Introduction:
The case of JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs MS Sithara Entertainment and Ors. was heard by a Single Judge bench of the Delhi High Court. The key issue in this case was whether the dubbing of a movie, based on assigned copyright work, by another person, to whom separate rights were assigned, constituted infringement. This case sheds light on the interpretation of assignment agreements and the scope of rights granted therein.
Facts of the Case:
The Plaintiff, JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, approached Defendant No. 3, the producer of the Malayalam film ‘Ayyappanum Kozhiyum,’ seeking the rights to remake the film in Hindi. After negotiations, an Assignment Agreement was executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3, granting the Plaintiff the rights to remake and dub the film in Hindi, as well as add subtitles.
Later, the Plaintiff discovered a Hindi-dubbed Telugu film titled ‘Bheemla Nayak’ (referred to as the “Suit Film”) and inquired about the rights assigned to Defendant No. 1, the producer of the Suit Film. Defendant No. 3 clarified that only limited rights were assigned to Defendant No. 1 for remaking the film in Telugu. The Plaintiff, considering the dubbing of the Suit Film in Hindi as an infringement of its copyright, issued a cease-and-desist notice to Defendant No. 1, which led to the present suit and subsequent interim application.
Plaintiff’s Arguments:
The Plaintiff contended that they had legally acquired the rights to remake and dub the original film in Hindi based on the Assignment Agreement. They argued that Defendant No. 1’s act of dubbing the Telugu film in Hindi infringed their copyright in the original film. The Plaintiff further submitted that Defendant No. 1’s Deed of Assignment, dated March 18, 2020, only granted limited rights to remake and subtitle the film in Telugu, and therefore, the dubbing of the Telugu film in Hindi was a violation of their copyright.
Respondent’s Arguments:
Defendant No. 1, the producer of the dubbed film ‘Bheemla Nayak,’ countered the Plaintiff’s claims. They argued that the Deed of Assignment, dated March 18, 2020, granted them copyrights in the story, remaking, dubbing, and subtitling rights of the Telugu film. According to Defendant No. 1, the assignment encompassed the right to exploit the film in all formats, including dubbing. They further asserted that the dubbed film was a distinct and separate work with a different name, cast, and songs, making it eligible for dubbing.
Reasoning of the Court:
The Court delved into the provisions of the Copyright Act and carefully examined the contentions raised by both parties. It noted that according to the Act, the producer of a cinematographic film is considered the author and the first owner of the copyrights related to the film. Additionally, the Court referred to a previous judgment by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Thiagrajan Kumararaja vs Capital Film Works (India) Pvt Ltd and Anr., which held that dubbing falls within the ambit of “communication to the public.” The Madras High Court had also recognized the rights of producers/authors to dub and subtitle their work, subject to any restrictions.
Judgment:
After a comprehensive analysis of the Assignment Agreements and the arguments presented, the Court arrived at its judgment. It found that the Plaintiff had been assigned the right to remake and dub the original film in Hindi, as explicitly stated in their Assignment Agreement. However, the rights for remaking the film in Telugu were not assigned to the Plaintiff. Based on this finding, the Court determined that Defendant No. 1 did not encroach upon the rights granted to the Plaintiff, and therefore, there was no prima facie case of infringement.
The Court further acknowledged Defendant No. 2 as the owner of the dubbed film ‘Bheemla Nayak’ based on the Assignment Agreement executed between Defendant No. 3 and Defendant No. 1. Consequently, the Court opined that Defendant No. 2 had the complete right to dub the film. Considering the absence of infringement and the assignment of rights, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff did not have a cause of action. As a result, the Court vacated the previous ad-interim injunctions and disposed of the interim application filed by the Plaintiff.
Conclusion:
In the case of JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs MS Sithara Entertainment and Ors., the Delhi High Court clarified the interpretation of Assignment Agreements and their impact on copyright infringement claims. The Court held that the dubbing of a movie, based on assigned copyright work, by another person, to whom separate rights were assigned, does not constitute infringement. This judgment provides guidance on the scope of rights assigned in remake and dubbing agreements, highlighting the importance of clear and specific contractual terms. The case reinforces the principle that copyright ownership and exploitation rights are determined by the terms of the Assignment Agreement, and parties must carefully negotiate and define the extent of the assigned rights.
Article expression of Judgement is written by Kripal Ghosh, Student-UPES, Dehradun
DUCTUS EDGE 