AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I. David Christian, J.—All the three suits have been filed with regard to copyrights relating to Tamil motion picture ''GURU SISHYAN''.
C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 is filed by Mrs. Meena Panchu Arunachalam, Proprietrix of M/s. P.A. Art Productions alleging that she is in the business
of production of motion pictures, that during the course of her business, she produced a Tamil movie film titled ''Guru Sishyan'' starring Rajnikanth,
Prabhu, etc., that the picture was directed by S.P. Muthuraman, that the Plaintiff as producer and first owner of copyrights, has assigned
distribution rights to various third party distributors retaining herself the Satellite rights among other rights, that satellite rights have not been assigned
to any person by the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff is vested with Satellite right of the picture ''Guru Sishyan'', that the Plaintiff entered into an agreement
with the Second Defendant on 22.7.1991, that as per the agreement, the Second Defendant was given specific copyrights and lease rights of the
said picture for exhibition and exploitation in 35mm dimension, that right to broadcast the picture through Satellite television was not given to the
Second Defendant, that while so the First Defendant claiming to be an assignee under the Second Defendant has announced telecasting of the
picture ''Guru Sishyan'' through its Satellite Television Network on 25.10.1994, that the First Defendant has no right to telecast the suit picture
through Satellite television, that the proposed telecast is illegal and in act of infringement of the Plaintiffs limited copyright, that the Second
Defendant has no manner of right over the limited copyright, namely Satellite telecasting rights of the picture, that the agreement entered between
the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant does not even contain any specific word ''Satellite'', that therefore assignment made in favour of the First
Defendant by the Second Defendant is illegal, that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copyright, namely the Satellite right of the picture
''Guru Sishyan'', that in view of the attitude of the Defendants, the Plaintiff is constrained to file this Suit for declaration that the Plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the copyright, namely Satellite rights for the entire world of the picture ''Guru Sishyan'' and a consequential injunction restraining
the Defendants from telecasting the said picture through satellite T.V.
First Defendant is M/s. Sun T.V., an Unit of Sumangali Publications Private Limited, Chennai and it filed a written statement contesting the claim of
the Plaintiff by contending that the Suit is not maintainable, that the Plaintiff is the producer of the picture ''Guru Sishyan'' in Tamil, that by the
agreement dated 22.7.1991, the Plaintiff has assigned the copyright and lease rights in favour of the Second Defendant, that the agreement
specifically provides that copyright has been assigned in favour of the Second Defendant for a period of 99 years from 22.7.1991, that the Plaintiff
has assigned the said rights in favour of the Second Defendant for a perpetual period of 99 years, that the Second Defendant has been given the
rights to deal with the negatives of the picture in any manner whatsoever as absolute owner, that the assignment deed dated 22.7.1991 in favour of
the Second Defendant is in respect of distribution exploitation and lease rights of the said picture all over the world, that the Plaintiff has irrevocably
authorized M/s. Gemini Colour Laboratory to transfer the negatives in the name of the Second Defendant as absolute owner of the negatives and
requested the lab to act according to the instructions of the Second Defendant, that the Second Defendant has thus become the absolute owner of
the copyright of the said picture, that the Plaintiff has not retained for herself the Satellite rights as claimed by her, that the Second Defendant has
been given right to deal with the negatives of the picture, that no right has been reserved in favour of the Producer under the said agreement, that
whatever rights available with the Plaintiff at the time of assignment have been transferred to the Second Defendant, that the Second Defendant has
assigned the world negative rights in respect of the said picture obtained under the agreement dated 22.7.1991 from the Plaintiff to M/s. O.K.
Films, that M/s. O.K. Films have assigned the copyright with regard to Satellite Television Broadcast of the Suit picture in favour of the M/s.
Nemichand Jabak by a Deed of Assignment dated 3.1.1993, that said Nemichand Jabak in turn has assigned the Satellite rights in favour of this
Defendant on 4.1.1993, that thus this Defendants has become entitled to telecast the said picture through Satellite Television, that since the Plaintiff
has assigned the entire copyright of the picture in favour of the Second Defendant, she cannot lay any claim in respect of satellite television rights,
that the claim of the Plaintiff cannot be sustained, that this Defendant has got the right to telecast the picture through Satellite Television, that there is
nothing illegal in this Defendant telecasting the picture through Satellite Television in its network, that therefore the Suit is liable to be dismissed and
the Plaintiff is not entitled to declaration or injunction prayed for in the Suit. M/s. O.K. Films, who have assigned the Satellite Television rights in
favour of this Defendant have given a letter to M/s. Gemini Colour Laboratory to deliver the negatives of the picture for making U-matic Tapes to
M/s. Nemichand Jabak and that the Plaintiff has lost her rights in respect of negatives of the film.
Second Defendant in the suit is Ramesh and said Ramesh along with M/s. O.K. Films filed C.S. No. 1357 of 1995 raising the following
contentions:-
Defendant is the Producer of the Tamil Talkie Movie titled ''Guru Sishyan'' in 35mm Colour featuring Rajinikanth, Prabhu, Gowthami and others,
directed by S.P. Muthuraman, that the defendant offered to assign the absolute and exclusive copyright over the negative rights of the Suit picture
for a perpetual period of 99 years from 14.4.1993 to the Second Plaintiff free from all encumbrances, that the Second Plaintiff accepted the same,
that under a Deed of Assignment dated 22.7.1991 the defendant has assigned the entire negative rights of the Suit picture in favour of the Second
Plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs, that as per Clause 2 of the said agreement, the perpetual negative rights for a period of 99 years has
been granted to the Second Plaintiff which includes the distribution, exhibition and exploitation and lease rights of the picture all over the world, that
the defendant has also issued an irrevocable letter to Gemini Colour Laboratory, Madras requesting it to transfer and deliver the picture and sound
negative in favour of the Second Plaintiff from 14.4.1993, that on 23.7.1991 the Second Plaintiff has assigned the said rights in favour of the First
Plaintiff has assigned the said rights in favour of the First Plaintiff as per the agreement entered between them, that the First Plaintiff has thus
become entitled to exclusive world negative rights including the copyrights and lease rights of the said picture, that the First Plaintiff has become
entitled to world Television Display Rights, Audio Rights and all other rights in all dimensions for a period of 99 years, that the First Plaintiff paid
valuable consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the Second Plaintiff, that negative rights have been transferred to the First Plaintiff, that Gemini Colour
Laboratory has been addressed by the Second Plaintiff, that the Producer-Defendant filed C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 before this Court with a prayer
for declaration of her telecasting rights, that the said Suit is also pending, that the First Plaintiff is negotiating for the assignment of dubbing rights of
the said picture, that the Defendant is interfering with the prospective assignees falsely claiming that she retains dubbing rights, that the Defendant
has no dubbing rights, that she has transferred all the rights in favour of the Second Plaintiff, that the First Plaintiff has now become the sole owner
of copyrights of Tamil film ''Guru Sishyan'', that therefore the Plaintiffs are constrained to file the Suit praying for a declaration that the First Plaintiff
is the sole and exclusive holder of World negative rights including of copyright and they are also entitled to World Satellite Television Display
rights, that an injunction may also be granted against the Defendant from interfering with the right of exploitation of the picture in any manner by the
Defendants.
The Defendant Mrs. Meena Panchu Arunachalam, Proprietrix of M/s. P.A. Art Productions, filed a written statement raising the same
contentions, which she has raised in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 filed by her.
M/s. Sun T.V., an Unit of M/s. Sumangali Publications Private Limited has filed C.S. No. 103 of 1995 impleading one Meena Panchu
Arunachalam and M/s. Raj Television Network Limited as Defendants 1 and 2 making the following allegations:
The Plaintiff is carrying on business in exhibiting motion pictures through their Unit SUN T.V. through Satellite Television Broadcast, that the
Plaintiff has obtained negatives of the picture from the Laboratory with the consent of the Producer for transferring it to U-matic tapes, that
broadcasting through Satellite Television is done from Mania in Philippines, that broadcast is made over 52 countries, that in the course of
business, the Plaintiff has acquired Satellite Television broadcast rights of the picture ''Guru Sishyan'', that the First Defendant is the Producer of the
said movie, that the First Defendant as Producer originally no doubt was entitled to all copyrights, that she has assigned the entire world negative
rights in favour of one S.P. Ramesh as per the agreement dated 22.7.1991, that the agreement specifically provides that said Ramesh, the assignee,
is entitled to entire copyright of the picture free from all encumbrances, that negatives themselves were transferred in the name of Ramesh for a
period 99 years, that Ramesh became entitled to deal with the negative rights in any manner whatsoever as absolute owner, that Ramesh has
assigned all the rights to M/s. O.K. Films, who in turn has assigned the said rights in favour of Nemichand Jabak, that Nemichand Jabak by an
agreement dated 4.1.1993 assigned the Satellite right in favour of the Plaintiff, that as per the Assignment Deed the Plaintiff has thus become
entitled to Satellite T.V. Broadcast right of the picture ''Guru Sishyan'', that no other person is entitled to the said right of the picture, that in fact the
Plaintiff has already made a broadcast of the picture in their Satellite Network on 30.5.1993, that this is known to the Defendants, that M/s. O.K.
Films by a letter dated 5.1.1993 asked M/s. Gemini Colour Laboratory to deliver negatives for making U-matic tapes, that the First Defendant
cannot seek to assign any right for Satellite Transmission of the picture to anybody else, that the First Defendant having assigned Satellite rights in
favour of Ramesh cannot raise any objection for Satellite broadcast of the film by this Plaintiff, that the Second Defendant has now advertised the
picture for exhibition in Satellite Television on 15.1.1995, that the Second Defendant claims to have obtained Satellite right from the First
Defendant, but she herself is not entitled to any rights, that in view of the announcement made by the Second Defendant, the Plaintiff is constrained
to file this Suit for declaration that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Satellite rights of the picture ""Guru Sishyan'', that it is also entitled for
permanent injunction restraining the Second Defendant from telecasting the picture ''Guru Sishyan'' through Satellite Communication Network and
hence the Suit.
First Defendant Mrs. Meena Panchu Arunachalam filed a written statement raising the same contentions which aware of the Plaintiff
broadcasting the picture through its Satellite Television on 30.5.1993, that the Plaintiff has no right to do so, that this Defendant has assigned
World Satellite rights for perpetual period in favour of the Second Defendant Raj Television Network, that the Second Defendant has got right to
broadcast the picture through their Satellite Network, that what has been assigned to M/s. O.K. Films is only the right to exploit the picture in
35mm and that therefore the Suit may be dismissed.
Second Defendant M/s. Raj Television Network, Madras filed a written statement contesting the claim of the Plaintiff by contending that the
picture ''Guru Sishyan'' in Tamil was produced by the First Defendant, that the First Defendant has also assigned 35mm rights in favour of one
Ramesh, that the Plaintiff has not obtained the Satellite rights in respect of the said picture from the assignees of Ramesh, that therefore the
agreement entered between the Plaintiff and the persons claiming under Ramesh cannot confer owner of the copyright, namely Satellite Television
Broadcast right that the agreement under which the Plaintiff claims is only in favour of Sumangali Publications Private Limited, that there is no
assignment in favour of the Plaintiff M/s. Sun T.V., that the Suit filed by the Plaintiff is therefore not maintainable that this Defendant has become
entitled to Satellite Television right of the picture ''Guru Sishyan'' under a letter of arrangement entered between himself and the Producer Mrs.
Meena Panchu Arunachalam dated 20.11.1994, that therefore this Defendant is entitled to broadcast the picture through his Satellite Television
Network, that therefore the Suit is liable to be dismissed.
The following issues were framed for trial in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994:
(1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his copyright - Satellite Television right of the Suit Picture?
(2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?
(3) To what relief the Plaintiff is entitled, if any?
The following issues were framed for trial in C.S. No. 103 of 1995:-
(1) Whether the Suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable?
(2) Whether the assignment of Satellite Television right by Ramesh is valid and enforceable?
(3) Whether the Second Defendant has obtained Satellite Television rights in the Suit picture?
(4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and injunction prayed for?
(5) To any other relief, the parties entitled?
Following issues were framed for trial in C.S. No. 1357 of 1995:
(1) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that they are the exclusive holders of World negative rights including World Satellite Television
rights for the picture ''Guru Sishyan''?
(2) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to injunction?
Three suits are in respect of World Satellite Television rights claimed by the three Plaintiffs in respect of Tamil movie ""GURU SISHYAN''.
