush holds a copyright of the film and alleges that the clip used in the trailer is infringing.[1]
Copyright as a tool for protection of the interest of an artist and a copyright holder has been extremely beneficial for boosting creativity and thereby allowing art to thrive. Like every coin has two sides, creators or copyright holders may tend to grab every opportunity to seek compensation for even the minutest possibility of infringement resulting in a hostile environment for other artists in a way restricting the latter’s freedom of expression. Such cases are often dismissed under the aspect of fair use or de minimis, the court refusing to entertain trifling matters.
Copyright holders have contended infringement by way of direct copying from their content or by use of extremely similar plot, characters, beats, lyrics, etc. Despite the ocean of claims, courts have still favoured the defendants in cases where their work does not infringe the copyright holder’s rights and thereby preventing undue advantage or monetary loss to either side. Let us review such cases from a few fields of the entertainment sector like Cinema/TV and the Music Industry of The US and India to analyse the general stance taken to protect intellectual property rights in these two countries.
Copyright Infringement Cases in Cinema/TV
- SOFA Entm’t, Inc. v. Dodger Prods., Inc.[2]: In this case the creators of the musical, ‘Jersey Boys’ used a 7 second clip from ‘The Ed Sullivan Show’ to mark a pivotal moment in the career of ‘Four Seasons’. The Court of Appeals upheld the defendants’ fair use defense, citing the transformative purpose of the clip as a “biographical anchor” that enhanced the storytelling. The court also noted that the clip’s brevity (just seven seconds) supported fair use under Section 107[3] (3) reading, “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole”. Finally, under subsection 4 of 107, “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work”, the court found no market harm, as the clip did not serve as an alternative for the original show. Its limited use, combined with its contextual purpose in the musical, affirmed its qualification as fair use[4].
- Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9[5]: A TV news station aired a 30-second clip from a four-minute copyrighted video showing the 1992 Los Angeles beating of Reginald Denny. The clip was used in a commercial context, focusing on the most impactful and essential part of the footage. This usage not only highlighted the core of the copyrighted work but also impacted the original owner’s ability to license or market the full video effectively and was thus held to be infringing.[6]
- Twentieth Century for Film Corporation v. Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt Ltd & Anr.[7]: The defendants argued that an ‘idea’ is not covered by copyright and that just because the Bollywood movie has an identical plot as ‘Phone Booth’, cannot be said to be an infringement. Bombay High Court cited ‘Zee Telefilm v. Sundial Communication’, wherein it was held that an idea is considered as a ‘novel (new) idea’ if it is transformed into a form of expression. Such an idea comes under the ambit of copyright. The novel expression in both the films is an idea surrounding a man being held as hostage inside a ‘phone booth’, the action constitutes thus constitutes as infringement. The court also noted that the test to determine if the latter work results in infringement, one must see that if the parts that are said to be copied are excluded from such film render it meaningless. If so, it is said to be infringing. Similar scenes can be seen in both movies; if such scenes were deleted from ‘Knock Out’, then it would detract from the very essence of that movie. Hence, the film was said to be infringing. Later the parties settled the issue and Sohail Maklai gave compensation of 1.25 crores to Fox Studios.[8]
- G. Anand v. M/S. Delux Films & Ors.[9]– R.G. Anand, a playwright, wrote a play titled ‘Hum Hindustani’ in 1953, which gained popularity after its 1954 staging. Film director Mohan Sehgal expressed interest in adapting the play into a movie and requested a copy from Anand. However, after receiving the script, Sehgal proceeded to release his film ‘New Delhi’ without further communication, prompting Anand to allege copyright infringement. Anand filed a suit claiming that the film copied the central themes and storyline of his play. Although the lower courts acknowledged Anand’s ownership of the play’s copyright, they found no infringement. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld this view, providing key clarifications on copyright law:
- Ideas, themes, and general concepts are not protected under copyright; only their unique expression can be copyrighted.
- To constitute infringement, the copy must be so substantial that an ordinary viewer concludes it is a direct replica of the original.
- Similarities between works do not automatically imply copying unless they suggest intentional plagiarism and lack broad dissimilarities.
