Case
Facts
The appellant, R. G. Anand, an architect by profession and
also a playwright, dramatist and producer of several stage
plays, wrote and produced a play called ‘Hum
Hindustani’ in 1953. It ran successfully and was
re-staged in 1954, 1955 and in 1956. Aware of the interest
of the plaintiff in filming the play in view of its
increasing popularity, the second defendant, Mr. Mohan
Sehgal, contacted plaintiff.
In January, 1955, plaintiff met the second and third
defendants and had detailed discussions about the play and
its plot and the desirability of filming it. However,
after this discussion, the plaintiff received no further
communication from the second defendant. In May, 1955, the
defendants started to make the film ‘
New Delhi
’, which, the plaintiff gathered, was based on his play,
“Hum Hindustani’. The defendant, however, assured him
that it was not so. In September, 1956, the movie was
released and after viewing it, the plaintiff filed a suit
for infringement of his copyright in his play ‘Hum
Hindustani’. His claims included damages, account of
profits and a permanent injunction against the defendants
restraining them from exhibiting the movie.
Case History
Appellant filed a suit at the District Court and the
learned trial judge held, in his wisdom, that the movie
‘
New Delhi
’ made by the defendants does not infringe the copyright
of the plaintiff. On appeal, the Delhi High Court upheld
the judgment of the district court. The plaintiff filed an
appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court at the
Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether the production, distribution and exhibition of the
film ‘
New Delhi
’ made by the defendants are in infringement of the
plaintiff’s copyright in the play, ‘Hum
Hindustani’?
Rule of Law
Unless there is any substantial resemblance between the
original work and the alleged copy, the play and the movie
here respectively, in terms of scenes, incidents and
treatment, and similarity between the two is so much that
a reasonable man would consider the ‘copy’ to be more
or less an imitation of the original, an infringement of
copyright cannot be said to have taken place.
Analysis
It was argued by Anand that Delux Films and the other
defendants were fully aware of the theme of his play and
its intricacies. He had had detailed discussions with them
about the same. There were various similarities between
the play and the movie made by Delux Films in terms of the
main theme of provincialism, characterization and
situations. Anand pleaded that he was the owner of the
copyright in the play ‘Hum Hindustani’ and that his
copyright in the play had been violated. The Delhi High
court recognized the copyright of the plaintiff under the
Copyright Act of 1911.
Delux Films and others, on the other hand, asserted that
the movie was not substantially similar to the play in
terms of the themes it dealt with and there were lot of
differences in terms of characterization and treatment.
The court held that the film produced by the defendants
can not be said to be a substantial copy of the play and
the defendants can not be held to have committed an act of
piracy because of differences in story, theme,
characterization and climaxes. Moreover, copyright can not
be acquired in an idea; the idea being provincialism in
this case. A copyright offers protection only to the
expression of an idea and not the idea itself. The
allegation by Anand that the defendants violated his
copyright by copying his idea was held invalid.
The plaintiff could not prove that the defendant had
committed a colorable imitation of his play. A reasonable
inference of colorable imitation can be drawn as
substantial similarity was found between the two
copyrighted works which was not coincidental. The court
held that a case for infringement may be made out only
when such infringement may be identifiable by a reasonable
man; and, in this case, the court observed, that no
prudent person could get an impression that the film
appears to be a copy of the original play. The Supreme
Court did not find any violation of copyright and
dismissed the appeal.
