In a brief, well-reasoned order dated 4th April, 2013, Justice S. J. Kathawalla of the Bombay High Court refused to grant renowned playwright, director and script-writer Sai Paranjape, an interim injunction restraining the release of the movie ‘Chashme Budoor’ today. The judgment can be accessed over here.
The movie which is being released today is a remake of a movie by the same name which was released in 1981. This older version was written and directed by the Plaintiff who had subsequently assigned his rights to PLA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. which was the first defendant in this case. Defendants No. 2 and 3 were the Director and the Producer of the 2013 version of the movie. The trailers of both the old and new movies can be accessed over here and here. (Apparently both movies are going to be released in the theatres.)
In her lawsuit, Paranjape alleged that the defendants had violated her copyright in the script apart from also violating her ‘moral rights’ under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957. In pertinent part, the Justice Kathawalla’s order records “On a searching enquiry, the Plaintiff discovered that the said remake was a complete distortion and/or mutilation of the Plaintiff’s work “Chashme Buddoor”. Paranjape had alleged that the remake was sleazy, vulgar, obscene and repulsive, thereby violating her moral rights. The order then notes the settlement demanded by Paranjape to ‘settle’ the lawsuit: “In the said complaint, the Plaintiff has further requested the Film Writers Association n that “At the very least, the Producers of PLA Production, should award me a sum of Rs. 1 Crore, towards the settlement of my copyright and moral rights’ issue in the concern of the remake of the film”.
The production house had replied to the lawsuit by producing evidence of a contract where the Paranjape had reportedly assigned the copyright in the script of the movie to the production house via a contract dated 3rd September, 1980. Paranjape’s lawyers are contesting the interpretation of the contract, claiming it to be limited to only movie and not a remake.
_Poster.jpg)
The second strong ground of defence was the delay in filing the lawsuit. The Defendants had published their intention to make a remake back in 2007 and have been publicizing the movie for several months now. Although Paranjape had approached the Film Writer’s Association with her complaint in February itself, which was ultimately unsuccessful, she delayed her lawsuit before the High Court to just few days before the release of the movie. The delay in filing the lawsuit ultimately swung the case in favour of the defendants, more so since the movie had already been released overseas on the 2nd of April, 2013. The court reasoned that given the wide publicity given to the movie, starting in 2007, it was obvious that the Plaintiff should have had prior knowledge of the movie.
In the circumstances, the court held “the Plaintiff has at least today not made out a prima facie case in her favour and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the Defendants.” The Court did however order the Defendants to maintain records.
It would be interesting to see this case play out in the future and whether Paranjape pushes ahead with the trial in this lawsuit.
Bollywood would soon be posed with a series of litigations pertaining to remake rights of films. Considering that in the era of 70’s-80’s most of the arrangements between the producers and authors were based on trust and good relationships, the documents (if any) entered were just a mere formality and often loosely worded without apprehending any potential litigation. The understanding was always that once a producer makes a film, it becomes his property in perpetuity and the author is divested of all his rights in the film. This view was seconded to some extent by 1977 IPRS v/s EIMPAA SC judgment. The industry was not conversant with the concept of derivative works which is a trend that has developed recently. Little did the producers know that they would be posed with a challenge of establishing the “control” test and proving whether the engagement of the author was one of ‘contract of service’ or ‘contract for service’. Cases like Zanjeer (where no author’s agreement could be found) and Chashme Baddoor (where the engagement is being interpreted) are just the tip of an iceberg. With the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012 favoring the authors, the awareness of the moral and economic rights of authors is bound to increase which will ultimately result in multiplicity of proceedings. The centenary year of the film industry is definitely being marked with the litigations of cult films like Sholay, Zanjeer and now Chashme Baddoor.