9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not even iota of similarity. Whatever similarity drawn and mentioned in the comparative chart - Ex.P.5 are very remote and even if it be in isolation, they are not similar taken as a whole - this Court finds that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that his form, manner arrangement and expression of idea has been infringed by the defendants. The script of the plaintiff is based on emotion between two couple centering around an old lady. Whereas, the script of the second defendant Kathi is on land grabbing by a schemy industrialists. There is no similarity on the fundamentals or substantial aspect neither mode of expression is similar. As the Hon ble Supreme Court has said in R.G. ANAND VERSUS M/S. DELUX FILMS AND OTHERS [ 1978 (8) TMI 231 - SUPREME COURT] , the surest and safest test to determine whether or not, there has been a violation of copyright is to see, if the Reader, Spectator or the Writer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets non mistakenly that the subsequent work appears to be copy of the original. On reading of Ex.P.3 script ( SPM ) and Ex.D.2 script ( Kathi ), this Court do not get such impression. Rather, this Court fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e saw the replica of character name "Vennilla P.hd" in the film "Ezham Arivu". Being aggrieved by this incident, the plaintiff to avoid further plagiarism registered his script "SPM" in the South Indian Film Writer's Association (3rd Defendant), in which, the plaintiff is a member since, 2006. The script was registered on 10.04.2013 along with another script "Katre Nillu Kavithai Sollu". 2.On 29.10.2014, he happened to see the Tamil feature film "Kathi" produced by Lyca Production (1st defendant) and directed by A.R.Murugadoss (second defendant). To his utter shock and surprise, the story of the Tamil feature film "Kathi" was the replica of his story script registered under the title "SPM". The story line of both the scripts are one and the same. So, the plaintiff lodged complaint with the 3rd defendant. The complaint was rejected by the third defendant vide letter dated 21.11.2014 informing the plaintiff that there is no similarity between the plaintiff's script and the feature film "Kathi". 3.The third defendant did not compare both the scripts before concluding that there is no similarity. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed to declare the third defendant letter dated 21.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the story of "Ezham Arivu" and "Kathi" are totally different, is an evident for his vexatious claim. 10.The plaintiff has not made out any cause of action for filing the above suit. The plaintiff firstly allege infringement of his script by the second defendant in all movies directed by the second defendant. The script of the movie "Kathi" is the story of the second defendant and at no point of time, the second defendant has adopted the story of the plaintiff. There is no similarity between the story script and screenplay of feature film "Kathi" and story script "SPM". There are hundreds of films and documentaries released in Tamil and other languages touching upon the issue of apathy faced by farmers and suicide committed by the farmers. There are several films touching the issue of agricultural land acquisition by the corporate and the protest by farmers against the take over. This will not render the work of the second defendant violation of infringement of anybody's copyright much less the plaintiff's script "SPM". 11.The first defendant would further state that as the plaintiff has failed to establish his copy right in respect of his script "SPM" and alleged infringe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he defendants 4 and 5 is not maintainable. The defendants 4 and 5 are the assignees of remake right of the film "Kathi" in Telugu language ("Kaidhi No.150"). 16.The plaintiff claims infringement of his script "SPM" by the defendants 1 and 2 who has produced and directed the Tamil movie Kathi. Whereas, the defendants 4 and 5 have only purchased the remake right of the film "Kathi" in Telugu and therefore, valid right exist on them. They are not necessary parties to the suit. The suit is therefore, suffers misjoinder of parties. 17.None of the allegations made in the plaint are directed against the defendants 4 and 5. Hence, their names have to be struck off from the proceedings. The defendants 1 and 2 had assigned Telugu remake rights of the film 'Kathi' in favour of the defendants 4 and 5. The defendants 4 and 5 have produced Telugu film "Kaidhi No.150" and released on 11.01.2017. The defendants 4 and 5 merely obtained remake of the Tamil feature film "Kathi" and did not commit the act of script copying or illegal uGodman of it. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief against the defendants 4 and 5. 18.Based on the pleadings this Court has framed the foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to D.W.1 - Sundararajan to give evidence. Ex.D.2 is the script of feature film "Kathi" and Ex.D.3 is the Censor Board authorised DVD for the Tamil feature film "Kathi". 21.Before filing the suit, the plaintiff has lodged complaint against the second defendant about the plagiarism before the third defendant. The committee consisting of Mohan Gandhi Raman; Liyakath Ali Khan and K.Guna on examining the script and the movie of 'Kathi' and also comparing the script of the story 'Neelam' written by the second defendant and the script of story 'SPM' written by the plaintiff found that there is no similarity between the movie 'Kathi' and the story of the plaintiff. Ex.P.5 is the written comparison note given by the plaintiff where about 25 incidents are pointed out by the plaintiff. However, the third defendant had rejected the plaintiff claim. Hence, the plaintiff has approached this Court for the relief stated. 22.Before adverting to the merits of the rival claim, it is helpful to extract the story line of the defendant's script "SPM" and the story line of the movie "Kathi". 23.Story line of the plaintiff script : "SPM" (i)The story centres around ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, he scold his father, renounces, the world and become a Godman adopting the name 'Gopalanantha'. (v)Sethuraman brother of Parimala is under the impression, Gopal @ Gopalanantha was cause for Parimala's death. To wreck vengeance, he first wanted to disassociate Yugi Chandran from Gopalanantha. Meanwhile, the Police investigating the realtor Manimaran murder by a Godman visit the hill and conduct enquire with all the Godman living in that hill and get their thumb impressions. On seeing this, natives of that hill also force the police to get their impression expecting Government dole. Mean while, Sethuraman abduct Yugi Chandran. Yugi chandran spill beans and confess to Sethuraman and Vennila that he murdered Manimaran since he betrayed his father. Sethuraman also come to know that Gopal is innocent and he is not the cause for his sister's death. (vi)Sethuraman, Vennila and Gopal return to the 'Mathaanam' village. Like Taj mahal built in memory of the loved one, Gopal decided to dig a pond. So with the help of 10 village Panchayat leaders and workers of 100 days Employment Scheme, Century paati and Gopal dug a pond on the eve of Sethuraman - Vennila marriage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pes with Vivek's henchmen. 