You can grab other case briefs on other IPR topics from here.
Citation –(AIR 1987 Del 13)
Facts: P (Mannu Bhandari) was the author of novel ‘Aap ka Bunty’. She assigned the filming rights of her movie to the D (Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd.). P has filed a case so as to restrain the screening of the film made by D. In P’s opinion while her novel was a literary work, the film has been heavily mutilated and commercialised and if released will lower her reputation of a research scholar in the eyes of public public and her admirers as they are likely to conclude that she has fallen prey to big money in the film world and has consented to such mutilation and distortions.
Procedural History: The case was first filed in the District court where the learned Additional District Judge, denied P permanent injunction against the screening of the film as in his opinion P suffered no loss of reputation. The case was settled by an out of court settlement between the two parties and the court merely ruled on question of law due to lack of precedent on power of court and rights of author under Section 57 of the copyright act.
Issues:
1) What is the extent of the powers of the court under Section 57?
2) Whether assignee of a copyright can claim any rights or immunities based on the contract which is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 57?
3) Whether the movie can be filmed as it is with the changes?
Holding: For the purpose of Section 57, the modification allowed should not be so serious that the modified form of the work looks quite different work from the original.
§ The assignee of a copyright cannot claim any rights or immunities based on a contract which is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 57.
§ Section 57 protests social interest in art and culture and not merely the interest of the author.
§ The court directed to remove the scenes which were too crude, brash and nauseating and not part of the original movie.
Rationale:
§ The Court held that when it passes a judgment under Section 57 it does not sit as a sentinel of public morals. Accordingly, the court cannot impose its views on the works of art. The concern of the Court is to merely examine how for the new ‘avatar’ is true and authentic and what changes are necessary due to constraints of a medium.
§ Section 57 confers additional special rights on the author which can be seen by the fact that the right exists even after the assignment of the copyright and accordingly a contract cannot negate the special rights and remedies guaranteed by Section 57.
Rule:In an enquiry under Section 57, the Court does not sit as a super-censor. It’s only function is to see whether there are “mutilations” or “distortions”. A contract cannot negate the special rights conferred upon an author under Section 57 of the Copyright Act.
You can grab other case briefs on other IPR topics from here.
