Internet rights in cinematographic films – Vasuki, Shenbaga Kottai, and Dubai Rani copyright infringement case

A dramatic digital illustration depicts a giant green snake coiling tightly around a large red YouTube logo with a white play button in the center. The scene is set against a bright golden sky with lightning striking in the background, while thick dark storm clouds frame the sides. In the foreground, a lone man holding a sword stands facing the snake, poised for battle. Featured image for article: Internet rights in cinematographic films – Vasuki, Shenbaga Kottai, and Dubai Rani copyright infringement case

Summary

In C. Prakash v. Ayngaran International Media Pvt Ltd & Ors., the Madras High Court addressed an online copyright infringement dispute over cinematograph films. The Court confirmed exclusive internet rights ownership, ordered the removal of infringing YouTube uploads, and awarded nominal damages, noting the plaintiff had not proved the claimed monetary loss.

Background and Facts

This case decided by the Madras High Court on 27 January 2025 concerned internet rights in cinematographic films and online exploitation through YouTube. The plaintiff, proprietor of M/s. Sri Kumaran CD Collections & Electronics, claimed exclusive internet rights in three Tamil films — Vasuki, Shenbaga Kottai, and Dubai Rani.

For Vasuki and Shenbaga Kottai, rights were assigned by the producer (2nd defendant) through an agreement dated 17 October 2018 for 99 years, covering all modes of digital exploitation worldwide, including OTT rights, pay-per-view, and mobile streaming rights.

For Dubai Rani, rights were assigned by the producer (3rd defendant) through a 20 March 2015 agreement, also for 99 years, following an earlier 2008 assignment from Universal Media.

The plaintiff exploited these rights via their YouTube channel “Real Cinemas.” In 2023, the first defendant allegedly uploaded clippings from all three films to its YouTube channel “Ayangaran Channel” without authorisation. Legal notices and email communications demanded removal, but the infringing content remained online.

Issues for the Court

      1. Whether the plaintiff was the sole copyright owner of the internet rights in the three films.
      2. Whether uploading film clippings to YouTube without permission amounted to copyright infringement under Indian law.
      3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to ₹5,00,000 in damages or only nominal damages.

Key Arguments

Plaintiff:

      • Established ownership through assignment agreements for cinematograph film internet rights.
      • Defendants’ online uploads constituted clear copyright infringement of exclusive rights.
      • Claimed significant loss of revenue from YouTube exploitation of Tamil films without consent.

Defendants:

      • Did not appear before the Court; proceeded ex parte.

Court’s Analysis

The Madras High Court examined the assignment agreements and found them to confer sole internet rights worldwide for 99 years. Screenshots of YouTube uploads on the “Ayangaran Channel” confirmed unauthorised broadcasting.

The Court noted that despite legal notices and follow-up emails, the defendants continued uploading copyrighted material, which amounted to online copyright infringement of cinematograph films.

On damages, the Court observed that while infringement was proven, the plaintiff did not submit evidence proving loss of ₹5,00,000. The total investment in acquiring the rights was ₹1,40,000. Therefore, the Court awarded ₹25,000 nominal damages, balancing proven infringement with the absence of quantifiable loss.

Findings and Order

      • Plaintiff declared sole copyright owner of internet rights in Vasuki, Shenbaga Kottai, and Dubai Rani.
      • Permanent injunctions granted restraining defendants from exploiting films online in any form, including YouTube.
      • Mandatory injunctions ordered removal of infringing content from the “Ayangaran Channel.”
      • Nominal damages of ₹25,000 awarded, payable jointly and severally within one month.
      • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Relevant Paragraphs

On ownership:

“The plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the copyright in respect of the rights assigned to them under those Assignment Agreements.” (para 11)

On infringement:

“The uploaded content in the 1st defendant’s YouTube Channel… confirms that despite the plaintiff being the copyright owner, the 1st defendant is unauthorisedly broadcasting the same…” (para 11)

On damages:

“For an investment of Rs.1,40,000… the question of awarding Rs.5,00,000 as claimed… does not arise… This Court fixes [nominal damages] at Rs.25,000…” (para 11)


Disclaimer

This case note has been prepared using Artificial Intelligence. The content has been reviewed by an attorney. Views, conclusions, and Opinions of others may differ.

Citation: C. Prakash v. M/s. Ayngaran International Media Pvt Ltd & Ors., C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.132 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Madras (27 Jan. 2025), Available on https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21961639/

Category