The Indian Express carried an editorial of mine summarising the main arguments that I’d advanced earlier in relation to the unfortunate copyright imbroglio between Chetan Bhagat and the makers of “3 Idiots”.3 Idiots and the Morality of Numbers
Note that the movies’ title contains the number “3”. And the book on which it is based (“5 Point Someone”) sports the number “5”. Most interestingly perhaps, the producers of the movie claim that the book contributes no more than 5 per cent to the movie. The author, Chetan Bhagat disagrees, claiming his contribution to be 70 per cent. If only judges were this masterful at numbers and percentages, copyright disputes might have been far easier to crack. But first, a bit of background:
1. Bhagat entered into a contract with the production house (Vinod Chopra Films Pvt Ltd), under which he assigned all rights in any film adaptation to them.
2. As consideration, Bhagat received a certain sum of money, which he admits. In any case, the dispute is not about the money.
3. Although, as contractually promised, the credits right at the end of the film do mention the fact that the movie is based on the book by Bhagat, it crams up the attribution (“Based on The Novel Five Point Someone By Chetan Bhagat”) in one line, whereas the contract stretches out the entire attribution to 3 lines.
Bhagat could therefore argue that even contractually, the form of placement was not complied with. This is buttressed by the fact that the credit at the end of the movie was so fleeting that even his mother missed it. Contrast this with the fact that the script writer, Abhijat Joshi was credited right at the start of the movie.
Anyway, what Bhagat appears to be really “hurt” about is the producers’ claim that the movie contained no more than 5 per cent of his book. Fortunately, this unfair treatment meted out to him is not just objectionable from a moral standpoint, but is actionable under the law.
Having read the book and watched the movie, my view is that the script borrows significant amounts of copyrightable elements from the book, including the main theme, the various plots and most of the characters therein, including some dialogues. The fact that some new scenes and sub plots were added afresh to the movie does not detract from the fact that significant portions of the book were copied onto the script in the first place.
Therefore, Bhagat is legitimately entitled to be treated as a joint author of this script. Section 57 of the Indian copyright act deals with what are commonly termed as “moral rights” and vests every author with the right to insist that their works be attributed to them. And this right exists independent of the “economic” right to exploit the work. In other words, even if the economic rights are assigned away (as was the case here), the moral right of attribution continues to vest with the author.
One might even argue that such rights were brought into our copyright regime to prevent precisely the kind of harm that this case throws up i.e. a wily production house that buys out an author economically and then attempts to obliterate his status as author altogether!
Bhagat must therefore take a principled stand on this issue and pursue the matter without backing down, not just for himself, but for every small artist who end up getting a raw deal from crafty producers. It could end up cleansing some of the sharp practices that Bollywood has become culturally attuned to now.
Bhagat must sue in a court of law, demanding rightful attribution and appropriate damages. It helps his case that Indian courts have traditionally been very supportive of the moral rights of authors (Amar Nath Sehgal vs UOI).
Of course, it would be far better if the film-makers apologise to Bhagat and settle the matter in a fair manner. After all, even they understand that morality is not really about numbers.
ps: image from here.
see raveendra bhatt on dilution of trademark judgment dt.7.1.2010 avail. at Delhi HC website “Judgment in PDF”. ITC v Philip Morris
http://www.naachgaana.com/2009/12/31/what-was-different-in-the-movie-3i-than-the-book/
Dear Shamnad,
I had a query regarding ur view on joint authorship…doesn’t the idea-expression dichotomy apply to plots, characters etc….i agree certain characters are given protection in certain jurisdictions but isn’t that only when the character assumes that level of recognition?…i doubt whether that situation is applicable to any of the characters in the book…and also i don’t remember the book so well but is there actual lifting of lines from the book…i mean i can understand the concept of joint authorship if the dialogues in the movie are lines from the book…
And also isn’t option agreement just for this purpose..to compensate and decide on acknowledgment terms for copyright owner of underlying work?…and doesn’t the script writer remain the creator of the derivative work…and also i was finding it difficult to understand your substantial similarity argument vis-a vis moral rights..isn’t it limited to protection of copyright( which the agreement takes care of)..also if a movie is an adaptation of a book, isn’t it supposed to bear more than a certain amount of semblance with the characters and themes of the book?…i was given to believe that when we talk abt right to attribution it should be limited to authorship in the work at hand…in the present case that of the script and that would depend on whether Chetan contributed to the script dialogues in the movie…no one is challenging his authorship in the book but if he wants to be called a joint author of the script shouldn’t he have been a participant therein too?..
I have been following spicyip for about a year now and appreciate the great effort that you take with the site and bringing us this important and interesting information.
