<\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\nOften, while challenging in the courts of films being plagiarized, it can be found that the idea often is treated to be Plagiarism free. What is taken into account is rather how the idea has been executed and expressed. If a considerable similarity is found, then such an entity is considered to have violated the copyright laws and the rather performed an act which is unethical. Copyright infringement occurs when first there is access to one’s work and that there has been a substantial similarity of expression between the works. The widely popular and one of the iconic song of the 70s \u201cMehbooba\u201d<\/em>\u00a0of Sholay is a copied version of the song\u00a0Say You Love Me\u00a0<\/em>by Demis Rousso\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSimilarly, moving to the west, the long-drawn controversy of Disney’s Simba from the movie “The Lion King<\/em>” (1994) and a much somewhat older version of it Kimba- The White Lion<\/em> (1960) has for long been an issue of lengthy debate. Recently the movie Raabta<\/em> was also drawn into the court with a copyright infringement suit by the producers of the Telegu film Magadheera<\/em>. Both were having a similar plot and twists. The suit was then withdrawn under Order 23 Rule1of the Civil Procedure Code as both the parties agreed to an out of court settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Plagiarism and what constitutes it<\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\nPlagiarism in India is extremely difficult to prove as the Supreme Court believes that concept as such ideas, subjects, themes, plots and facts cannot be copyrighted and that similarities are unavoidable in two works that are dealing with or similar to the same idea\/subject. The only way through which it can be proved to be plagiarized only if it is a representation very much similar to that of the original except for a few variations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the case of\u00a0R.G. Anand v M\/S Deluxe Films and Ors(AIR 1978 SC 1613)[3]<\/em>, the plaintiff accused the defendant of copying his drama “Hum Hindustani<\/em>” in the defendant’s movie “New Delhi”. The court had applied the Lay Observer test which meant that if the reader or the spectator or both found after having read or seen both the works of a clear impression that the following work appears to be a copy of the original one, then that would be considered of having been plagiarized. However, the judges after a discussion that the film of the defendant to be different from the original one. The judges further went on to say that an idea, principle theme on the subject being a shared property cannot be the subject matter of copyright of a particular person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Convention Relating to the Subject<\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\nUnder the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27(2), it states that everyone has a right to the protection of the moral and the material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Mostly there are two critical conventions on the copyright of protection of which India is a part.<\/p>\n\n\n\n