Case Study: R.G Anand v. M/S. Delux Films & Ors

“Copyright protection extends only to the expression of an idea, not to the idea, theme, plot, or subject matter itself. To constitute a breach of copyright, the alleged infringing work must involve substantial and material copying of the original expression, not merely the same idea or plot.”

Citation: AIR 1978 SC 1613

Date of Judgment: 18^th August, 1978

Court: Supreme Court of India     

Bench:  Syed Murtaza Fazalali (J), Jaswant Singh (J), R.S. Pathak (J)

Facts

• R.G. Anand, a renowned playwright, dramatist, and producer of stage plays, wrote a play titled Hum Hindustani in 1953. The play was first performed in 1954 and was met with considerable success, gaining widespread popularity among audiences. Its success continued through re-performances in subsequent years, which elevated its reputation as a hit theatrical production.
• After the widespread success of Hum Hindustani, R.G. Anand began contemplating adapting the play into a motion picture, hoping to capitalize on its popularity in the film industry. His intent was to bring the essence of the stage play to the silver screen, expanding its reach and appeal.
• Around this time, Mohan Sehgal, a film producer and director, came to know of Anand’s intent to adapt Hum Hindustani into a film. In 1955, Sehgal approached R.G. Anand, expressing interest in collaborating on the project. He requested a copy of the script, indicating his intent to turn it into a film. However, after a brief discussion and receiving the copy of the play, Sehgal did not pursue the matter further and did not revert to Anand regarding his plans.
• Sometime later, R.G. Anand learned that Mohan Sehgal was producing a film titled New Delhi. Upon hearing about the film, Anand suspected that the movie might be based on his play Hum Hindustani, as the themes and characters seemed familiar. He confronted Sehgal about the possibility that the film had copied elements from his play. Sehgal, however, assured Anand that New Delhi was an entirely original work and not a copy of Hum Hindustani.
• Despite the assurances, R.G. Anand watched New Delhi upon its release in 1956. After viewing the film, Anand became convinced that it had substantial similarities to his stage play Hum Hindustani, both in terms of the story and the overall concept. He believed the film had imitated his play without authorization, thereby infringing on his copyright.
• Following his belief that New Delhi was an imitation of his play, Anand filed a suit for copyright infringement in the Delhi Trial Court. He sought a permanent injunction against Mohan Sehgal and the production company, claiming that the film was a copy of his copyrighted work, Hum Hindustani. Anand argued that the respondent had unlawfully breached his copyright by producing a movie that replicated the core themes, characters, and storyline of his play.

Decision of trial court

The Trial Court in Delhi, after hearing the arguments, dismissed Anand’s claims. The court held that while Anand was indeed the copyright owner of Hum Hindustani, there was no substantial similarity between the play and the film New Delhi. The court concluded that the themes and ideas in both works were generic, and the movie did not infringe upon Anand’s copyright. The request for a permanent injunction against the respondent was therefore denied.

Decision of the Delhi High Court

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the Trial Court, R.G. Anand appealed to the Delhi High Court, seeking to overturn the previous judgment. He contended that the Trial Court had erred in its assessment of the similarities between the play and the film. However, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court, agreeing that there was no infringement of copyright. The High Court ruled that the play and the film were not identical in any substantial way and that copyright protection did not extend to ideas or concepts but only to their expression.

Decision of the Supreme Court (Special Leave Petition)

With both the Trial Court and High Court ruling against him, R.G. Anand sought to challenge these judgments in the Supreme Court of India. He filed a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution,[1] requesting the Supreme Court to examine the matter. Anand argued that his intellectual property rights had been violated by the respondent’s film and urged the Court to recognize the similarities between the two works as copyright infringement.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court, concluding that there was no breach of copyright in the case. The Court held that although the plaintiff’s play “Hum Hindustani” and the defendants’ film “New Delhi” shared the central theme of provincialism, the similarities were minimal and non-actionable. The Supreme Court emphasized that mere ideas or themes, such as provincialism, do not enjoy copyright protection; only the manner of presentation and execution of such ideas can be copyrighted. The Court further observed that both works had distinct storylines and characters, with multiple plots in the film that were absent in the play, which made any claim of replication unsustainable.

The Court concluded that an ordinary viewer would not detect any substantial similarity between the two works, and therefore, there was no breach of the plaintiff’s copyright. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s plea, confirming the judgments of the lower courts.