Is Indian law regarding copyright joint authorship significantly different from US? In the US, joint authorship requires that: (1) the contribution of each author must contain copyrightable elements, (2) intent on the part of the authors to create a single work, (3) intent of the authors to be joint authors. I believe that in the US the work would be more likely considered a derivative work, which would, of course, require a license from the author, Chetan Bhagat. In such a case, I am not sure that the right of attribution would directly apply; more likely it would be a separate contractual requirement.
Thank you and best regards,
Hello Prof. Basheer,
I have been following spicyip for about a year now and appreciate the great effort that you take with the site and bringing us this important and interesting information.
Is Indian law regarding copyright joint authorship significantly different from US? In the US, joint authorship requires that: (1) the contribution of each author must contain copyrightable elements, (2) intent on the part of the authors to create a single work, (3) intent of the authors to be joint authors. I believe that in the US the work would be more likely considered a derivative work, which would, of course, require a license from the author, Chetan Bhagat. In such a case, I am not sure that the right of attribution would directly apply; more likely it would be a separate contractual requirement.
Thank you and best regards,
Dear Mr John,
Thanks very much for your interesting query. I had replied to a similar query on “law and other things”–so let me reproduce the query here (and my response in the next comment:
Query:
“You say that if Bhagat contributed something substantial to the script then he ought to be treated as a “joint author” under the law. The Indian Copyright Statute defines a work of joint authorship as the work produced by the ‘collaboration’ of two or more authors in which the contribution of one author is not distinct from the contribution of the other author or authors.
Does this definition imply that, to constitute joint authorship, there must be a common design and a common intent to produce a particular work? The ordinary meaning of collaboration is people working together in an intersection of common goals. I believe that in England, joint authorship requires prior common design.
I know that the Delhi High Court in the Najma Heptulla case had adopted the English position on joint authorship. The US Copyright statute is more direct in defining a joint work: “a work prepared by two or more authors with the ‘intention’ that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” Therefore, substantial contributions to the movie ‘The Autobiography of Malcom X’ by Aalmuhammed did not make him a joint author in the case Aalmuhammed v. Lee because there was no prior intent or design to create a joint work. A similar authority in the context of a theater play is Thomson v. Larson. How does this play out in the context of the whole controversy? Can Mr. Bhagat be a ‘joint author’ of the movie script? Is common design or intent necessary to prove joint authorship? Should this prong be satisfied before looking at whether the script draws substantially from the book?”
Dear Mr John,
Continuing from my last comment, this was my response to the query:
“I would think that the very existence of an express contract for “attribution” and payment itself signals the intention of the film-makers to build on the underlying book by Bhagat.
Although the parties did not sit at one table and complete the entire process of “adaptation”, it’s clear that the final piece of work embodies both sets of contributions. One might argue that both parties anticipated and bargained for this in their contract. Our Indian section is broad enough to encompass this as a work of joint authorship.
Also, a close reading of Heptullah would suggest that Justice Kirpal stretched out the concept of “joint authorship” a bit wider than prevailing British case law then.
You’re right that the US may have higher standards and norms to determine joint authorship–but given their general anathema to “moral rights”, I really wouldn’t look there for guidance in relation to attribution. And I really hope an Indian court doesn’t either.
Incidentally, the Malcolm X co-authorship dispute seems to have hinged more on the issue of whether the contributions by Almuhammad were “copyrightable” elements at all in the first place. He played more the role of a consultant than an “author”.
I haven’t read Thomas vs Larson, but hope to do so soon. Thanks for pointing me to some of these finer nuances.”
Does this address your query?
Dear Anon,
A large part of my response to Mr John might address your thoughtful query as well. For copyright subsistence in a book, courts have gone beyond insisting on a strict “literal” or line by line infringement. Substantial copying of the plots, characters etc have been enjoined. As you rightly point out, the idea: expression dichotomy does have some relevance and to that extent, the inquiry is very fact specific. Which is why, I opined on this only after reading both the book and watching the movie. And personally thought that a substantial chunk of copyrightable elements had been taken.
Since the book has acquired cult status, one might also argue that Bhagat has a claim in passing off, a point that I hinted at in an earlier comment.
What’s the basic message that 5 Point Someone gets across? And what’s the basic message that 3 Idiots gets across? Do you see/sense any concurrence ?
By your logic, any movie henceforth having a plot around college-life would be accused of plagiarism?
At worst, the proponents of CB’s claim can say the movie was a derivative with very few key outline traits derived from the book’s story. Don’t you see the extent of creativity gone into the script of the movie? And that, to get across a completely different message from that of the book?
Besides, please mention a single dialogue in the movie that Mr Chetan Bhagat might have contributed…