Article 6bis of Berne Convention which India is a signatory gives moral rights:
1. To claim authorship; to object to certain modifications and other derogatory actions;
2. After the author’s death;
3. Means of redress
Based on this article, copyright Act incorporated special rights to authors under section 57. Back then before 1987 special rights in section 57 of copyright Act only included literary works but since 1987 after a judgment the court widened the scope and included artistic, musical, dramatic and cinematograph films. There have been many cases regarding the special rights of authors and the most recent case is the below mentioned case about which we are going to discuss.
TITLE OF THE CASE: Sanjeev Pillai Vs Venu Kunnapalli
BENCH: Justice Shircy V.
JUDGEMENT DATE: 11th December 2019
FACTS:
Thirunavaya is a small village situated in Malappuram District of Kerala, near the banks of river ‘bharathpuzha’. Thirunavaya was famous for the ‘Mamankam Festival’. Mamankam festival was conducted in every 12 years by rulers of various provinces in Kerala such as perumals, chera kings etc.
Based on this historical duo decennial festival a movie was scripted by appellant. He claimed that he had done lot of research on this festival and it’s his dream project. Appellant is a movie director and script writer. He met 1st respondent producer who liked the script and so appellant signed a memorandum of understanding with defendant believing that it is M/s Kavya Film Company registered under companies Act. Later on he got to know that the MOU he entered is with a non-existing entity. By then shooting started and appellant was the director. After completing two schedules the appellant was terminated from serving as director of the movie and someone else was appointed. The script of appellant was mutilated and modified. appellant is the author of film therefore suit was filed against defendant seeking relief and interim injunction was also filed to restrain defendant from releasing, publishing, distributing, exploiting the movie ‘Mamankam’ by all modes of publication and issuing pre release publicity without providing adequate authorship credits to appellant. Learned additional district judge dismissed the petition and hence this appeal was filed by appellant.
ARGUMENTS:
The respondent contended that M/s. Kavya Film Company is a partnership firm and Memorandum of understanding is valid unless declared by court and said that appellant had sold his authorship for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and so he is not entitled for authorship.
Rs. 50 crore has been spent by the firm on making of movie. Release is also postponed. Respondent submitted that as per memorandum of understanding all the rights of script, copyright, performing, dialogue is transferred to the respondent.
LAW APPLICABLE: Section 57 of Copyright Act, 1957. [1]
JUDGEMENT:
It is clear from Section 57 of copyright Act that appellant has legal right on the script of the movie even after assignment. But the fact, that respondent has put so much effort and money on this movie and if release is postponed for this reason it will be huge loss for respondent. Therefore, ‘Mamangam’ movie is permitted to be released provided that:
1. No name shall be mentioned as the script writer or as a writer of screenplay of the movie ‘Mamangam’ anywhere on screen or in advertisement till suit is disposed by the trial court.
2. 1st respondent shall take undertaking by an affidavit before this court, before the release of the movie.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
Moral rights are protected more vigilantly in civil law countries. Author should get due credit for his own work as when an artist creates he has put so much effort and time and has expressed his ideas. An artist contributes to the society with his creation. Therefore, even if the agreement transfers a cinematography script from author to someone else, the assignor can anytime exercise his special rights granted under Section 57 of the Act.
[1] http://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf
