{"id":30863,"date":"2015-11-09T11:21:48","date_gmt":"2015-11-09T05:51:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/one\/sinapse\/?p=30863"},"modified":"2026-06-09T10:54:00","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T05:24:00","slug":"hollywood-copyright-infringement-bollywood-films-indian-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/hollywood-copyright-infringement-bollywood-films-indian-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Hollywood Copyrights and Bollywood Copy(right!?)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The question of whether Bollywood films infringe Hollywood copyrights has long attracted debate in Indian intellectual property law. The Bombay High Court’s decision in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.<\/em> marked the first occasion on which an Indian court held a Bollywood studio liable for the unlawful copying of a Hollywood film.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Studies indicate that a substantial proportion of Bollywood productions are inspired by Hollywood films. In the past, western studios rarely pursued litigation in India for copyright infringement arising from such borrowing. This position changed when Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation filed a suit against a Bollywood studio, alleging that the defendants had produced a film with a “script and screenplay” that was “virtually identical” to the Hollywood film “Phone Booth.”<\/p>\n

The Case: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.<\/h2>\n

The plaintiff, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, is the owner of the copyright over the film “Phone Booth.” The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, through their film “Knock Out,” had infringed its copyright. The plaintiff prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from releasing the film “Knock Out” in theatres, broadcasting it, communicating it to the public in any manner, or exporting its copies, in so far as such acts would infringe the script, screenplay, storyline, and dialogues of the plaintiff’s copyrighted work, or pass off the defendants’ film as the plaintiff’s film or as an Indian version thereof.<\/p>\n

Arguments<\/h2>\n

The defendants contended that there could be no copyright in an idea. The court, while agreeing with this proposition in part, re-emphasised that copyright subsists only in the original expression of an idea. It held that it is the thought sought to be portrayed and conveyed which carries a copyright, and not the original idea itself.<\/p>\n

The defendants further contended that only a small part of the film \u2014 namely, the basic concept \u2014 was similar to the plaintiff’s film, and that no infringement of a substantial part of the plaintiff’s work had occurred. The court rejected this contention, holding that it is the quality of the copied work, and not the quantity, that determines whether infringement of a substantial part has occurred.<\/p>\n

Findings<\/h2>\n

The Honourable Court, on considering the materials on record, the table of similarities and dissimilarities prepared by the parties, and a scene-by-scene comparison, held that the similarities between the two films could not be merely coincidental.<\/p>\n

Applying the principles laid down in Anand v. M\/s Delux Films<\/em> (1978) 4 SCC 118 and Zee Telefilm Ltd. v. Sundial Communication Pvt. Ltd.<\/em>, the court stated:<\/p>\n

“the test of concluding whether the second work is a pirated copy is the impression of the average viewer. The other test is that if those parts were removed from the copied work whether the remainder would become meaningless and hence what must be seen is the substance, the foundation, the kernel and the copied work and to see if the rest can stand without it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Applying these tests, the court held: “there was little doubt that a person seeing both the films at different times would come to the unmistakable conclusion that the Defendant’s film is a copy of the Plaintiff’s film.” The court further found that the original novel expression of the idea in both films relates to a man being held hostage in a telephone booth by a sniper, and that the defendants’ film “Knock Out” accordingly amounted to an infringement of the plaintiff’s copyrighted work “Phone Booth” under the Indian Copyright Act.<\/p>\n

Outcome<\/h2>\n

The court granted an injunction in favour of the plaintiff and awarded injunctive relief conditioned on the defendants paying $340,000 in damages. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation was also awarded a portion of the box office revenues of “Knock Out.”<\/p>\n

Significance<\/h2>\n

This decision served to deter unauthorised remakes of Hollywood films in Bollywood and increased the confidence of international film producers in seeking remedies for copyright infringement through Indian courts. The decision also drew attention to the efforts of various Bollywood production houses to lawfully acquire rights to remake Hollywood films, which protect intellectual property interests and foster better relations between Indian and international film producers.<\/p>\n

Disclaimer<\/h2>\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 Bombay High Court\u2019s decision on Hollywood copyright infringement by Bollywood set a new legal precedent in India. This post analyses the case, its implications for the Indian film industry, and its influence on copyright protection and industry practices.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":153,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,6],"tags":[919,312,31,7644,7643,12979,1043],"class_list":["post-30863","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-copyrights","category-intellectual-property","tag-bollywood","tag-bombay-high-court","tag-copyright-infringement","tag-court-cases","tag-film-industry","tag-hollywood-copyright","tag-indian-copyright-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30863","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=30863"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30863\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":149939,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30863\/revisions\/149939"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30863"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30863"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30863"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}