The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against Doordarshan, India’s Central Government public service broadcaster and a division of Prasar Bharati, in a copyright and moral rights dispute arising from the production of a television series for DD Urdu.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs were Dr. Sayeed Alam, an acclaimed playwright and script writer, and Mr. Thomas Alter, a well-known Indian actor. The defendants were Doordarshan, Television News Features (TVNF), and Mr. Satya Prakash, a television programme producer.<\/p>\n
In July 2009, Doordarshan issued a notification for general commissioning of programmes for DD Urdu setting out eligibility criteria. Mr. Satya Prakash, wishing to produce a show for the channel, approached Dr. Alam to write the script and screenplay for a television serial based on Maulana Azad. An agreement was entered into between Dr. Alam and Television News Features for a documentary series on DD Urdu titled Ghubar-E-Khatir<\/em>, comprising 52 episodes of 29 minutes each, with Dr. Alam to be paid a fee per episode.<\/p>\n On Dr. Alam’s recommendation, Mr. Prakash approached Mr. Alter for the title role of Maulana Azad as well as the role of anchor and narrator. A corresponding agreement was entered into between TVNF and Mr. Alter. Dr. Alam authored the script for the episodes. The proposal for Ghubar-e-Khatir<\/em> was presented before Doordarshan’s Evaluation Committee, with Mr. Prakash reiterating the terms of the agreements with the plaintiffs. The series was shortlisted and a detailed proposal was sought; introductory scenes involving Mr. Alter as anchor were shot under Dr. Alam’s direction.<\/p>\n After the initial shoot, the plaintiffs received no further communication from the defendants despite repeated attempts. The plaintiffs subsequently learnt that Mr. Prakash had proceeded with the project using a different actor and writer. Doordarshan was promptly informed of this development and sent a letter to Mr. Prakash seeking clarification. Mr. Prakash replied asserting that all contractual terms had been complied with, and the production continued. Doordarshan’s Advisor, DD Urdu and the Deputy Director General accepted these justifications, notwithstanding the apparent breach of contract and copyright infringement. Ghubar-e-Khatir<\/em> was subsequently broadcast on DD Urdu.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs issued a legal notice to all defendants requiring Mr. Prakash to issue a public clarification that the serial had not been authorised by them and seeking that DD Urdu cease telecasting it. There was no response to the legal notice. The plaintiffs thereupon filed a suit before the Delhi High Court seeking an interim injunction.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs contended as follows:<\/p>\n “firstly the action of the defendants constituted a clear breach of contract, secondly, the action of the defendants breached the copyright of Dr.Alam in the storyline, script, screenplay and characterisation. (As the author, he is the first owner of the copyright under S. 17, Copyright Act); thirdly, the action of the defendants breached the copyright of Mr. Alter for his performance as anchor\/ narrator under S. 38A, Copyright Act and fourthly, the action of the defendants have violated the moral rights of the plaintiffs. They have also attempted to pass off the infringing works as that of the plaintiffs.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The defendant contended that the work commissioned by Mr. Prakash fell wholly within the category of “work for hire” and that Dr. Alam accordingly could not claim ownership of the copyright.<\/p>\n The Court found that the agreement between Dr. Alam and TVNF clearly indicated that copyright in the script would remain with Dr. Alam and accordingly ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court further observed that Mr. Prakash would not have met Doordarshan’s eligibility criteria without the involvement of Dr. Alam, and that Doordarshan had overlooked a clear indication that permission and payment issues needed to be resolved before the programme could be aired. Having regard to these and other factors, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiffs’ work.<\/p>\n The case illustrates how contractual arrangements designed to insulate parties from liability can, on close examination, be found to disregard the rights of authors and artists. The decision affirms the willingness of courts to look behind the form of transactions in order to give effect to the substance of copyright and moral rights protection.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction against Doordarshan for copyright and moral rights infringement in the Ghubar-e-Khatir series. The judgment underscores the importance of upholding contractual and intellectual property rights in Indian broadcasting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":35,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,6],"tags":[31,486,7529,7531,6180,804,7530],"class_list":["post-30209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-copyrights","category-intellectual-property","tag-copyright-infringement","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-doordarshan","tag-ghubar-e-khatir","tag-indian-legal-cases","tag-moral-rights","tag-prasar-bharati"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30209","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=30209"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30209\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":149917,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30209\/revisions\/149917"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Contentions of the Parties<\/h2>\n
\n
Decision<\/h2>\n
Significance<\/h2>\n
Disclaimer<\/h2>\n