Human Behaviour Can't Fall Under Copyright Law, Right To Privacy Only Covers 'Intrinsic Part Of Personality': Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court made it clear that the mere existence of certain facts constituting human conduct or chains of events signifying human behavior, as such, cannot be made a subject matter of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957.The Court was hearing an appeal filed by T-series against an injunction order of a Trial Court restraining them from releasing a movie, 'Dear...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court made it clear that the mere existence of certain facts constituting human conduct or chains of events signifying human behavior, as such, cannot be made a subject matter of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by T-series against an injunction order of a Trial Court restraining them from releasing a movie, 'Dear Jassi'.
The movie was based on the alleged 'honor killing' of a woman, whose marriage was not accepted by her family. An injunction suit was filed by the company which stated to have taken permission to make the movie from the husband of the deceased woman.
T-series argued that the movie was based on a book, which covered the couple's story and they had purchased the right to make the film from the author of the book.
Perusing Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which gives the provision for "Meaning of copyright", Justice Rajbir Sehrawat said, "Mere existence of certain facts constituting a human conduct or chain of events signifying a human behaviour, as such, cannot be made a subject matter over which claim of copyright can be asserted by any person. Mere existence of an idea or existence of fact or set of facts, per se, and without involving of talent, intelligence or effort by a person in converting the same into a work, by any means, cannot be stated to be a 'work' as required under the Copyright Act, qua which a person can assert his copyright."
The Court clarified that in the present case, the life story of Sukhwinder Singh (husband of the woman who was allegedly murdered in honor killing), as such, cannot be the subject matter of copyright, though it may entitle her husband to some other protections under some other law and for some different purposes.
The Court held that the husband did not have any right even to assign the copyright to the respondent-Company,.
It noted that the other hand, the appellants asserted that they had purchased the right to make a film on an existing book from the author of the book, namely, Fabian Dawson.
It observed that the said book contains the story of Jaswinder Kaur. Therefore, the story of Jaswinder Kaur, and incidentally part of the life of Sukhwinder Singh, were already part of the literary work created by Fabian Dawson and as such the appellants have got a legal right to make a film on the said book, the judge added.
These observations came in response to the plea filed by T-series and others challenging the order passed by ADJ, Ludhiana whereby the interim application filed by M/s Dreamline Reality Movies was allowed while restraining the appellants from producing, telecasting, selling, or releasing the movie under the name of "Dear Jassi" or with any other name till final decision of the case.
The appellants submitted that they purchased the right to make a film on the book written by Dawson, by paying an authorization fee.
When the appellants intended to release the said film, M/s Dreamline Reality Movies, who claimed to have purchased the rights to make a film from respondent Sukhwinder Singh @ Mithu, who was the husband of the Jaswinder Kaur, filed a suit for injunction praying for restraining the appellants from exhibiting the film made by them.
Dreamland Movies relied upon an agreement entered into with Sukhwinder Singh, which they claimed was signed prior to the production of the movie by the appellants.
Respondents argued that the story of Sukhwinder Singh, husband of Jaswinder Kaur, was also involved in the film and therefore, the appellants could not have made a movie on the events relating to even Jaswinder Kaur; without his permission.
It was argued that since the permission to make a movie on their life had been purchased by Dreamland Movies, they had a copyright over the story of Sukhwinder Singh.
After, hearing the submissions, the Court noted that it was not disputed that the life story of Jaswinder Kaur included her murder by alleged 'honour killing' because the family of Kaur had not accepted her love story and consequent marriage with Sukhwinder Singh.
It was noted that the entire aspect of the life story of Jaswinder Kaur had been part of the court records in Canada in the extradition proceedings, as well as, court records in Indian courts where the trial of the family members of Jaswinder Kaur was conducted.
Justice Sehrawat further noted that the aspect of honour killing of Jaswinder Kaur had undisputedly been published in media and social media, and five other films on the subject had already been made, making the matter a part of the public domain.
"Respondent No.1(Dreamland Company), cannot legitimately claim any copyright over the said love story and the consequent murder,"said the Court.
Right To Privacy Would Involve Only Those Part Of One's Personality Which Is Intrinsic
The Court rejected the argument that the making of the movie would be a violation of the right to privacy of Sukhwinder Singh relying on Apex Court's decision in K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India. It held:
"The right to privacy would involve only those parts of one's individuality and personality which are intrinsic and attached to his very existence as a human being. and also his orientations and choices which are unique to him and have no relation to any other human being. When a person comes out of his unique personal sphere and indulges in social sphere and social intercourse, then such part of his individuality which pertains to interpersonal relations or social choices or social consequences would not be encompassed unconditionally in his right to privacy."
It added that such part of his individuality or personality, would be amenable to commercial exploitation as per his own choice and be governed by law, such as the Copyright Act or the law relating to defamation, etc.
The Court also opined that since the exhibition of the film is for commercial purposes and an outcome of the exhibition of the film would result only in generation finance, it cannot be said that the Dreamland movie company would suffer any irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in terms of money if the appellants are not restrained from exhibiting the film by an interim order.
In light of the above, the Court set aside the injunction restraining T-series from releasing the movie.
Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Advocates Abhinav Sood, Amit Naik, Deepak Deshmukh, Madhu Gadodia, Anmol Gupta, and Achintya Soni. Advocate for the appellants.
Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Saksham Mahain, Advocate and Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Citation: LiveLaw 2024 (PH) 64
Title: T-Series (also known as Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited), New Delhi & another v. M/s. Dreamline Reality Movies, Mohali & others