Admittedly the film was produced by Meena Panchu Arunachalam under the banner M/s. P.A. Art Productions and she has filed CS. No. 1493 of
1994 impleading M/s. Sun T.V. and one S.P. Ramesh as Defendants 1 and 2. S.P. Ramesh along with one M/s. O.K. Films has filed C.S. No.
1357 of 1995 claiming to have obtained the entire world negative rights including Satellite Television rights in respect of the same picture. M/s.
O.K. Films, however, would claim to have assigned Satellite Television rights in favour of one Nemichand Jakab from whom M/s. Sun T.V. is said
to have obtained the rights. M/s. Sun T.V. an unit of Sumangali Publications Private Limited in turn has filed C.S. No. 103 of 1995 claiming to
have obtained World Satellite Television rights in respect of the same movie. Since the issue involved all are common, since parties are all same,
with the consent of parties to the suits, all the three suits were ordered to be tried jointly and common evidence was recorded in CS. No. 1493 of
1994 which was agreed to be treated as evidence for the other two suits also. Both sides have not adduced any oral evidence and the Defendants
filed Exs. B-1, B-2 and B-3 documents only. Both sides have made submissions based on these documents.
While discussing the issues, parties are referred to as they are arrayed in CS. No. 1493 of 1994 and M/s. Raj Television Network, the Second
Defendant in the Suit filed by Sun T.V. C.S. No. 103 of 1995 will be referred to in his name for convenient reference hereinafter.
ISSUE No. 1 in C.S. Nos. 1493 of 1994 & 1357 of 1995 and ISSUE Nos. 1 to 3 in C.S. No. 103 of 1995
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Plaintiff Mrs. Meena Panchu Arunachalam is the Producer of the Tamil film ''GURU
SISHYAN'' starring Rajinikanth, Prabhu and others and directed by S.P. Muthuraman and the picture was released prior to 1991 under the
banner M/s P.A. Art Productions. So, Meena Panchu Arunachalam as the Producer of Cinematograph film she is the author and first owner of
copyrights in respect of the picture ''Guru Sishyan''. it is also not in dispute that the release of the picture was made by the Plaintiff through various
distributors through out Tamil Nadu and other centers and those distributors have got only right to exploit the picture in 35mm by screening them in
various cinema theatres in Tamil Nadu and other places. Meena Panchu Arunachalam has chosen to deal with copyright of the said picture of
whole for the first time under Ex.B-2, a deed of assignment of copyright dated 22.7.1991.
Ex.B-2 assignment has been made in favour of the Second Defendant Ramesh by Meena Panchu Arunachalam, the Producer of the picture. In
the preamble portion of the assignment deed, it is stated that assignors are the producers of the Tamil Talkies picture ''Guru Sishyan'', that the
picture has already been released throughout the World and the rights in respect of the distribution, exhibition and exploitation granted to various
distributors as mentioned in Annexure-I would expire on 13.4.1993 and the above said rights will come into force to the assignee after the expiry
of the lease period of these persons. Even in the preamble, the Plaintiff has made it very clear that initial assignment of copyright of the picture
''Guru Sishyan'' has been transferred at the time of release of the picture to various distributors and they have obtained rights in respect of
distribution, exploitation and exhibition of the Tamil picture ''Guru Sishyan'' and those rights will come to the assignee Ramesh after expiry of the
lease period of those distributors. It is also found in the preamble of the assignment deed that the Producer has offered to assign the sole, absolute
and exclusive copyright over the negative rights of the said picture for a perpetual period of 99 years from 14.4.1993 in favour of the assignee
Ramesh. Consideration of the assignment is Rs. 2 lakhs.
Clause-1 of Ex.B-2 assignment deed reads as follows:
.....the Assignor agrees to transfer and assign the copyrights and lease rights of the said picture titled ''GURU SISHYAN'' in 35mm colour for a
period ninety-nine years from 14th April 1993.
The Perpetual negative rights for a period of ninety-nine years herein hereby granted includes the distribution, exhibition and exploitation and lease
rights of the said Picture all over the World from 14th April 1993.
