Thiagarajan Kumararaja v. M/s Capital Film Works and Anr, 2013 (2) LW 115

Introduction

The Madras High Court held that subject to anything contrary, a producer of a film has the right to dub that film in any other language and it shall constitute his right to communicate to the public as provided in the Copyright Act, 1957.

Brief Facts of Thiagarajan Kumararaja v. M/s Capital Film Works and Anr.

In this case, a dispute arose between the writer of the award-winning Tamil film ‘Aaranya Kaandam’ and the producers of the film whom he had authorized/ licensed to make the film in lieu of certain consideration.

The writer/appellant filed a suit in the Madras High Court against the producers/respondents claiming that the producers were contemplating to remake the film and also dubbing it in other languages and this would thereby lead to infringement of his copyright in the script of the film.

Issues in Thiagarajan Kumararaja v. M/s Capital Film Works and Anr.

In respect of whether dubbing was a right to public communication, the Court was faced with the following issues-

1. Accepting that there was no assignment of the copyright in the script of the film, did the producer have the right to dub the film in another language?
2. Assuming that the producer has such a right, can they still be injuncted from dubbing the film by the author of the underlying work?

Laws Involved

Section 2 read with Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957 sub-clause (d) of Section 14(1) of the Copyright Act

SECTION 19A OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT 1957

Sections 13 and 14 of the Copy Right Act, 1957,

SECTION 14 COPYRIGHT ACT 1957 Clause 2(f) of the Copy Right Act

Appellant’s arguments

The Appellant contended that the dubbing of the film would amount to the translation of the underlying works of the film, and would thereby constitute a remake of the film. This would, in turn, infringe his copyright in the script since he never granted the producer Adaptation rights.

Respondent’s arguments

Countering these contentions, the respondents argued that these would not amount to infringement but would rather be a communication to the public which was an exclusive right granted to the producer of the film by virtue of Section 14(d)(iii) of the Act.

Judgement in Thiagarajan Kumararaja v. M/s Capital Film Works and Anr.

The Court while giving an expansive reading to the definition of Communication to the Public held that dubbing would fall within the ambit of the expression of communication to the public. The Court also differentiated dubbing from translation and it was the producer’s right of communication to the public. It in no way affected the rights of the writer in the underlying script of the film in question.

Taking into consideration the definition provided in Section 2(f) of a Cinematograph Film, the Court further held that the dubbing was done in respect of the sound recording of the film which as per the definition was very much a part of the Cinematograph Film.

The Court also held that dubbing the film was not a remake or adaptation of the film as there were no substantial changes being made in the underlying work that is the script of the film. Hence, there was no infringement of the Writer’s rights here. The producers of the film therefore will have no right to remake the film without the authority of the writer.

This article has been submitted by Sahona Chakraborty of BMS College of law.