Copyright Infringement Cases in Music Industry
- Gray v. Hudson[10] (Marcus Gray v. Katty Perry): Marcus Gray sued Katy Perry for the alleged copying of the riff and beats of his 2008 song ‘Joyful Noise’ in her 2013 hit ‘Dark Horse’. Gray claimed this constituted copyright infringement, while Perry’s team argued that the elements were generic and not protectable under copyright law. In 2019, the court awarded Marcus $2.78 million as damages, finding substantial similarities. However, the decision was overturned in 2020 after an appeal. The appellate court ruled that the shared elements were too common and insufficient to prove copying, highlighting the importance of protecting creativity while avoiding monopolization of fundamental musical components. This case illustrates the fine balance in copyright law between safeguarding originality and preserving artistic freedom, particularly in the music industry.[11]
- David Bowie & Queen v. Vanilla Ice: Vanilla Ice’s ‘Ice Ice Baby’ made history as the first hip-hop single to top the ‘Billboard Hot 100’, but it also drew criticism for its unauthorized sampling of the iconic bassline from Queen & Bowie’s ‘Under Pressure’. Ice attempted to defend the use by claiming he added a singular note to the end of the riff to create a distinction, but this argument was dismissed as insufficient. The dispute was ultimately settled out of court, with Queen and Bowie receiving songwriting credits and an undisclosed financial settlement. The case became a notable example of copyright issues in music, emphasizing the importance of properly crediting original creators.[12]
- Saregama India Ltd. v. Viacom 18 Motion Picture & Ors.[13]: Saregama India alleged copyright infringement against Viacom motions for the use of the words “Meri Sapno Ki Rani” from the song in the classic film ‘Aradhana’ in ‘Special 26’. The court, however, ruled in favour of Viacom 18, stating that the usage was trivial (principle of de minimis), as the phrase appeared for not more than seven seconds in the film. The judgment highlighted that the actor did not sing the words to the original tune, and any resemblance to the song’s melody was, at most, faint. The court concluded that such limited usage did not constitute copyright infringement, emphasizing that minor or incidental references do not necessarily violate copyright laws. This case underscores the importance of context and extent when evaluating potential copyright issues in creative works.[14]
- Ram Sampath v. Rajesh Roshan & Ors.[15]: Music composer Ram Sampath accused the makers of the 2008 Bollywood movie ‘Krazzy 4’ for plagiarizing his composition ‘The Thump’, originally created for a Sony Ericsson advertisement. Sampath claimed that two tracks from the film – ‘Break Free’ and ‘Krazzy 4’ – were copied from his work. Initially, the Bombay High Court restrained the film’s producer, Rakesh Roshan, from releasing the movie without removing the disputed tracks. However, on April 10, 2008, the court permitted an out-of-court settlement between the parties. Rakesh Roshan and Ram Sampath reached an agreement, resulting in Sampath receiving a settlement of ₹2 crore. The film, featuring its original soundtrack, was released as planned on April 11, 2008. This case underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in creative industries and highlights the potential for financial and reputational consequences when disputes arise. It also demonstrates how legal systems can facilitate resolutions through negotiation and compromise.[16]
Copyright law aims to create a balance between protecting creators’ rights and allowing creative freedom. The aforementioned decisions underline that not every use of copyrighted material constitutes infringement. Courts focus on factors like the extent of use, transformative purpose, and market impact. Short or incidental use of copyrighted material, particularly when minimal or adding new meaning, may fall under “fair use” or be considered de minimis.
For example, courts have ruled that transformative uses, such as commentary or biographical works, can qualify as fair use. In Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc[17]., a comic program’s commentary on viral videos was deemed transformative and limited enough to avoid infringement. Similarly, in Warren Publishing Co. v. Spurlock d/b/a Vanguard Productions[18], using magazine covers in an artist retrospective was allowed, as it served a new purpose without harming the original’s market value.[19]
Music disputes often examine whether shared elements, like melodies, are generic or distinctive. In such cases, courts weigh the extent and purpose of the use to ensure creators’ rights are upheld while preventing monopolization of basic creative elements.
In the case involving Dhanush and Nayanthara, where a three-second BTS clip is at the heart of the dispute, it is likely that the court would apply the de minimis principle. Given that the clip is brief and not central to the narrative, the court may rule in favour of Nayanthara, considering the clip’s limited impact on the original work’s market value. This assumption aligns with precedents that emphasize the need for substantial and meaningful infringement before awarding compensation.
