For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn

Introduction

In The Cinema Resource Centre & Anr. v. Ms. Ganga Rudraiah & Anr., O.S.A.(CAD) No. 17 of 2022 & C.M.P. No. 2260 of 2022, the Madras High Court (Division Bench) ruled on 27 August 2026 (reserved on 14 July 2026) that the children of the late Mr. C. Rudraiah had established their claim to copyright in the production photographs of the Tamil film Aval Appadithan. Dismissing the appeal against the decree dated 13 July 2021 in C.S. No. 674 of 2017, it held that buying or possessing physical photographs, even from a scrap dealer, gives no copyright.

Facts of the Case

Mr. Rudraiah was admittedly the producer and director of Aval Appadithan. According to the plaintiffs, its production photographs were taken by photographers engaged by him, and the family’s album for this film alone went missing. The defendants say that The Cinema Resource Centre (TCRC) is a non-profit charitable trust whose trustee is Ms. Sruti Harihara Subramaniam, and that the photographs came into their possession in 2007, when sacks of old film photographs were bought from a dealer at Moore Market, Chennai, and then restored, digitised and catalogued into an archive album.

According to the plaintiffs, Mr. Rudraiah died on 8 November 2014; they learnt from a publication and TCRC’s website that the photographs were displayed in its archive, and when the daughter asked Ms. Subramaniam in December 2014 for the original album, she declined, though willing to give credit for donating it to the trust. The daughter filed C.S. No. 674 of 2017 seeking a declaration of copyright, an injunction, delivery of the originals and destruction of copies. The son, first arrayed as the third defendant, was later transposed as the second plaintiff.

Before the Single Judge, the plaintiffs’ mother and Ms. Subramaniam were examined, and the defendants produced no documents. The Single Judge held that copyright in the photographs vested in Mr. Rudraiah and then his heirs, that the defendants had no assignment or licence, and that displaying them on the website was communication to the public and infringement. The decree also directed return of the original photographs and deletion and destruction of all physical and electronic copies. The suit was decreed, and the defendants appealed.

Argument in Favour

The respondents argued that it was admitted that Mr. Rudraiah was producer and director, and that production photographs are an integral part of film-making. Unless the appellants showed that the photographers retained the copyright or that a contrary agreement existed, the mere fact that they physically took the photographs could not defeat the plaintiffs’ claim.

Owning the physical photographs, they said, differs from owning copyright, and the appellants had not shown that the dealer had any copyright to transfer. TCRC’s website disclaimed ownership of copyright in its archive, and the appellants took the stand that they were neither copyright holders nor licensees. An email of 8 December 2014 referred to the plaintiffs in the context of their father’s films, so their status as heirs could not be disputed.

They relied on Agi Music v. Ilaiyaraja (2019) 4 LAW 418, Indian Record Mfg. Co. v. Agi Music (2020 SCC OnLine Mad 626) and Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam ((1974) SCC 242).

Argument Against

The appellants argued that the plaintiffs had not proved who took the photographs, who engaged the photographers or whether they were paid; no document, contract or proof of payment was produced, and the photographers were neither impleaded nor examined, so the copyright, if any, remained with them. The film, they said, was produced by Kumar Arts, and no material showed that the plaintiffs owned Kumar Arts or that Mr. Rudraiah produced it in his individual capacity.

They added that no probate, letters of administration or legal-heir certificate was produced, that the burden of proof stayed on the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs’ email (Ex. P-11) appreciated TCRC’s work.

Their authorities were Lalgudi G. Jayaraman v. Cleveland Cultural Alliance (2008) 4 LW 511; S. Mahalingam v. Vasan Publications Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (1) LW 776); Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (2014 (2) SCC 269); M. Manohara Chetty v. C. Commaraswamy Naidu & Sons (1979 (2) MLJ 466); S. Palanivel v. P. Natesan (2017 SCC OnLine Mad 33105); Kesari Maratha Trust v. Devidas Tularam Bagul (1998 SCC OnLine Bom 76); Bunny Reuben v. B.J. Panchal (2002 (2) MLJ 169); and DRK v. McGraw Hill Global Education Holding LLC (MANU/FENT/0804/2017).

Court’s Decision

Under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the author is normally the first owner of copyright, but under clause (b) of the proviso, the person at whose instance a photograph is taken for valuable consideration is the first owner unless there is an agreement to the contrary. The Division Bench accepted that the photographers were not examined and that no direct document, such as an agreement, showed their arrangement or payment, but held that these gaps had to be weighed with the oral evidence, admissions and circumstances. The initial burden lay on the plaintiffs, and the defendants’ failure to prove their own copyright could not by itself prove the plaintiffs’.

But Mr. Rudraiah was admittedly the producer and director; the photographs were production photographs; the plaintiffs’ case was that he engaged the photographers; the defendants established no assignment, licence or other title; and, except the plaintiffs, none of the photographers, Kumar Arts or the defendants claimed copyright. In this civil proceeding the question was whether the plaintiffs’ case was more probable than the defence, and the finding rested not merely on Mr. Rudraiah’s position as producer and director but on the overall facts and evidence.

The Bench extracted the Single Judge’s findings that pleading acquiescence amounted to admitting that copyright vested in Mr. Rudraiah; that admitted facts needed no formal proof under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless the Court in its discretion required it; and that payment to the photographers, absent a contrary contract, was a matter of presumption. The Single Judge also quoted Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (15th Edn., Vol. 1, p. 217) that it “will often be a term of the contract of the author engagement that the ‘employer’ should own the copyright”.

The appellants relied mainly on possession and on restoring and digitising the photographs, but the Bench agreed with the Single Judge that physical possession and copyright ownership are different, and held that purchase or possession does not by itself give copyright. The Single Judge had found that a purchase from a scrap dealer would give copyright only if the seller owned it and could lawfully transfer it, which the appellants failed to establish.

The Bench rejected acquiescence: mere knowledge of the possession, or appreciation of the preservation work, is not an assignment, licence or relinquishment of copyright, and, as the Single Judge noted, assignment (Section 18), licence (Section 30) and relinquishment (Section 21) must be in writing. It also rejected the heirship objection: the records and correspondence supported the relationship, and no one else claimed the estate or the copyright.

The Single Judge relied on Lalgudi G. Jayaraman, also cited by the appellants, which holds that under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 17, payment of valuable consideration by itself creates copyright in the payer for a photograph, without proof of a contract of service. The other authorities of both sides, including Agi Music, Indian Record Mfg. Co. and Nagindas Ramdas, are listed but not discussed. The appeal was dismissed, the decree confirmed, with no order as to costs.

Conclusion

The Court decided ownership of production photographs on the whole evidence and the admissions, although no direct document of the photographers’ engagement or payment was produced, and stressed that its finding did not rest merely on Mr. Rudraiah’s position as producer and director. It also reiterated that ownership of a physical photograph and of the copyright in it are separate: purchase or possession did not give the defendants copyright.