The Supreme Court, in addressing the breach of copyright, laid down the following key principles:

1. No Copyright in Ideas: Copyright does not extend to ideas, themes, plots, subject matter, or historical facts. These are considered common property and are available for anyone to use and express in their own creative manner. Only the expression of these ideas, through tangible or artistic form, can be copyrighted.
2. Presentation and Expression: It is not the idea or the plot itself that can be protected by copyright, but rather how these are developed and presented. Copyright applies to the form, arrangement, and manner in which an idea is expressed. Where the same idea is executed differently, it constitutes originality and does not lead to a violation of copyright.
3. Test for Infringement: A breach of copyright occurs only when the defendant’s work is a substantial and material reproduction of the copyrighted work. A key test is whether, upon viewing both works, an ordinary observer (spectator or reader) perceives that the new work is essentially a copy of the original. This test is based on the “totality of impression” of the work.
4. Dissimilarities Over Similarities: Even if there are similarities between two works, if there are significant dissimilarities in style, content, or treatment, it negates the claim of copying. The existence of material and broad dissimilarities indicates that the intention was not to replicate the original.
5. Substantial Copying: To prove infringement, the plaintiff must show that the alleged infringing work involves substantial and material copying of the copyrighted work, not just minor or incidental similarities. The infringement must be such that it leads to the conclusion of piracy.
6. Piracy and Proof: Copyright violation is akin to piracy, and therefore, must be proved with clear, cogent evidence. The plaintiff carries the burden of proof to establish that the defendant’s work amounts to an act of copying their copyrighted work.
7. Films vs. Plays: The Court acknowledged that proving copyright infringement in the case of a play versus a film is more challenging due to the broader scope of a film, which includes multiple elements (e.g., visuals, sound, and broader themes). However, if the totality of the film’s impression aligns significantly with the original play, a breach of copyright can be established.

Key legal issues discussed

1. Whether the plaintiff is the copyright owner of the play “Hum Hindustani”?

Yes

The plaintiff is indeed the copyright owner of the play “Hum Hindustani.” As a dramatic work, it falls within the ambit of copyright protection under Section 1(2)(d) of the Indian Copyright Act.[2] However, this ownership does not automatically imply that there has been any infringement based solely on thematic similarities between the play and the film. The Court emphasized that ideas, themes, or plots are not subject to copyright protection. Copyright only protects the specific form and manner in which those ideas are expressed. Therefore, two works can have the same theme (such as provincialism), but as long as they are expressed differently, there is no infringement.

2. Is the film “New Delhi” an infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in the play “Hum Hindustani”?

No

The Supreme Court ruled that the film “New Delhi” was not an infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright. While both works shared a central theme of provincialism, the film presented several plots and characters that were not part of the play. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that similarities in the idea or theme alone do not constitute copyright infringement, as copyright law protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. The differences in execution and narrative between the film and the play outweighed any thematic similarities, leading the Court to rule that there was no infringement.

For an infringement to be actionable, the copying must be substantial and material. The Court held that if a viewer or reader, after assessing both works, perceives one as an imitation of the other, infringement may be established. However, this was not the case in “Hum Hindustani” and “New Delhi,” as the overall impressions of the two works were distinct.

Before ruling, the Court observed as follows,” … an idea, principle, theme or subject matter, or historical or legendary facts, being common property, cannot be the subject matter of copyright of a particular person. It is always open to any person to choose an idea as a subject-matter and develop it in his own manner and give expression to the idea by treating it differently from others. Where two writers write on the same subject similarities are bound to occur because the central idea of both is same, and the similarities or dissimilarities or coincidences by themselves cannot lead to an irresistible inference of plagiarism or piracy.”

3. Have the defendants or any of them infringed the plaintiff’s copyright by producing, distributing, or exhibiting the film “New Delhi”?

No

The Court held that the defendants did not infringe the plaintiff’s copyright by producing, distributing, or exhibiting the film “New Delhi.” The film’s presentation, characters, and subplots were distinct from the play “Hum Hindustani,” and the Court determined that there was no substantial copying of the plaintiff’s work. The film’s broader perspective and scope, as opposed to the more focused narrative of a play, meant that incidental similarities were unavoidable but not actionable. Therefore, the defendants were not guilty of copyright infringement.

4. Whether there is copyright in ideas?

No

The Supreme Court made it clear that copyright protection does not extend to mere ideas, plots, themes, or historical facts. Copyright law protects the particular expression, form, arrangement, and presentation of ideas, but not the ideas themselves. The Court noted that it is common for different authors or creators to work on similar themes, and such thematic overlap does not amount to infringement unless the manner of expression is substantially similar to the point of replication. Therefore, there is no copyright in ideas, and only the distinctive manner in which those ideas are expressed can be protected.

[1] The Indian Constitution, art. 136.

[2] The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, s. 1(2)(d).