Copyright infringement is the imitation of someone's original work without their permission. The role of copyright law becomes essential in protecting original work. There are provisions that grant the right to the appellant to file a suit in case of infringement. India did not have its own copyright law until 1957, which has undergone multiple amendments aimed at expanding the scope of protected work and copyright terms.

In contemporary India, the need for copyright laws has become more prominent with the rise of Artificial Intelligence, plagiarism, and content creation on social media. The landmark case of R.G. Anand v. M/S Deluxe Films & Ors. (1978) established the meaning of copyright infringement and the similarity test, which remains relevant in contemporary India.

Facts
The appellant, RG Anand produced a popular play called 'Hum Hindustani'. The second defendant, Sehgal, requested a copy of the play to produce a film. Thereafter, the parties met but there was no formal agreement. However, the film titled "New Delhi" was released. The appellant alleged that the defendant had dishonestly imitated the film and filed a case alleging that the film was an entire copy of the play, resulting in copyright infringement and seeking damages, account of profits, and a permanent injunction.

Legal Issues

• Is the appellant the owner of the copyright of the play?
• Is the film an infringement of the play?
• Have the defendants infringed the copyright by production and distribution of the film?
• Is the suit bad for misjoinder of defendants and their cause of action?
• What relief is the plaintiff entitled to and against whom?

Arguments Of Both Parties

Appellant:
The appellant argued that the play was narrated by the plaintiff to the defendant and then, the defendant has falsely made a film based entirely on the play resulting in an act of piracy. The petitioner further asserted that the film was similar to the play, the imitation of the movie has resulted in copyright infringement since it was produced without appellant's consent.

Defendant:
The defendants argued that they were unaware that the play was authored by the concerned plaintiff. Defendant no. 2, alleges that he requested the appellant for a copy of the play because while he was talking to Mr. Gargi about his interest to produce a film on 'provincialism', Mr. Gargi suggested the defendant to hear about the concerned play. Since the defendant refused to make a film on the play at that time, they are denying the claim of copyright infringement by alleging that the film was not based on the play since they have different components altogether.

Main Findings
The court found the plaintiff entitled to be the rightful owner of the play. Moreover, the suit was not considered as bad for the misjoinder of defendants. Regarding the core issue 2 and 3, the court ruled against the appellant and did not find any copyright infringement.  At the time of judgement, there was no law on copyright in India.

However, the court relied on English provision i.e. Copyright Act of 2011. Section 1(2)(d) defined 'copy-right' as a sole right to produce or reproduce any work in the field of literary, musical, or dramatic work. Further, Section (2) deals with breach of infringement right i.e. an act of using the original work without consent is copyright infringement. In Halsbury's law of England, the observation made was that only original work is protected under the Copyright Act of 1956. The protection is not given to just an 'idea' but its tangible form. It is concerned with the expression of thought in the form of words, pictures, or play.

Further, in many articles, copyright has been defined as a resemblance in a greater or lesser degree. The deciding factor is not the meaning given by the author to their work but the perspective of an ordinary observer. Therefore, this case lays down the 'similarity test'- the imitation made must be 'substantial' or 'material', a copy of work here and there does not amount to infringement. The 'substantial' part is decided as per the precedential case of Hanjastaengl v. Bains & Co. (1895) that it depends on the effect produced by the copy or design of the work on the mind.

On the basis of this, the 'test of resemblance' by a 'reasonable men' was identified in the case of C. Cunniah and Co. v. Balraj & Co. (1959), that the degree of resemblance is judged by the eye of the spectator who must get a suggestion that the defendant's work is the appellant's work. Such similarity would not lead to an infringement if it was a mere coincidence.

The cumulative or aggregate effect of the copy of the original work must be proved. Moreover, the cause of the similarities should be 'copying' and not due to the nature of subject matter. If there are dissimilarities, it would indicate that there was no intention of the defendant to copy the work of the appellant.

Relevance In Contemporary India

The Copyright Act, 1957 defines copyright as a collection of rights under Section 14. Further, Section 13 provides the classifications of copyright work: literary, music, dramatic, music, artistic work, cinematograph films, and sound recording. The guidelines provided by the case with regard to substantial similarity and the expression of 'idea' is still valid in the contemporary world and used extensively in various cases as follows:

1. Shree Ventakesh Films (SVF) v. Vipul Amrutlal Shah (2009): The judge addressed the legal definition of copying a film, where the concept of substantial similarity was used.
2. Twentieth Century Fox v. Zee Telefilms Ltd. (2012): The court cited the RG case, and found that the specific parts of a work should be compared. The emphasis should be on the expression of the idea to constitute copyright infringement.
3. Maddock Films Private Limited v. Shiboprasad Mukherjee (2017): The court ordered an injunction because there were substantial similarities between the films.
4. MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Limited (2019): The court emphasised on the idea of 'ordinary spectator' or 'test of reasonable men' established in the RG case.
5. Vinay Vats v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. (2020): The court again emphasised on the substantial similarity and reasonable men test to determine the similarity between the original and imitated work.

Further, in the recent case of South Trade Marketing & Distribution v. CG Foods (India) Private Limited, 2021 (Sunfeast wrapper case), the Karnataka High Court relied on RG Anand case and emphasised that substantial similarity between two works, rather than exact imitation, is sufficient to construe copyright infringement. Thus, by applying the test of a reasonable men, the court rules that the similarities between the Sunfeast wrapper and the plaintiff's design were substantially similar.

This case highlights the application of the principles of RG case to a wide range of intellectual property rights including trademark law. The rise of artificial intelligence has further underscored the importance of the principles established in the RG case. In the case of Otto Eisenchiml v. Fowcett Publications (1957), the chief judge observed that paraphrasing can constitute copyright infringement if it imitates existing original work with minor alterations.

AI tools such as ChatGPT, DeekSeek, often rework on existing copyrighted material, raising issues about copyright infringement. In addition to AI, the principles of RG Anand case have gained relevance in the social media sector, where the copying of content created by creators has increased scope of imitation in the form of remixes, memes, etc. This highlights the need for copyright laws to protect content posted on social media platforms, ensuring that original.

Also Read:

• Main findings in R.G Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978 SC) and its relevance today