Summary
In a recent case involving the iconic film Disco Dancer, the Bombay High Court examined whether a stage musical and a proposed new film were a remake, an adaptation, or a sequel. The Court held that the musical was an adaptation covered by Shemaroo’s rights, but refused to restrain the new film since Shemaroo had not pleaded infringement in its plaint. The order pointed out the difference between remake, adaptation, and sequel under Indian copyright law.
Disco Dancer, the 1982 film that gave us Jimmy and unforgettable disco beats was recently at the centre of a copyright battle. The Bombay High Court was recently called upon to decide whether a stage musical and a proposed new film were a remake, an adaptation, or something else altogether.
Background: Negative Rights and the Assignment In the film industry, the producer of a movie holds various rights. These include rights to make copies, distribute, communicate to the public, and also the right to exploit underlying works like the script, music, and characters. Many producers used to assign what are called “negative rights”—the rights to exploit the film across different platforms and formats for commercial purposes.
In November 2011, B Subhash, the original producer of Disco Dancer, executed an assignment agreement with Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. Under this agreement, Shemaroo claimed to have acquired exclusive negative rights and other rights in the film, including rights of adaptation, remaking, dubbing, subtitling and so on.
Clause 30 of the agreement contained a special stipulation that granted B Subhash limited remake rights for 10 years. The dispute in the Court arose because of how this clause was interpreted, and whether it allowed Subhash to later claim remake or adaptation rights.
Timeline of Events
- 2011: Assignment agreement signed between B Subhash and Shemaroo. Shemaroo acquired negative rights and related rights; remake rights remained with Subhash for 10 years.
- 2019: A letter was exchanged, which Subhash claimed confirmed him as perpetual remake right holder. Shemaroo disputed this interpretation.
- 2022: Shemaroo discovered promotions of Disco Dancer – The Musical, a stage adaptation promoted by Saregama Live. The musical was scheduled to be performed in London. Shemaroo filed a suit and obtained an ad interim injunction.
- 2023: Saregama settled with Shemaroo. But the dispute with B Subhash continued. He filed replies claiming remake rights, and even adaptation rights, under Clause 30 and the 2019 letter.
- 2025: The Bombay High Court, in this order dated 12 August 2025, disposed of the interim application and clarified the legal position on adaptation, remake, and sequel.
The Case Before the Court
Shemaroo’s Claims
Shemaroo argued that the 2011 agreement gave it complete ownership of negative rights and adaptations. According to it, the musical Disco Dancer was an unauthorised adaptation using the story, characters, costumes, script and other elements of the film. Shemaroo also argued that Subhash had no right to produce any adaptation or sequel, and that remake rights under Clause 30 had expired in November 2021.
B Subhash’s Defence
Subhash contended that Clause 30 gave him remake rights, and that adaptation is part of remake. He argued that in 2019 Shemaroo had confirmed his remake rights through a letter, waiving the 10-year period. He also stated that he was producing a new film based on Disco Dancer, and that a remake by its nature would involve altering characters, dialogues, and storylines.
What the Court Considered
The Court carefully examined three issues:
1. Was the musical an adaptation?
The Court held that turning a film into a stage play or musical is an adaptation. As Section 2(a)(v) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines adaptation as involving rearrangement or alteration of any work, including a cinematograph film, the Court said that Shemaroo was right in its claim against the musical, and that the ad interim injunction of 2022 covered this.
2. Did Subhash retain remake rights?
The Court stated that Clause 30 granted remake rights for 10 years. Whether the 2019 letter extended these rights or not was disputed. However, the Court found that Shemaroo had not pleaded this issue properly in its plaint. Since the pleadings only concerned the musical, the Court did not go into remake rights in detail at this stage.
3. What about sequels?
The Court observed that a sequel is different from a remake or adaptation. A sequel takes the story forward with new characters and plot. The Court noted that Shemaroo had not placed material to show how Subhash’s proposed new film infringed its rights. Since there were no pleadings on the sequel, the Court refused to expand the scope of the injunction.
The Decision
The Bombay High Court disposed of Shemaroo’s interim application. It confirmed that Shemaroo’s claim against the stage musical was justified and covered under adaptation rights. However, it made it clear that Shemaroo could not extend this case to stop Subhash’s new film, as there were no pleadings or specific reliefs sought on that aspect.
The Court also clarified the distinction between remake, adaptation, and sequel:
- Remake: A new version of the same film retelling the story, usually updated with new actors and some changes.
- Adaptation: Transformation of a film into another medium, like a play or musical.
- Sequel: A continuation of the story beyond the original film, introducing new elements while retaining a link to the old.
Relevant Paragraphs from the Judgment
On adaptation:
“Conjoint reading of section 2(a)(v) and section 2(y)(ii) would make it clear that a cinematograph film is covered by the expression adaptation and would mean the use of cinematographic film involving its re-arrangement or alteration.” (para 48) On remake, adaptation, and sequel:
“In the context of cinematographic film, the term ‘remake’ would mean a film which retells the story in the same format with new interpretation, which would involve updating the film to make it contemporaneous… an adaptation would mean to bring the story to a new audience in a different format… A sequel would take the story forward from where the original film had left off.” (para 49)
On pleadings:
“The Interim Application/plaint does not seek any relief of injunction specifically restraining the Defendant No.3 from proceeding with the proposed new film… and the plaint/interim application makes no averments whatsoever as to how the proposed new film… infringes the copyright in favour of the Plaintiff.” (para 45)
Citation Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. v. Saregama India Ltd. & Ors., 2025:BHC-OS:13267 (Bombay High Court, 12 August 2025). Available at: Indian Kanoon (visited Aug. 26, 2025).
Disclaimer: This blog post is based on the author’s understanding and analysis of the case, and opinions of others may differ. Views in the post are personal. It may be noted that parts of the post have been created using an AI tool.
