_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case Citation - 1987 (7) PTC 87 (DEL)
Parties Involved -
Appellant - Mannu Bhandari
Respondent - Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd.
Relevant Acts and Sections -
Facts of the Case
Mannu Bhandari, the Complainant, was a well-known author in Hindi Literature. He entered into an agreement with the defendants / Respondents for the granting of rights in his novel 'Aap Ka Bunty' for its production in the film.
Respondents produced the film 'Samay Ki Dhara' based on the above-mentioned novel.
However, the Appellant alleged that the Respondents had deviated and destroyed his novel for the purpose of making a profit.
The appellant appealed to the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi requesting that the decision be permanently prohibited from screening and filming on the grounds that the Defendants violated the granting agreement and violated his rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The author strongly objected to -
the title 'Samay Ki Dhara' and prayed for guidance on amending the title of the film,
a change in the performance of certain characters in the novel, and
the cutting of the theme by the use of obscene dialogue.
The trial court/district court rejected the release of the temporary injunction restraining order of the Court. The application was therefore filed by the defendant in the Delhi High Court.
Prior to the announcement of the verdict by the Delhi High Court, the parties reached a decision that the Defendants would remove the Applicant's name and its novel name from the credits, and, of course, the Appellant would not claim any rights to the film 'Samay Ki Dhara'. But the parties asked the Court to issue a ruling as there were no court decisions on the matter. It was therefore the first case in the interpretation of section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Issues of the Case
What is the extent of the powers of the Court under Section 57?
Whether assignee of copyright can claim any rights or immunities based on the contract which is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 57?
Whether the movie can be filmed as it is with the changes?
Arguments of the Appellant
The novel, 'Aap Ka Bunty' is well received by the national and international community for its text, theme, dialogue, object, and central idea. If a distorted version of his novel is allowed to be presented with the film, his fans may conclude that he is still a victim of big money and that he accepted the cutting and distortion of his book and questioned his integrity and commitment.
Arguments of the Respondent
By signing the allotment contract, and obtaining the full amount of consideration for the allocation of rights, the Appellant had agreed to the amendment. Therefore, the Transfer cannot dispute the conversion after the movie has been produced.
In the event of reproducing a novel with invalid changes, the publisher may be banned. However, if a film is produced based on a novel, no restraint order can be passed.
Judgment of the Case
In the defendants' argument that the acceptance of the full consideration of the assignment made the Appellant unfit to hold any rights in the workplace, the Court held that the terms of Section 57, viz. ‘Even after the assignment’, he dismisses that. A grant means the transfer of a title in the consideration of a title, and the jurisdiction makes it clear in the terms used, that the author's exclusive rights may be exercised even after the assignment has been granted.
A fundamental question before the Court is how to balance the author's freedom of speech with that of the director in the field of art. The Court agreed with the Trial Court that certain changes were inevitable when the novel was transformed into a movie but held that such changes or alterations should not change the work into a version of the original work. Adjustments should not distort or suggest the original novel. The main theme, situations, and the main characters of the novel should not be touched.
In response to this question, the Court interpreted the supremacy of Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and held that this section grants exclusive rights to the author in addition to the copyright infringement. These rights are independent of the copyright and the remedies granted to the author under Section 55.
The fact that the remedies can be sought after an assignment has been made, emphasizing the special protection of intellectual property. Therefore, Section 57 has greater power than the terms of the copyright agreement. Therefore, a contract of division between parties must be read in accordance with the rights granted to the author under Section 57. The contract cannot deny the exclusive rights and remedies available to the author under this section. The right of the complainant/assigner to seek a remedy under this section is not vested in the grant.
Although the appeal was dismissed in terms of the agreement, the consideration and directions of the Honorable Court provide a guiding light in interpreting Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Similar Cases
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Does Acquiring Copyright Allow You To Modify Their Work?" by clicking the button below.
Comments