Facts of the Case:
R.G. Anand, a playwright, alleged that the film “New Delhi” produced by Deluxe Films, was a substantial copy of his play “Hum Hindustani.” The central theme of both the play and the film revolved around inter-community love and the ensuing familial opposition. Anand argued that the defendants replicated his play without permission, thus infringing on his copyright.
Arguments:
- Plaintiff (R.G. Anand): Anand contended that the storyline, setting, and character traits in the movie bore unmistakable similarities to his play, constituting a copyright infringement.
- Defendant (Deluxe Films): The defendants argued that the play and the movie were distinct in their treatment and execution of the theme. They maintained that while both works revolved around inter-community relationships, the portrayal and details differed significantly.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court of India dismissed Anand’s appeal, stating that:
- Ideas and Themes: Copyright protection does not extend to ideas, themes, plots, or historical and legendary facts. It covers only the form, manner, and arrangement of expression.
- Substantial Similarity: The court must ascertain whether the similarities between the two works are substantial enough to constitute an infringement. In this case, the court found more dissimilarities than similarities.
- Ordinary Observer Test: The court emphasized that the test for infringement is whether an ordinary person, after seeing both works, would conclude that one is a copy of the other. The court found that an ordinary observer would not perceive the film as a copy of the play.
Key Principles Established:
- Expression over Ideas: Copyright law protects the specific expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
- Burden of Proof: The onus of proving infringement lies with the plaintiff. They must show that the defendant’s work is a substantial imitation of their copyrighted work.
- Distinct Execution: Even if two works share a common theme, differences in execution can negate claims of infringement.
The judgment clarified that mere thematic similarities are insufficient for establishing copyright infringement unless there is substantial replication of the original work’s expression. This case continues to influence the interpretation of copyright law in India, emphasizing the distinction between ideas and their expression.