{"id":146778,"date":"2025-12-16T12:06:11","date_gmt":"2025-12-16T06:36:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=146778"},"modified":"2025-12-16T12:06:11","modified_gmt":"2025-12-16T06:36:11","slug":"amma-memorial-digital-project-copyright-compensation-madras-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/amma-memorial-digital-project-copyright-compensation-madras-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Madras HC Awards \u20b920 Lakhs Compensation in Amma Memorial Digital Project Dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"<h5><strong>Facts<\/strong><\/h5>\n<p>The Plaintiff, Mr. Praveen Raj Jayachandran, Managing Director of Hexr Factory Immersive Tech Pvt. Ltd., alleged that he conceived and developed various digital interactive concepts, including AI-based applications, 2D\/3D animations, AR modules, and interactive displays, for the Amma Memorial Museum &amp; Knowledge Park Project.<\/p>\n<p>In June-July 2020, he shared presentations, demo builds, 3D renders, walkthroughs and interactive applications with the Defendant, Fusion VR, who was participating in the Government of Tamil Nadu\u2019s tender process.<\/p>\n<p>He claimed that the Defendant promised him 50% profit share for his contributions. Later, the Defendant shared a draft agreement offering only 40%. A dispute arose, and the Plaintiff stopped further work.<\/p>\n<p>Plaintiff issued a legal notice in January 2021, and filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction against copyright infringement, damages of Rs. 2.5 crore, and costs.<\/p>\n<p>The Defendant denied promising any profit share, claiming that Plaintiff merely provided a proposal\/presentation, and asserted that most deliverables were completed solely by the Defendant\u2019s team. It also stated the project profit was only Rs. 32.78 lakh.<\/p>\n<h5><strong>Issues <\/strong><\/h5>\n<p>The Court framed the following issues:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ol>\n<li>Whether Plaintiff was engaged to develop concepts\/software for the Amma Memorial Project, and on what terms.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the Plaintiff\u2019s materials formed part of the final project implemented by the Defendant.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the Plaintiff delivered source code or other software deliverables.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the Plaintiff authored the works delivered and whether he retained copyright.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the Plaintiff can claim copyright over ideas\/technology.<\/li>\n<li>Whether any binding agreement existed and if the Defendant violated it.<\/li>\n<li>Whether Plaintiff is entitled to injunction, damages, or profit share.<\/li>\n<li>What reliefs may be granted to the parties.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<h5><strong>Arguments by Both Parties<\/strong><\/h5>\n<h6><strong>Plaintiff\u2019s Arguments<\/strong><\/h6>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Plaintiff argued that he invested substantial effort in conceptualising and creating eight interactive digital experiences, including virtual cycling, interactive chat, AR photo-booth, touch-and-throw, interactive quiz, and so on.<\/li>\n<li>These materials were authored by him, as evidenced by documents and correspondence, and the Defendant had acknowledged his authorship.<\/li>\n<li>Defendant promised him 50% profit share, but the later draft agreement of 40% was contrary to their earlier understanding.<\/li>\n<li>Defendant used the Plaintiff\u2019s copyrighted materials to secure the project and implement the execution, thereby infringing his rights.<\/li>\n<li>Plaintiff claimed Defendant would earn around Rs. 5 crore, entitling him to Rs. 2.5 crore damages.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h6><strong>Defendant\u2019s Arguments<\/strong><\/h6>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Defendant argued that copyright does not protect ideas or concepts, and thus Plaintiff\u2019s work was excluded as Plaintiff only provided an idea-level presentation.<\/li>\n<li>It further argued that no written agreement was executed, and Plaintiff was only entitled to the proposed profit-sharing contingent on full completion of work, which Plaintiff never completed. Further, Plaintiff\u2019s inputs were only preliminary and non-executable, and Plaintiff also failed to deliver source code or meet any formal deliverables required under the Government tender.<\/li>\n<li>Due to this, Defendant independently developed the final applications, animations and interfaces, for which it incurred substantial costs.<\/li>\n<li>Thus, its total profit was only Rs. 32.78 lakhs, making the Plaintiff\u2019s massive damages claim baseless.<\/li>\n<li>Defendant conceded that, at most, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable compensation for limited preliminary work, but not profit share.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h5><strong>Analysis by the Court<\/strong><\/h5>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Agreement, Compensation and Nature of Relationship<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>The parties did not execute any binding written agreement because they disagreed on the profit share (40% vs. 50%).<\/li>\n<li>However, emails and messages clearly showed Plaintiff provided services non-gratuitously, and Defendant intended to compensate him.