Delhi High Court ruled on 23rd May 2023 that Satyajit Ray was the first owner of the copyright in the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’, and therefore, the right to novelize the screenplay was also vested in him or his legal successors.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
During the period 1965-66, R.D. Bansal commissioned the late Satyajit Ray to write the screenplay for, and to direct, the film ‘Nayak’. RDB & Co., the plaintiff in this case, is the successor of R.D. Bansal (“RDB”).
In 2018, Mr. Bhaskar Chattopadhyay novelized the screenplay of ‘Nayak’, and the novel was published by HarperCollins Publishers (defendant in this case) and released on 5th May 2018.
Plaintiff asserted that copyright in the film and all indirect, derivative, and related rights associated with the film ‘Nayak’ vested in the producer RDB. They alleged that the novelization of the screenplay by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay, and the publication of the novel by the defendant, constituted infringement of the plaintiff ‘s copyright, within the meaning of Section 51 of the Copyright Act.
The defendant, HarperCollins, the publisher of the Novel, disputed the plaintiff ‘s claim of copyright over the screenplay of ‘Nayak’. According to them, the copyright in the screenplay vested in Mr. Satyajit Ray and consequent to his death in 1992, the copyright in the screenplay vested in his son Sandip Ray and the Society for Preservation of Satyajit Ray Archives (“SPSRA”), of which Sandip Ray was a member. The defendant had obtained a license from Sandip Ray and SPSRA to novelize the screenplay of the film.
The question was whether the copyright in the screenplay of the film was vested in Satyajit Ray or in R.D. Bansal. The court had to decide whether, in a case in which the author of the screenplay of the film did so under a contract with the producer, against remuneration, copyright in the screenplay would vest in the author of the screenplay or in the producer of the movie.
PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff argued that RDB invested all monies in making the film and was solely responsible for its commercial release and exploitation. He was the producer and worldwide distributor of the film and made the first publication of the film in 1966. The entire risk of the film’s commercial failure was, therefore, taken on his shoulders by RDB. They claimed that RDB, thereby, became the owner of all direct, indirect, derivative, and related rights with respect to the film. The plaintiff claimed to be the copyright holder in the screenplay of the film and expressed reservations at the novelization of the film without the plaintiff‘s knowledge and without obtaining any license or permission from the plaintiff.
They alleged that such an unauthorized act constituted a brazen violation of the plaintiff‘s copyright in the screenplay of the film.
DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENTS
Defendants asserted that as the screenplay writer of the film, Satyajit Ray would be the owner of copyright in its script and screenplay, as they constitute independent literary works, distinct from the film.
Defendants submitted that they had only used the screenplay of the film, which is a literary work, as well as still photographs from the film in which copyright is vested in Satyajit Ray, in the novel. They had not used any part of the film in which the plaintiff held the copyright. Therefore, they did not violate any copyright of the plaintiff.
Defendants reiterated that the script, the screenplay, and still photographs from the film constituted ‘underlying works’. Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act provided that the copyright in a cinematographic film would not affect copyright in the underlying works even if they constituted a substantial part of the film itself. The defendant had also cited Section 2(d)(v) of the Act to contend that authorship, for the purpose of the Copyright Act, vested in the plaintiff only in respect of the cinematograph film, and not in respect of its underlying works.
Hence, in a cinematographic film, the authors of such underlying works would continue to remain the authors and, consequently, the copyright holder in respect thereof. It was further pointed out, relying on Section 14(1)(a) of the Act that Satyajit Ray had merely consented to write the script and screenplay based on which the film came to be made and such consent did not amount to any assignment of the copyright held by him in the script/screenplay in favor of the plaintiff. Any such assignment would have to be by way of a separate agreement, and no such agreement was in existence.
It was also pointed out by the defendants that they had derived rights to novelise the screenplay from the legal representative of Satyajit Ray and from the SPSRA, who were the rightful copyright owners in respect thereof.
They asserted the presumption that all rights in the underlying works in a cinematographic film were automatically vested in the producer of the film was contrary to Section 19 of the Copyright Act. They refuted the assertion that as the producer of the film, the plaintiff was ipso facto entitled to all direct, indirect, and derivative rights in respect of the film.
COURT’S FINDINGS
The court found that the plaintiff had clearly subsisted on copyright in the film ‘Nayak’. However, they could not be considered the owner of all direct, indirect, derivative, and related rights with respect to the film.
The court ruled that if a cinematographic film was made in respect of a part of a whole or another work in which separate copyright vested under Section 13(1), the copyright held in the cinematographic film would not affect such separate copyright.
The screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’ was unquestionably a literary work for the purpose of Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act. By operation of Section 13(4), the copyright in the screenplay, as a “literary work”, which stood vested by Section 13(1)(a), could not be affected by the separate copyright in the cinematograph film itself, which, unquestionably, vested in the plaintiff as its producer.
The court ruled that the opening words of Section 17 of the Act made it clear that the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work. This was subject only to (i) other provisions of the Copyright Act and (ii) the proviso to Section 17 itself. In accordance with this Section 17, Satyajit Ray, as the author of the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’, was the first owner of the copyright in the said film.
As the first owner of the copyright in the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’, therefore, the right to novelize the screenplay was also vested in Satyajit Ray. That right could be assigned by him and, consequent on his demise, by his son and others on whom the right devolved any other person, under Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act. The assignment of the right to novelize the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’, by Sandip Ray and the SPSRA, in favour of the defendant was, therefore, wholly in order and in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
CONCLUSION
Court ruled in unambiguous terms that copyright in a cinematograph film was distinct and different from copyright in any literary work even if the literary work became a part, or the whole, of a film, and the plaintiff has no right whatsoever, in law, to stop the defendant from novelizing the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’. The ruling has laid to rest the traditional argument that the producer being the investor in a film should be the owner of the copyright in all the direct, indirect, derivative, and related rights with respect to the film. The above ruling is a very important step in asserting copyright ownership in underlying works and upholds the right of the screenplay/script writers to exploit the derivative forms of their works.
Case Title: RDB And Co. HUF Vs. HarperCollins Publishers India Private Limited [ 2023: DHC:3551]
HUF Vs. Harp