Inspiration, Imitation, Copying and copyright Infringement

R.G. Anand Vs Delux Films & Ors. – Landmark Copyright Case

R.G. Anand Vs Delux Films & Ors. (1978)

Date of Order: August 18, 1978

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2030 of 1968

Neutral Citation: 1978 AIR 1613, 1979 SCR (1) 218, 1978 SCC (4) 118

Name of Court: Supreme Court of India

Judges: Syed Murtaza Fazalali, Jaswant Singh, R.S. Pathak

Introduction

In the annals of Indian copyright law, few cases have shaped the understanding of intellectual property protection as profoundly as R.G. Anand Vs Delux Films & Ors., decided by the Supreme Court of India on August 18, 1978. This landmark case revolved around the alleged infringement of a copyrighted play, Hum Hindustani, by a cinematic production, New Delhi. It stands as a seminal exploration of the boundaries between inspiration and imitation, addressing the intricate question of whether a film can infringe upon a play’s copyright when both share a common theme but diverge in execution. The judgment not only clarified the principles governing copyright infringement but also established enduring tests that continue to guide courts in India and beyond.

Detailed Factual Background

The plaintiff, R.G. Anand, was an architect by profession and a seasoned playwright, dramatist, and producer. He had authored and staged several plays prior to Hum Hindustani, including Des Hamara, Azadi, and Election. However, it was Hum Hindustani, written in 1953 and first performed in 1954 at the Wavell Theatre in New Delhi under the aegis of the Indian National Theatre, that became the focal point of this dispute. The play, centered on the theme of provincialism, depicted the tensions between a Punjabi family and a Madrasi family over a proposed marriage between their children, Amni and Chander. Its popularity soared, earning critical acclaim and prompting multiple performances in Delhi and Calcutta between 1954 and 1956.

In November 1954, Anand received a letter from Mohan Sehgal, the second defendant and a film director associated with Delux Films (the first defendant), expressing interest in adapting Hum Hindustani into a film. Sehgal requested a copy of the script, but Anand suggested he attend a performance in Delhi scheduled for December 11, 1954, at the National Drama Festival. In January 1955, Sehgal and another defendant visited Anand in Delhi, where Anand narrated the entire play to them. No firm commitment was made, and communication lapsed thereafter. In May 1955, Sehgal announced the production of a film titled New Delhi, which was released in September 1956. Anand, upon viewing the film and reading reviews suggesting similarities with his play, concluded that it was a pirated adaptation of Hum Hindustani. He alleged that Sehgal had dishonestly imitated his work after hearing it narrated, thereby violating his copyright.

The play Hum Hindustani portrayed the love story of Amni (a Madrasi) and Chander (a Punjabi), thwarted by their families’ provincial prejudices. The narrative climaxed with a suicide pact, followed by a reconciliation after the couple’s marriage, facilitated by a marriage broker, Dhanwantri. In contrast, New Delhi followed Anand, a Punjabi youth, who, disguised as a South Indian, navigates housing discrimination in Delhi due to provincialism, falls in love with Janaki (a Madrasi), and faces familial opposition. The film introduced additional themes, such as the evils of caste and dowry, culminating in a resolution involving multiple families and a broader social critique.

Detailed Procedural Background

Aggrieved by the perceived infringement, Anand filed a suit in the District Court of Delhi seeking damages, an account of profits, and a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from exhibiting New Delhi. The defendants contested the suit, denying any infringement and asserting that while they had heard the play, it was inadequate for a commercial film. They argued that provincialism, as a common theme, could not be copyrighted and that New Delhi differed significantly in content, spirit, and climax.

The trial court framed five issues:

1. Whether Anand owned the copyright in Hum Hindustani;
2. Whether New Delhi infringed that copyright;
3. Whether the defendants had infringed by producing, distributing, or exhibiting the film;
4. Whether the suit suffered from misjoinder of parties or causes of action;
5. The relief to which Anand was entitled.

The court ruled in Anand’s favor on the first issue, confirming his copyright ownership, and dismissed the fourth issue as unpressed. However, on the pivotal second and third issues, it found no infringement, dismissing the suit. Anand appealed to the Delhi High Court, which upheld the trial court’s decision. Anand then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Involved in the Case

1. What constitutes infringement of a copyright in a play when adapted into a film, and what tests should be applied to determine such infringement?
2. Whether the film New Delhi infringed the copyright of the play Hum Hindustani based on the facts and evidence presented.

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court examined numerous judgments from England, America, and India. It relied on the British Copyright Act of 1911.

• English Cases:
  • Hanfstaengl v. W.H. Smith & Sons ([1905] 1 Ch D 519)
  • Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill ([1964] 1 All ER 465)
  • Corelli v. Gray (29 TLR 578)
  • Hawkes & Son v. Paramount Film Service ([1934] 1 Ch D 593)
• American Cases:
  • Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Isidor Straus (210 US 339)
  • Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures (81 F 2d 49)
  • Shipman v. R.K.O. Radio Pictures (100 F 2d 533)
  • Warner Bros. v. Columbia Broadcasting (216 F 2d 945)
• Indian Cases:
  • Macmillan & Co. v. K. & J. Cooper (51 IA 109)
  • N.T. Raghunathan v. AIR Ltd. (AIR 1971 Bom 48)
  • C. Cunniah & Co. v. Balraj & Co. (AIR 1961 Mad 111)

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court outlined seven key propositions:

1. Copyright protects expression, not ideas.
2. Infringement only occurs with copying of fundamental expression.
3. The “average viewer” test is decisive.
4. Different treatment means no infringement.
5. Dissimilarities weaken copying allegations.
6. Strong, cogent proof is required for piracy.
7. Films must be examined in totality due to broader expression.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed Anand’s appeal and upheld the Delhi High Court’s ruling. No costs were awarded.

Law Settled in This Case

• Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
• Substantial and material copying is necessary for infringement.
• The “average observer” test is crucial.
• Different treatments of the same theme avoid infringement.
• Film adaptations of plays require strong evidence to prove piracy.

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539