The Assignor herein hereby agrees to irrevocably authorise Gemini Colour Laboratory, Madras where the negatives (both Picture and sound) are
kept to transfer the negatives in the name of the assignee and to keep the same in their name as absolute owners of the negatives for perpetual
period of 99 years and act only according to their instructions and to deal with the negatives of the said Picture with the Assignee in any manner
whatsoever as absolute owners in future for a period of 99 years.
The assignor goes on to assure that no encumbrance has been created or subsisting in respect of the rights conferred on the assignee. The
assignor has also agreed to execute all further documents and letters addressed to public authorities and bodies like the Film Chamber of
Commerce or any other Government Institutions for the purpose of effect enjoyment and perfecting the ownership rights of the said picture for a
period of 99 years from 14.4.1993. The Assignee shall be entitled to apply for and obtain necessary censor certificate, permits. The assignor has
also agreed to give necessary letters to South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce and the Central Board of Film Censors, Madras for further
certification of the picture. She has also given an irrevocable letter to Gemini Colour Laboratory, Madras intimating the transfer of rights for a
period of 99 years in favour of the assignee Ramesh. It is further stated that the assignors are entitled to take any number of prints of the said
picture for meeting out the existing commitments of various distributors till the expiry of the present term of lease, which ends on 13.4.1993. The
assignee could have no manner of objection to this.
14-A. So, a reading of Ex. B-2 agreement under which the other Defendants claim rights would show that S.P. Ramesh has been assigned
copyrights in respect of negatives of the film ''Guru Sishyan'' for exhibition and exploitation of the said picture all over the world for a period of 99
years. It is also admitted by both the parties in the said deed that rights transferred to Ramesh are only the rights which have been earlier
transferred in favour of various distributors at the time of the release till 13.4.1991. It is not in dispute that those distributors only enjoyed the right
of exhibition and exploitation of the said picture and while those distributors were not given negative rights, Ramesh has been granted World
negative rights and therefore, his rights extend for the whole World. It is not disputed by the Producer that under Ex.B-2 assignment she has
transferred the World negative rights in favour of Ramesh, who is entitled to exploit and exhibit the picture in 35mm throughout the World and he
can also exhibit the picture through television and video. The only right the Plaintiff claims to have reserved for herself is the World Satellite
Television rights. At the time when Ex.B-2 agreement was entered into between the parties, broadcasting of cinema through satellite television
media was not in vogue. Only Terrestrial television established by Doordarshan was in vogue. The Plaintiff does not question the right of Ramesh
or the persons claiming under him to broadcasting the picture through Doordarshan, namely Terrestrial Television. Objection is taken only in
respect of Satellite Television rights, which definitely has not been conveyed under Ex.B-2. Under Ex.B-2 Ramesh got world negative right and he
has also obtained laboratory letter from the Producer for the purpose of getting negatives of the film and also for taking as many prints as he likes.
The rights obtained by the Second Defendant Ramesh has been transferred in turn to M/s. O.K. Films under Ex.B-3 dated 23.7.1991. Under
this agreement also M/s. O.K. Films have got all the rights assigned in favour of Ramesh and the World negative right is given to M/s. O.K. Films
and World negative right stated to include copyrights and lease rights of the said picture ''Guru Sishyan'' in 35mm colour and all other dimensions
including world video rights, world television display rights, audio rights and all other rights in all dimensions for a period of 99 years as mentioned
in the agreement of Messrs P.A. Art Productions with effect from the date of assignment. While world negative rights has been granted in favour of
Ramesh under Ex.B-2 in Ex. B-2 world television rights and World Video Rights are included. The Plaintiff does not seriously contest the claim of
the assignees to world video and T.V. rights.
While Exs. B-2 and B-3 are silent with regard to Satellite Television rights in respect of the picture ''Guru Sishyan'', for the first time under
Ex.B-1, M/s. Nemichand and Jakab, who has obtained the rights from M/s. O.K. Films in turn has assigned in favour of Sun T.V. the First
Defendant the Satellite Television Broadcast rights. While the other two agreements are silent and do not include Satellite Television Broadcast
rights, when the First Defendant has chosen to take assignment given by the successors to Ramesh, he has claimed to have obtained world Satellite
Television rights. Sun T.V. Network is engaged in the business of Satellite Television and that is the reason why they have chosen to obtain this
right and the successors of Ramesh, the original assignee, for the first time sought to convey Satellite Television rights also in favour of the First
Defendant. It is on the basis of this agreement, the First Defendant claims to have obtained Satellite Television rights. The Plaintiff on the other
would claim that she has never transferred or assigned Satellite Television rights in favour of Ramesh and therefore, the persons claiming under
Ramesh cannot rightly claim to have obtained Satellite Television rights and the latter rights are still preserved by the Producer, namely the Plaintiff.
