The Delhi High Court has held that in a case where the author of the screenplay of the film is engaged pursuant to a contract with the producer, against remuneration, copyright in the screenplay would vest with the author and not in the producer.
Considering the provisions of the Copyright Act, the Court was of the view that by operation of Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act, the copyright in the screenplay, as a ‘literary work’, which stands vested by Section 13(1)(a), cannot be affected by the separate copyright in the cinematograph film itself, which, unquestionably, vests with the producer.
In respect of owner of the copyright in screenplay, the Court relied upon Section 17 and held that author of the screenplay would be the first owner of the copyright therein. It, in this regard, held that all the proviso of Section 17 were not applicable. In fact, considering clause (c) of the proviso to Section 17, the Court observed that use of the expression ‘contract of service’, especially in the company of the word ‘apprenticeship’ in clause (c) makes it clear that the clause does not apply to cases of a contract between equals.
The dispute in RDB and Co. HUF v. Harpercollins Publishers India Private Limited involved an assignment, by the heirs of the author (Defendants here) of the screenplay in the film ‘Nayak‘, with respect to the right to novelize the screenplay, which would amount to ‘reproduction of the work in any material form’. Dismissing the case of the Plaintiff-Producer of the film, the Court also rejected the plea regarding bearing of all expenses of the film by the Plaintiff. The Court, for this purpose, also distinguished various decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
It may be noted that the High Court, however, rejected the contention of the Defendant that since the increase of the term of the copyright was affected by an amendment in 1993 (by Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1993), which took place after the commencement of the copyright of the Plaintiff, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the benefit thereof. Relying on Section 3 of the 1993 Amendment, the Court ruled that where the copyright in the concerned work had not expired prior to the coming into force of the 1993 Amendment Act, the copyright holder would be entitled to the benefit of the amendment, which increased the life of a copyright from 50 years to 60 years.