<\/li>\n<li>Thus, a quasi-contract under Section 70, Contract Act was established, requiring the Defendant to compensate the Plaintiff for the benefit enjoyed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li><strong>Copyright and Infringement<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Copyright doesn\u2019t protect ideas, but protects the expression of ideas.<\/li>\n<li>Plaintiff\u2019s presentations, visualisations, technical documents and application builds attributed authorship to him. Defendant did not dispute this in correspondence.<\/li>\n<li>However, because these materials were voluntarily shared for use in the project, their use for that purpose does not amount to infringement.<\/li>\n<li>Plaintiff remains the owner of copyright in the materials he created.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li><strong>Extent of Plaintiff\u2019s Work<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Plaintiff created concept visualizations and demo builds, and worked on eight experiences.<\/li>\n<li>But he admitted he did not complete the work (only about 70% of software programming).<\/li>\n<li>He did not deliver source code, which was necessary for final implementation.<\/li>\n<li>Defendant could use builds for presentations but had to complete programming independently.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ol start=\"4\">\n<li><strong>Damages and Profit Share<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Plaintiff provided no evidence to substantiate his claim for Rs. 2.5 crore damages, including failure to prove actual loss.<\/li>\n<li>Plaintiff abandoned the project before completion, and thus he is not entitled to profit share (whether 40% or 50%).<\/li>\n<li>However, Defendant\u2019s expenditure claims were also not adequately supported, as Defendant submitted quotations instead of invoices.<\/li>\n<li>Court estimated software-related expenditure and profit margins using industry benchmarks and determined a reasonable compensation figure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ol start=\"5\">\n<li><strong>Determination of Reasonable Compensation<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Software-related expenses were estimated to be around Rs. 2.15 crores.<\/li>\n<li>Industry margin of 20% suggested potential profit around Rs. 43 lakhs.<\/li>\n<li>Plaintiff contributed concept creation and partial programming (70%), but not full deliverables.<\/li>\n<li>Considering all factors, the court fixed reasonable compensation at Rs. 20 lakh, with 9% interest from the date of the plaint.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ol start=\"6\">\n<li><strong>Costs<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Plaintiff partially succeeded and had paid Rs. 2,58,051\/- as court fee.<\/li>\n<li>Court awarded Rs. 5 lakh towards partial court fee, lawyer\u2019s fees and litigation expenses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h5><strong>Final Order<\/strong><\/h5>\n<p>The Court rejected the prayer for damages due to lack of support, and denied permanent injunction as the project had been implemented prior to the suit being heard.<\/p>\n<p>The suit was partly decreed, with the Court ordering the Defendant to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>pay the Plaintiff Rs. 20,00,000 as reasonable compensation for services rendered, with 9% interest per annum from the date of the plaint until realisation.<\/li>\n<li>pay Rs. 5,00,000 as costs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Earlier interim order restraining payment of Rs. 41 lakh to Defendant was lifted, subject to fulfillment of the decree.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Citation: Mr. Praveen Raj Jayachandran v. M\/s Fusion VR, Madras High Court, 26 Sept 2025, 2025:MHC:2297. Available at: <a title=\"Mr. Praveen Raj Jayachandran vs M\/S. Fusion Vr on 26 September, 2025\" href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/164361660\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/164361660\/<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Authored by Ms. Ashwini Arun<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Madras High Court resolved the Amma Memorial Digital Project dispute by awarding reasonable compensation for partial software development and concept creation. The judgement clarified copyright ownership, absence of profit-sharing rights, and the basis for determining damages in software-related project collaborations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":146780,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":26,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5495,3,6,2994],"tags":[12431,12434,31,12433,5,11628,1957,12432],"class_list":["post-146778","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-case-reviews","category-copyrights","category-intellectual-property","category-software","tag-amma-memorial-project","tag-ar-and-ai-applications","tag-copyright-infringement","tag-indian-contract-law","tag-intellectual-property","tag-legal-damages","tag-madras-high-court","tag-software-compensation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146778","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146778"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146778\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":146783,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146778\/revisions\/146783"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/146780"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146778"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146778"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146778"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}