Acopy

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 ehras 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 would amount to infringement of the copyright vested in them& .urther, #0 called on  to provide all the relevant documents docum ents 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 whic h was subect 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

inunction& /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 subect matter of this dispu te& /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

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 subect to the final outcome of the arbitration proceedings, since more than 9': of the film had been completed&