The petitioner, 20th Century Fox claimed copyright infringement on the ground that the the film Knock Out, produced by Sohail Maklai is a direct copy of the film Phone Booth, whose copyright lies with 20th Century Fox after the original screenplay writer Larry Cohen entered into an agreement with Fox in 1998. Both movies have a very similar plot – a hostage drama involving an individual who is made to confess his dark secrets while inside a phoone both.
Reports state that counsel for 20th Century Fox, Virendra Tulzapurkar claimed that the producers of Knock Out had refused to hand over a copy of the screen play and that ‘industry sources’ had informed the production house that Knock Out was copied from Phone Booth. On the other hand, the defendant’s (SMEPL) counsel, Ameet Naik argued that Fox was claiming copyright over the ‘idea‘ of a hostage in a phone booth, and hence no cause of action arose. Further, counsels for SMEPL, Iqbal Chagla and Venkatesh Dhond argued that only one situation was common to both films and that while Knock Out was about Indian politicians routing money to Swiss banks, Phone Booth related to an extra-marital affair.
Interestingly, the stay order was passed after Justice Roshan Dalvi watched both movies in the video conference room of the High Court after court hours yesterday, in the presence of the litigating parties. The stay order was passed sometime this afternoon, after asking SMEPL to hand over a copy of the screenplay to Fox.
However, the Division Bench, comprising of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice D Y Chandrachud vacated the stay order after court hours and asked the producers to deposit Rs. 1.5 crore with the court by October 19th.
While this allows the movie Knock Out to be released on schedule (October 15th), it brings to mind two important questions – what is the difference between ‘ideas’ and ‘execution of ideas’ in the film industry and secondly – why is it that Bollywood movies always seem to get involved in a copyright mess.
Dear Amlan,
It seems from the Times of India reports that the Court had “ruled that the film was indeed a copy of the Hollywood blockbuster, Phone Booth, starring Colin Firth.
….
The judge, Roshan Dalvi, watched both the movies on Wednesday and ruled in favour of 20th Century Fox on Thursday, thereby putting a stay on the release of the film. However, the producers of the movie approached a division bench of the HC against the order of single judge. After hearing the case for about an hour and a half, the division bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice D Y Chandrachud, in turn, put a stay on the order passed by the single judge.”
It would be interesting to read the single Judge order…
Freq. Anon.
FA – I just came across the order a few moments ago at our favourite website 🙂 —
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/625240/
Dalvi, J. has held that on merits, a case for injunction is indeed made out. Haven’t seen the DB order though.
The DB decision is available at the Bombay High Court website –
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/original/2010/APP71010141010.pdf
Dear Sumathi & Sneha,
Many thanks for the links.
The crux in Dalvi J.’s order lies in para(s) 12 and 17:
“12.Consequently, the Court s impression about the two Mins where a guy is trapped in a Phone Booth must determine whether or not the second film is a copy of the first. The Defendants have, of course, emphasised various dis-similarities in the two films to show that theirs is a separate and special artistic work. Even if that be so, it does not really come up for the Court’s adjudication except to allow the Defendants to exhibit or broadcast such dis-similar work. The
similarities in the concept of the two films must be first seen and enumerated. Given that both the films
admittedly have a theme of a guy trapped in a Phone Booth , it has been seen that a guy, who is the
protagonist of both the films, uses the otherwise unused telephone booth in the age of mobile telephones to
hide or suppress his identify one from his wife whilst making a telephone call to his paramour and the other
partly from his wife for the same purpose and partly because he was pursuing an unclean career in the crime
of corruption. Both are trapped into conversation with a sniper. After their initial conversation is over, they
both pick up the telephone which rings in the booth, they both are held hostage in a long and detailed
conversation bringing to the fore their respective ill-designs. The conversation between the caller and the protagonist are rather similar; such similarity cannot be co-incidental. Its style as well as the content of the conversation and the design in bringing out the conduct of the man would leave an unmistakable impression that one was copied from the other. That is the basic concept of the two films.
…
Whatever is there but not brought out would be discovered; but whatever is not there is invented for the first time. The inventor would, therefore, alone have copyright in the expression of that invention which is the artistic work.
Hence copyright is contained in the original expression of the idea. It is expressed in the frame of the product.
It is the thought that is sought to be portrayed and conveyed which carries a copyright and not the original idea. Hence whilst the idea may not be unique to the author, the image portrayed or the expression made is essentially unique to the author. If such an expression in the shots of a film is copied, lifted from an earlier
film, the infringement is complete.”
Honestly, while I like the logic of J. Dalvi, I am not sure if PhoneBooth itself is a copy or not..
Regards,
Freq. Anon.
sorry for blowing my own trumpet, but here’s a link that may interest some people (from this month’s EIPR).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689361
why Indian movies get into copyright trouble ?… you must watch foreign ka films to know the answer.. Originality is a rare commodity in Bollywood..
why dont they sue all the music directors who copy, like pritam?