25.Unaware that Jeeva and Vivek's henchmen are headed for Chennai, Kathir makes efforts to convince the media to bring the plight of the villagers to national consciousness, but the media is not interested as they feel it is not a sensational news. A few days later, at the Madras High Court, the judge declares the verdict in favour of Jeeva and the villagers, but adds that Chirag has claimed that certain villagers who are working abroad have shown their support for the factory. If they cannot prove that their support was faked by Chirag within the next five days, the verdict will go in favour of Chirag, and the villagers will lose their lands. Since the villagers, who have denied supporting the factory, are abroad and cannot come to Chennai within five days to rebut Chirag's claims as their passports are held by their contractors, and the verdict is to be decided within five days, Kathir decides to take drastic measures to sensationalise the issue. He, Ankitha, Ravi, and the inmates of the old-age home block water supply to Chennai by sitting on the pipelines which carry water to Chennai from five lakes. With the plight of the Chennaites due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be retrieved and restored. End of the story: Land retrieved. New pond dug. End of the story: Land retrieved. Water drawn from borewell. Sethuraman arrives Chennai from kashmir changed train and reached Chidambaram. Kathiresan from Kolkata reached Chennai by train. Sethuraman get down at Chidambaram without going to his village madhanam, to meet his would be wife. Kathiresan instead of going to Bangkok, cancel his trip to meet the Heroin. Entry of Gopalanatha shown as if, he is meditating by closing his eye. Entry of Jeevanadam shown with closed eyes with bullet injuries. Mr.Manimaran grab the land of Gopalanatha. To retrieve the said land, Parimala commit suicide. 6 Farmers commit suicide to retrieve the land from MNC. 5 land documents were taken to Vaitheeswaran Temple to be placed at the feet of the idol. 5 villagers taken signatures in the document discretely for purchase of their lands. Gopalanatha, after the loss of Parimala, hide himself without interacting with others. Jeevanadham when he was unconscious and taking treatment for his bullet injury, police arrest him and put him in Kolkata prison, out of site from public because of imprisonment so he can't a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isons are :- (i)In the story of "SPM", Mr.Sethuraman travel in train from Chennai to Chidambaram in the normal course to meet his family members. Whereas, Mr.Kathiresan in "Kathi" is a jailbreaker, escape from Kolkata prison and reach Chennai by train. (ii) Mr.Sethuraman arrives Chidambaram, as per his plan and it is not a sudden decision as stated by the plaintiff. (iii) Mr.Gopalnatha meditate by closing his eyes is not similar to Jeevanatham in bed with bullet injury. (iv) Parimala commit suicide not to save the land grabbed by Mr.Manimaran, as stated in the comparison chart. (v) In "SPM", Parimala commit suicide, after receiving letter from Gopal who accuse her for ploying his family. (vi) Placing the documents at the feet of Vaitheeswaran Temple idol is not similar to the documents obtained illegally by the land mafia in "Kathi" movie. (vii) Mr.Gopalnatha hide himself is not comparable to the person in imprisonment. The earlier one is voluntary and later is by compulsion. (viii) Parimala complaining to Mr.Sethuraman about her pain is not similar to Heroine complaining the hero for slapping her. (ix) Madhanam Village is not hit by drought. Even accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econd defendant, he has not produced it to the Court even after the same was asked to be produced and D.W.1 promised in the witness box to produce the same in the subsequent hearing. Therefore, he contend that adverse inference should be drawn. 32.It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the script of "SPM" has to be compared with the alleged script of second defendant's "Neelam" which was later developed into the film "Kathi". Even assuming that the script "Neelam" was the replica or the script "SPM" unless and until the script of feature film "Kathi" is replica of similar to the story of "SPM", the plaintiff has no cause of action to sustain the suit. To make out a case for infringement not the theme alone but the treatment should be similar. In the case of the plaintiff, we find neither the theme nor the treatment are similar. 33.This Court after going through the script of "SPM" - Ex.P.1 and the feature film "Kathi" - Ex.D.3, find that neither the idea nor the expression is same. There is no even overlapping here and there in these two story scripts. The plaintiff alleges that he gave the script to one Ragunath an associate of second defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se would submit that there is a clear infringement of copyright in the case of second defendant movie "Kathi". 37.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.G.Anand case (cited supra) has extracted the proposition regarding copyright infringement in the following terms:- "Thus, on a careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above, the following propositions emerge: 1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyright work. 2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendants work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. In other words, in or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d mentioned in the comparative chart - Ex.P.5 are very remote and even if it be in isolation, they are not similar taken as a whole. To say atleast, the scenes and sequence of the script "SPM" is unconnected with the scenes and sequence of the film "Kathi". Hence, this Court finds that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that his form, manner arrangement and expression of idea has been infringed by the defendants. The script of the plaintiff is based on emotion between two couple centering around an old lady. Whereas, the script of the second defendant "Kathi" is on land grabbing by a schemy industrialists. There is no similarity on the fundamentals or substantial aspect neither mode of expression is similar. 39.As the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said in R.G.Anand case, the surest and safest test to determine whether or not, there has been a violation of copyright is to see, if the Reader, Spectator or the Writer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets non mistakenly that the subsequent work appears to be copy of the original. On reading of Ex.P.3 script ("SPM") and Ex.D.2 script ('Kathi'), this Court do not get such impression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