Author: Urvi Gandhi, 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:
- Cases:
- SOFA Entm’t, Inc. v. Dodger Prods., Inc., 709 F.3d 1273, 1276 (9th Cir. 2013).
- Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997).
- Twentieth Century for Film Corporation v. Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt Ltd & Anr., 2010 (112) Bom LR 4216.
- G. Anand v. M/S. Delux Films & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1613.
- Gray v. Hudson, No. 20-55401 (9th Cir. 2022).
- Ram Sampath v. Rajesh Roshan & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 370.
- Saregama India Ltd. v. Viacom 18 Motion Picture & Ors, 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 3729.
- Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 14-09041 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015).
- Warren Publishing Co. v. Spurlock d/b/a Vanguard Productions, 645 F.Supp.2d 402, (E.D. Pa., 2009).
- Online Sources
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/nayanthara-vs-dhanush-the-real-story-behind-their-fallout-and-10-crore-lawsuit-exclusive/articleshow/115367163.cms
- Hayden Adams, Movie Copyright Cases Filmmakers Should Know: Part 2, Movie Fair Use Cases, Copyright Alliance (Dec. 15, 2025, 11:24 AM), https://copyrightalliance.org/movie-copyright-cases-part-2/
- Copyright & Fair Use – Stanford Libraries, https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/ (last visited Dec. 15, 2025).
- Juris The-Laws, https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=310102507100&title=twentieth-century-for-film-corporation-vs-sohail-maklai-entertainment-pvt-ltd.
- Abou Naja Intellectual Property, https://abounaja.com/blog/copyright-infringement-cases#:~:text=1.,share%20of%20high%2Dprofile%20cases (last visited Dec. 16, 2025).
- Kantara row: A look at six songs that stood trial over copyright violations in India, The News Minute (Dec. 16, 2025, 2:48 PM) https://www.thenewsminute.com/karnataka/kantara-row-look-six-songs-stood-trial-over-copyright-violations-india-169252
[1] Times Entertainment, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/nayanthara-vs-dhanush-the-real-story-behind-their-fallout-and-10-crore-lawsuit-exclusive/articleshow/115367163.cms (last visited Dec. 15, 2025).
[2] SOFA Entm’t, Inc. v. Dodger Prods., Inc., 709 F.3d 1273, 1276 (9th Cir. 2013).
[4] Hayden Adams, Movie Copyright Cases Filmmakers Should Know: Part 2, Movie Fair Use Cases, Copyright Alliance (Dec. 15, 2025, 11:24 AM), https://copyrightalliance.org/movie-copyright-cases-part-2/
[5] Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997).
[6] Copyright & Fair Use – Stanford Libraries, https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/ (last visited Dec. 15, 2025).
[7] Twentieth Century for Film Corporation v. Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt Ltd & Anr., 2010 (112) Bom LR 4216.
[8]Juris The-Laws, https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=310102507100&title=twentieth-century-for-film-corporation-vs-sohail-maklai-entertainment-pvt-ltd (last visited Dec. 15, 2025) & Shivika Gupta, Copyright Infringement in Bollywood, ipleaders ( Dec. 15, 2025, 7:53 PM) https://blog.ipleaders.in/copyright-infringement-bollywood-2/
[9] R.G. Anand v. M/S. Delux Films & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1613.
[10] Gray v. Hudson, No. 20-55401 (9th Cir. 2022).
[11] Abou Naja Intellectual Property, https://abounaja.com/blog/copyright-infringement-cases#:~:text=1.,share%20of%20high%2Dprofile%20cases (last visited Dec. 16, 2025).
[12] Ibid.
[13] Saregama India Ltd. v. Viacom 18 Motion Picture & Ors, 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 3729.
[14] Kantara row: A look at six songs that stood trial over copyright violations in India, The News Minute (Dec. 16, 2025, 2:48 PM) https://www.thenewsminute.com/karnataka/kantara-row-look-six-songs-stood-trial-over-copyright-violations-india-169252
[15] Ram Sampath v. Rajesh Roshan & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 370.
[16] Supra 14.
[17] Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 14-09041 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015).
[18] Warren Publishing Co. v. Spurlock d/b/a Vanguard Productions, 645 F.Supp.2d 402, (E.D. Pa., 2009).
[19] Supra 6.