For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn
Written by Keerthana M, Legal Intern, and Verified by Sunil Jose, Managing Attorney, Suns Legal.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. V. MOVIESMOD.BET & ORS. CS(COMM) 738/2024
Have you ever considered the possibility that the final episode of your favourite sitcom, ‘Friends’, which you recently downloaded, might be from a rogue website? These websites illegally distribute copyrighted content owned by entertainment companies and original creators. The Delhi High Court, in the case of Warner Bros Inc. and Ors. v. Moviesmod.bet and Ors., has granted a dynamic injunction against several such websites engaged in hosting and streaming copyrighted cinematograph films.
The case was filed by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., Netflix US, LLC, SBS Co. Ltd., SLL Joongang Co. Ltd., and CJ ENM Co. Ltd. (“Plaintiffs”), who stated that they are prominent global entertainment companies involved in the creation, production, and distribution of motion pictures and cinematograph films.
They claimed to have exclusive rights under Section 14(d), read with Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Act”). Section 14(d) ensures that the creator or the copyright holder has control over the reproduction, distribution, and public display of the cinematograph film, whereas Section 17 states that the author of a work is the first owner of the copyright. It was also added that their rights are safeguarded under Sections 13(1), 13(2), and 13(5) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 13(1) specifies the types of work in which copyright exists, which includes cinematograph films. Section 13(2) clarifies that copyright does not subsist in any works mentioned in the previous clause if they are not original. Section 13(5) mentions that the government may make rules to ensure the effective administration of copyright in respect of any work made or published before 21st January 1958 (the date when the Act came into effect).
The plaintiffs pleaded for a dynamic+ injunction against the defendants, as these websites, if only blocked, might multiply and resurface as alphanumeric or mirror websites. A dynamic+ injunction is a legal order that allows copyright holders to block infringing websites and their future versions, as well as automatically protect new content as soon as it is created.
The Court referred to one of its earlier decisions, Universal City Studios LLC. and Ors. vs. Dotmovies.baby and Ors. [2023: DHC:5842], which highlighted the importance of dynamic+ injunctions and held as follows: “..this court has deemed it appropriate to issue a ‘Dynamic+ injunction’ to protect copyrighted works as soon as they are created, to ensure that no irreparable loss is caused to the authors and owners of copyrighted works, as there is an imminent possibility of works being uploaded on rogue websites or their newer versions immediately upon the films/shows/series etc.”
The Court also touched upon the recent decision of the Bombay High Court in Applause Entertainment Private Limited vs. Meta Platforms Inc. and others, IA No.10257 of 2023, wherein a dynamic+ injunction was granted to plaintiffs who hold copyright on audiovisual content. The decision, UTV Software Communication Ltd. and Ors. vs. 1337X.to and Ors., 2019: DHC: 2047, was also considered by the Court, which set out the various parameters to identify a website as “rogue”. The infringing domains (defendant websites) had been disseminating copyrighted works without any licence or authorisation, and none of them responded when notice to take down the content was served, thus clearly exhibiting traits of a rogue website. Moreover, the systematic and organised nature of infringement, the huge volume and consistent uploads of content to the websites further add to the case. The defendants have also tried to mask their registration/contact details and have provided hyperlinks to copyrighted content, thereby facilitating infringement. The Hon’ble Court also noted the defendants’ general disregard for copyrights, further agreeing with the listed parameters.
While granting the ad interim ex parte injunction, the Court highlighted the probability of plaintiffs suffering irreparable loss if the defendants are not restrained from hosting and circulating the copyrighted works. Directions were also given to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to these infringing websites. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) were asked to ensure that the ISPs comply with the given order. (Both DoT and MeitY are also defendants in this case).
COMMENTS
The case reveals how technology can be a bane when it comes to copyrighted works and original content. It simplifies life to a great extent but at the same time provides endless opportunities for infringers to illegally communicate, host, and disseminate the works of creators without proper licences. The re-emergence of infringing content under a new username or URL can be limited to an extent through dynamic+ injunctions, thereby safeguarding the rights of copyright holders. However, a permanent solution is needed to address the ongoing issue of copyright infringement across websites, as the problem is likely to persist in the future.