Ronita Biswas | National Law University, Orissa | 22nd January 2020
Sanjeev Pillai v. Venu Kunnapalli & M. Padmakumar (FAO. No. 191 of 2019)
Facts
The case revolves around the release of a movie named Mamankam which is proposed to be released on 12.12.2019. The movie is based on a historical fact; history describes ‘Mamankam’ as a grand festival held once in 12 years on the banks of Nila river/ Bharathapuzha at Thirunavaya during the 14th to 19th century. The question for consideration before the Court was, whether, there was any justification for restraining the release of the movie on the proposed date, by an order of temporary injunction.
Appellant’s contention
The Appellant claimed that he had researched on the history of this festival from 1999 onwards. Thereafter, he had written a script for a film on that subject. The Appellant who is a film director had received skill and knowledge in the field by working under eminent directors. In 2011, he met a senior actor of the Malayalam film industry with the intention to have him in the lead role of his dream project. Prior to that, the draft of the script was registered with the Film Writers Association in the name ‘Kinavu/Changatham’. Subsequently, the name was changed to ‘Mamankam’. In the search for a producer, the Appellant met the 1st Respondent who was willing to produce the film and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) believing that the same was entered with M/s. Kavya Film Company, a company registered under the Company’s Act. But later, he learnt that the MOU was entered with a non-existent entity. So, fraud was played by the 1st Respondent upon the Appellant. By that time, the shooting of the film had already started. The Appellant was the director. After completion of two schedules, the Appellant was terminated from serving as Director of the film and another person was appointed. The shooting of the film was completed mutilating, distorting and modifying the script of the Appellant. The Appellant, being the author of the film Mamankam, filed a suit seeking various reliefs. A petition for interim injunction was also filed with a prayer to restrain the Respondents from releasing, publishing, distributing, exploiting the film Mamankam by any and all modes of dissemination to public and issuing pre-release publicity without providing adequate authorship credits to the Appellant as per film industry standards. However, the petition was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge. Hence, the Appellant appealed before the High Court to restrain the Respondents from releasing/publishing and distributing the film Mamankam, without providing authorship credit to the Appellant.
Respondent’s contention
The Respondents contended that M/s. Kavya Film Company was a partnership firm and the MOU was not a void one unless and until it is declared by the Court of law. The Appellant had sold his authorship for a sale consideration of Rs. 3, 00, 000/- and so the Appellant was not entitled to get the credit of the film regarding story, screen play etc.
The Respondents contended that as the copyright had been assigned by the Appellant for valuable consideration, he is not entitled to claim authorship of his work and not entitled to block the release of such a big budget film. Since, the Appellant assigned his screenplay (includes the story script, screenplay and dialogue) to the 1st Respondent, he had lost his authorship over it.
Held
The Court clearly stated the law involved in this regard. What is enshrined in s. 57 (1) (a) of the Copyright Act is that even is the copyright has been assigned, the author of the work shall have special right to claim his authorship. The said provision has two segments. The first part would entitle the author to restrain the opposite party from making any distortion, mutilation or modification or any other act in relation to the said work if it would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation. In the second part, the author is entitled to claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation or other modifications in the said work or any other action, in relation to the copyrighted work which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation. Hence, the rights of the author is fully protected by the Act by placing him in an elevated position as copyright is a form of intellectual property and intellectual property rights are the rights given to creators for their work. Hence, even after assignment of the work, the Appellant has the legal right to protect his intellectual property and right to claim authorship.
Considering the fact that the shooting of the film had been completed, and is ready for release, the Respondents had contended that if the release is postponed, the damages caused will be huge and will cause untold difficulties to all those persons who rendered their effort and service for making of the film.
The Court held that the release of the movie was permitted subject to the condition that nobody’s name shall be exhibited as the scriptwriter of the movie ‘Mamankam’ produced by M/s. Kavya Film Company, anywhere in the screen or in the advertisements.
Leave a Reply