Funny how the Indian Entertainment Industry seems somewhat schizophrenic at times! Readers might recall that in my last post on the Urmi Juvekar copyright infringement case, I had said it is strange that the courts seem to have found a concept to be copyrightable. I also opined that the copyright laws don’t seem to warrant such a decision even though equity would certainly call for it. A recent newspaper report might actually strengthen the argument in favor of Ms. Juvekar’s copyright violation claim.
According to the report, Ravi Chopra is obtaining a copyright license over the popular English movie “My Cousin Vinny.” The acclaimed film maker is paying good money to buy rights over the movie in order to make a Hindi version of it, even though in his own words, the movie is only “loosely inspired” by the 1992 comedy.
One might argue that the decision to buy the license to the movie is more guided by an individual’s sense of right and wrong rather than a legal requirement. In Ravi Chopra’s words: “Though it’s loosely inspired by ‘My Cousin Vinny’, we’ve acquired copyrights for the remake. If we’re making a film about the prevalence of the legal system and how the wronged can be subjected to untold harassment if the right legal advise isn’t provided to them, then it was only right that we do the legally correct thing by buying the original’s right.”
However, this is the not the only instant in recent times where Hindi film makers have made the righteous move of seeking a license before working on an inspiration. In the movie Kal Ho Na Ho, rights were acquired over Roy Orbison’s song “Oh, Pretty Woman” before the shooting of a Hindi song that was otherwise original in its own right. One might ask – if the entertainment industry is so conscientious, why not acknowledge the contribution of Ms. Juvekar Chiang and give her her dues for the concept of a reality show?
In both cases – in the case of the remake of “My cousin Vinny” and the copying of the literary work of a reality show, the issue is the same – whether a mere concept or idea is copyrightable. If the industry practice is anything to go by, the film industry is now creating a precedent – even if a movie concept is “loosely inspired” by the concept of a pre-existing movie, a copyright is sought. If this is now going to be the industry practice, defendant TV Channels like Global Broadcast News and CNN ought to beware; they also ought to learn from their wiser brethren in the film industry.
General Question for the readers: In case of a TV program, the channel that is showing the infringing work owns the copyright over the program and therefore, in case of a copyright violation, it is the channel that is sued. According to Section 17(b) of the copyright act, “in case of a … cinematograph film made for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein.” This suggests that in a film, the copyright rests with the producer (who I believe is the one that funds the making of the movie) in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. Does this mean that the producer is liable in case the film is found to violate a copyright? Probably so… any insights?
