Copyright Owner as an assignee has the right to sub-title and dub its film: Delhi High Court vacates stay on Hindi dub of Telugu Movie "Bheemla Nayak
Copyright Owner as an assignee has the right to sub-title and dub its film: Delhi High Court vacates stay on Hindi dub of Telugu Movie "Bheemla Nayak"
Recently, the Delhi High Court in ‘JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd. vs MS Sithara Entertainment & Ors.,- (CS(COMM.)191/2022 Order dated 11.07.2022) upheld the right of ownership of copyright of a film producer who was an assignee of the right to remake the Telugu version of a Malyalam film, in a suit filed by another producer, an assignee of rights to remake the same film in Hindi. The court vacated the injunction that restrained the release of the Hindi dubbed version of the Telegu remake.
Law is settled that the producer of a cinematograph film is the first owner of the copyright in a film. However, in this matter a dispute arose between two subsequent assignees of copyright in the same film.
Background of the Dispute:
A Malayalam film "Ayyappanum Koshiyum" (“the film”) was released on 07.02.2020 and was a huge commercial success. The Plaintiff sought rights to make the Hindi version of the film from the film’s producer, Defendant No. 3. Defendant No.3 assigned the Hindi Remake Rights of the film to the Plaintiff which received the sole, perpetual, and unassignable "Remake and Dubbing Rights," for use across all platforms.
Disputes arose when the Plaintiff found a Hindi-dubbed Telugu film teaser on YouTube of the film with the working title “Bheemla Nayak” which was being produced by Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff perceived this as a potential violation of its rights and the dispute culminated into a suit by the Plaintiff, seeking permanent injunction to stop the Hindi dubbed version of the Telugu remake of the film.
The Plaintiff interpreted its right to Hindi remake of the film to include all Hindi dubbed versions. The Plaintiff accepted that Defendant No.1 was the rightful assignee of the rights to remake the film in Telugu but argued that the said Defendant’s rights do not extend to dubbing its Telugu film in Hindi.
The Defendants on the other hand argued that there subsists a separate and independent copyright in the remade Telugu film and Defendant No. 1 is the owner of that copyright having the right to exploit the film in all formats, including dubbing the same in any language.
The court considered, inter alia, the following issues:
Whether dubbing the Telugu film in Hindi by Defendant No. 1 constitutes infringement of Plaintiff's rights under the Copyright Act (Act)?
Whether Remake and Dubbing rights that were assigned to the Plaintiff included making a new cinematograph film and the underlying works thereof in Hindi language with the right to dub the Malayalam film as well as the few films in any and all languages known or coming into existence in the near future?
Held:
The court held that the Plaintiff, no doubt, has a right to remake the Malayalam film in Hindi language as well as dub the same, or the New Film in any language. However, Defendant No. 1 has admittedly dubbed the remade Telugu film in Hindi, which does not infringe the Plaintiff’s right, applying the provisions of Section 51 of the Act. Insofar as the contention that the Deed of Assignment in favour of Defendant No. 1 restricts the right to dub the Malayalam film or its remake in Telugu language only is concerned, Defendant No. 1 is neither remaking nor dubbing the Malayalam film in Hindi language and Plaintiff can have no grievance with the manner Defendant No.1 is exploiting its rights in the remade Telegu film.
In the present case, as aforementioned, Defendant No.3 has assigned various rights in favour of Defendant No.1 in the suit film and after so assigning, has renounced the rights in the newly produced film. Moreover, Plaintiff cannot raise any grievance with the exploitation of the rights qua the suit film since no rights in the said film were assigned in favour of the Plaintiff and all its rights exist qua the Malayalam film or the new film made from the Malayalam film by it.
Analysis:
The case clarifies that a remake of a film, in a particular language, is distinct from the original film from which it has derived its remake rights through an assignment. Copyright of such remade film will come to vest in its producer. Once the remade version comes into existence (pursuant to the assignment), the remade film acquires an independent status and can then be exploited by its producer just as an original film, including being dubbed in any other language.
*****