R.G. Anand v. Delux Films
Supreme Court of India · 18 August 1978 · 3 judges · 1978 AIR 1613; 1979 SCR (1) 218; 1978 SCC (4) 118
There is no copyright in an idea or theme, only in its form and expression; the film 'New Delhi' was not a substantial or material copy of the play 'Hum Hindustani', so no infringement was proved.
Facts
The appellant, an architect and playwright, wrote the Hindi play 'Hum Hindustani' in 1953 and first staged it in February 1954, on provincialism shown through a Punjabi and a Madrasi family opposing their children's marriage. The second defendant wrote seeking a copy with a view to filming it, and in early 1955 the appellant narrated the play to him in Delhi. The defendants then produced the film 'New Delhi', released in September 1956. Believing it copied his play, the appellant sued for damages, accounts of profits and an injunction. The District Judge dismissed the suit and the Delhi High Court affirmed. In the Supreme Court the play was read out by the appellant and the Judges saw the film.
Questions before the Court
- Can copyright subsist in an idea, theme or plot, as distinct from its expression?
- What tests decide whether a film infringes the copyright in a stage play?
- Did the film 'New Delhi' infringe the copyright in the play 'Hum Hindustani'?
What the Court held
- There is no copyright in an idea, subject matter, theme, plot or historical or legendary facts; protection is confined to the form, manner, arrangement and expression of the idea.
- Where the same idea is developed differently, similarities are bound to occur. To be actionable, the copy must be substantial and material, so that the similarities are on fundamental aspects of the mode of expression.
- A safe test is whether the reader or viewer, having seen both works, gets an unmistakable impression that the later work is a copy. Where the theme is treated so differently that a new work results, or broad dissimilarities negative an intention to copy, there is no infringement. Piracy must be proved by clear and cogent evidence.
- Infringement of a play by a film is harder to prove because a film has a wider canvas, but if the viewer gets a totality of impression that the film is by and large a copy, infringement is proved.
- Here the similarities were trivial and explained by the common idea of provincialism, while the film added new themes such as dowry and caste. It was not a colourable imitation, and the appeal was dismissed.
Why it matters
The judgment sets out seven propositions on infringement of copyright in literary and dramatic works, including the rule that ideas and themes are not protected, the test of substantial and material copying, and the 'unmistakable impression' test from the viewpoint of the reader or viewer, with a specific rule for adaptations of plays into films. Pathak, J. warned that courts must look strictly at colourable imitation disguised by immaterial changes.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Thus, on a careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above, the following propositions emerge: 1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyright work.”
“3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to seeing the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original. 4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises.”
“Thus, applying the principles enunciated above and the various tests laid down to determine whether in a particular case there has been a violation of the copyright we are of the opinion that the film produced by the defendants cannot be said to be a substantial or material copy of the play written by the plaintiff. We also find that the treatment of the film and the manner of its presentation on the screen is quite different from the one written by the plaintiff at the stage.”
“In another, and perhaps a clearer case, it may be necessary for this Court to interfere and remove the impression which may have gained ground that the copyright belonging to an author can be readily infringed by making immaterial changes, introducing insubstantial differences and enlarging the scope of the original theme so that a veil of apparent dissimilarity is thrown around the work now produced.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 1(2)(d), Copyright Act, 1911 (UK)
- Section 2(1), Copyright Act, 1911 (UK)
Case and bench
- Parties
- R.G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 2030 of 1968
- Decided
- 18 August 1978
- Bench
- Syed Murtaza Fazalali, Jaswant Singh, R.S. Pathak
- Opinions
- Unanimous in result. Fazal Ali, J. wrote the leading judgment; Jaswant Singh, J. concurred fully with it; Pathak, J. concurred in dismissing the appeal only because of the concurrent findings of fact, doubting whether he would have agreed on the facts.
Questions on this case
From free Law Maker papers. Try each one before you open the answer.
Question 1 · Intellectual Property Law Practice Set 1
In R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978), the Supreme Court laid down which of the following as one of the surest tests for deciding whether a later work infringes copyright in an earlier work?
- A. Whether a viewer, after seeing both works, gets an unmistakable impression that the later work is a copy
- B. Whether the later work has earned any commercial profits from scenes that resemble the scenes in the earlier work
- C. Whether the author of the later work had access to the earlier work at any time before he began creating it
- D. Whether the later work uses the same theme or idea as the earlier one, whatever its treatment
Show the answer
A. Whether a viewer, after seeing both works, gets an unmistakable impression that the later work is a copy
R.G. Anand held that there is no copyright in an idea, theme or plot, only in its expression, and that one of the surest tests is whether the reader, spectator or viewer, having seen both works, gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work is a copy of the original. The Court found no infringement of the play by the film on the facts.