Summary
This post analyses the Madras High Court decision in Padmini and ors. Vs. Raj Television Network Limited, concerning the copyright in the digital cinematography of the film Ninaithale Inikkum. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of the original producer, challenged Raj Television Network’s right to release a digital version, arguing that such rights were not covered in the original assignment due to technological limitations at the time. The Court held that the absolute assignment of negative rights included future technological modes of exploitation, such as digital cinematography. Relying on Section 18 of the Copyright Act and past judicial interpretation, the Court concluded that Raj Television Network lawfully owned the digital cinematography rights, thereby dismissing the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction.
Case Title
Padmini and ors. v. Raj Television Network Limited
Citation
Original Application No. 763 of 2013 in C.S. No. 686 of 2013 (Decided On: 13.04.2015)
Facts
The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of R Venkatraman, who produced the Tamil film Ninaithale Inikkum in the year 1979 under the ‘Premalaya’ banner. In 1981, Mr Venkatraman assigned the copyright in the negatives of both picture and sound of the film to ‘Kumar Pictures’ by way of an assignment deed, for a period of 99 years. The plaintiffs retained the re-take and dubbing rights. ‘Kumar Pictures’ subsequently assigned the negative rights to the defendant Raj Television Network Limited (hereinafter ‘Raj T.V.’) through a deed dated 15.05.2000. In 2013, the plaintiffs learnt through an advertisement in a newspaper and a weekly magazine that Raj T.V. was theatrically releasing the film Ninaithale Inikkum as a digital cinema, to be digitally produced and edited. The plaintiffs claimed that ‘Kumar Pictures’ had been assigned only the right to the possession of negatives, which did not include digital cinematography, as such technology was not available at the time of assignment. Accordingly, the plaintiffs contended that Raj T.V. had infringed their copyright as no right to digital cinematography was available to it under the assignment from ‘Kumar Pictures’. The plaintiffs sought an ad-interim injunction restraining Raj T.V. from releasing, exhibiting, or distributing the digital cinematography of Ninaithaalea Innikkum for any theatrical or non-theatrical release.
Issue
Whether Raj T.V. had a copyright in the digital cinematography of the film Ninaithaalea Innikkum.
Holding
Yes, Raj T.V. had a copyright in the digital cinematography of the film Ninaithaalea Innikkum.
Rule of Law
Section 18, Copyright Act, 1957.
Analysis
The plaintiffs argued that ‘Kumar Pictures’ had been absolutely assigned only the negative right to the film, which did not include the right to digital cinematography. Digital cinematography came into prevalence from 1990 onwards, after the film’s release in 1979 and after the assignment to ‘Kumar Pictures’. Under this reading, ‘Kumar Pictures’ held only the right to assign, hire, communicate to the public, or take prints of the negatives, or to perform acts as provided under Section 14(d) of the Copyright Act. The plaintiffs relied upon the second proviso to Section 18(1), which provides that “no assignment shall be applied to a medium or mode of exploitation of the work, which did not exist or was not in commercial use at the time when the assignment was made, unless the assignment specifically referred to such medium or mode of exploitation of the work.” Since the right to digital cinematography did not exist at the time of the 1981 assignment, anyone wishing to exercise such a right would be required to obtain the permission of the producer or his legal heirs.
The plaintiffs also invoked Section 19 (2), under which the rights being assigned must be specified in the assignment deed. Since the 1981 deed made no reference to digital cinematography or other future rights, the plaintiffs contended that only the exploitation of the negatives in existing forms had been assigned. Any rights not specifically mentioned in the deed remained with the producer or his legal heirs. By extension, when Raj T.V. received the further assignment from ‘Kumar Pictures’, it was not entitled to any future rights, including the right to exploit the digital cinematography of the film.
The defendant, Raj T.V., contended that the negative right could not be treated as a singular right. The digital version of a film cannot exist without the negatives, and therefore digital cinematography falls within the scope of the negative right. Raj T.V. further drew the Court’s attention to the assignment deed between the plaintiffs and ‘Kumar Pictures’, which stated that ‘Kumar Pictures’ was made the sole owner with the right to exploit the Tamil film in all dimensions through television and other mechanisms. Under Clause 12 of the deed, the right to receive royalties was also in favour of the assignee. The only rights retained by the plaintiffs were the re-take and dubbing rights.
On Section 18 of the Copyright Act, Raj T.V. submitted that the provision uses the term ‘owner’ rather than ‘first owner’. This distinction was significant: all rights that came into existence subsequently, due to technological advancement, would not automatically vest in the producer or his legal heirs, who are the ‘first owner’ of a cinematograph film.
The Court, having considered the submissions of both parties and the terms of the 1981 assignment deed, held that the negative right was not one specific right. It is not possible to obtain the digital version of a film without the negatives, and a right of this nature grants the owner of the negatives a right against the world to exclude everyone else from using them. The plaintiff’s contention that there could be digital cinematography without the right to use the negatives was therefore not accepted.
On Section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court observed that the provision applies to the ‘owner’ of copyright and does not employ the term ‘first owner’. The first owner of a cinematograph film is the producer. The use of ‘owner’ is significant because rights that come into existence over time, through technological advancement, do not automatically vest in the first owner or producer. The second proviso to Section 18 therefore benefits the ‘owner’ of the copyright, which in the present case was M/s Kumar Pictures and subsequently Raj T.V.
The Court then considered the scope of the negative right by reference to two earlier decisions. In P.Thulasidas vs. K. Vasanthakumari, the Court addressed the meaning of “absolute negative right” and the term ‘absolute’, construing it as meaning ‘unconditional’ or ‘without condition or limitation’. Once an absolute right in the negatives has been conveyed, the owner has the right to make copies, telecast the film, or enjoy the negative right in any manner. The right was described as “absolute, blanket, comprehensive, exhaustive, unbounded, unconstrained, unlimited and unqualified.”
In Rathna Movies s. Muthu Enterprises & another, the Court considered the definition of a cinematograph film under section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to determine the extent of the negative right. Taking that provision and its explanation into account, negative rights were held to be inclusive of all rights inherent in a cinematograph film, including the soundtrack and any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography, including video films. Where the negative right of a film was completely leased out for 86 years, it gave the lessee complete ownership of the film, entitling the lessee to exploit it in any manner as provided under Section 14.
In the present case, the Court accepted that the negative right includes all other rights in a cinematograph film. Under Clause 6 of the assignment deed dated 21.09.1981, ‘Kumar Pictures’ were made ‘sole’ and ‘absolute’ owners of the negatives and were given the right to exploit the film in any manner. That right was subsequently assigned to Raj T.V. by a second assignment deed. Since the entire copyright had been assigned first to ‘Kumar Pictures’ and then to Raj T.V., any subsequent rights arising from technological developments would benefit the defendant rather than the legal heirs of the producer.
The Court accordingly rejected the plaintiffs’ application for an interim injunction.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.