Dispute with regard to copyright in respect of video and television have already surfaced and decided by our High Court on prior occasions.
In A.V. Meiyappan v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (1969) 1 M.L.J. 480, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
We feel it necessary to examine the rights which the Producer of a film gets under the law.
It is well recognised that such rights in relation to cinematograph productions are governed by the statute at the present time, in whatever manner
they may have been characterized in the past. Section 2(d)(v) of the Copyright Act XIV of 1957, defines ""author"" to mean in relation to a
cinematograph film the owner of the film at the time of its completion. A cinematograph film includes the sound track. The further parts of this
section define what an ""exclusive licence"" and an ""infringing copy"" or a ""performance"" mean in relation to cinematograph films. u/s 13 of the Act
copyright is declared to exist throughout India in words, such as cinematograph films and records. Section 14 lays down what is meant by
copyright. It means in the case of literary, dramatically or musical work the exclusive right by virtue of the provisions of the Act to make any
cinematograph film or a record in respect of the work. In the case of the copyright in a cinematograph film, it means exclusive right to cause a film,
in so far as it consists of visual images, to be seen in public and in so far as it consists of sound to be heard in public. There are other rights
comprehended in the copyright in the case of a cinematograph film, which find place in Section 14(1) (c) and (d), to which we shall refer later in
due course. Section 17 states that the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright, ""work"" in this connection meaning the
cinematograph film. There is no doubt that in the circumstances of this case, the lessor is the author of the work, viz., the cinematograph film in
question. Section 18 provides for assignment of copyright. The owner of the copyright in an existing work may assign any person the copyright
either wholly or partially and either generally or subject to limitations and either for the whole term of the copyright or any part thereof. Upon such
assignment being made, u/s 18(2) the assignee continues to be the owner in respect of the right not assigned. Section 19 requires assignment of
copyright in any work to be in writing signed by the assignor. Section 26 provides the lifetime of the copyright to be fifty years. Apart from
assignment of copyright which is provided by Section 18, Section 30 enables the owners of the copyright to grant any interest in the right of licence
in the work.
In P. Thulasidas v. K. Vasanthakumari, 1991 (1) L.W. 220, Lakshmanan, J. has held as follows:
It is seen that the Plaintiff was given absolute negative rights and it is open to him to exercise his right of distribution, exploitation and exhibition of
the film in question. In my opinion a reading of the exhibits filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and particularly, the sale certificate given by the Official
Assignee of the High Court, Madras, shows prima facie that all the rights relating to the negatives of the films were conveyed to him and there was
no reservation with regard to the films of any other or video rights. Hence, in my opinion, the Plaintiff is entitled to make copies from the films of
35mm. Gauge, 16mm. Gauge and also telecast the films in Televisions.
Learned Judge relied upon a ruling reporting in AIR 1984 Del. 379 (Balwinder Singh v. Delhi Administration) wherein it was held that video
and television both are cinematograph and that both are jointly and severally apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of
pictures.
In Dineshkumar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Bom. 34, learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court has held as follows:
When a VCR is used for playing pre-recorded cassettes of movies on the TV screen, it is certainly used as an apparatus for the representation of
moving pictures or series of pictures and comes within the definition of ""cinematograph"" as defined under the Cinematograph Act.
Since the world negative copyright has been assigned in favour of the Plaintiff in that case, Lakshmanan, J. ultimately held that he is having absolute
copyright of the picture which includes video and television rights.
But, the same Judge while considering the dispute between persons claiming a Satellite Television rights in a movie has held as follows in Raj
Video Vision v. M/s. Sun T.V., 1994 (2) L.W. 158:
Further u/s 18(2) of the Copyright Act, where the assignee of the copyright becomes entitled to any right comprised in the copyright, the assignee
as respects the rights so assigned and the assignor as respects the rights not assigned shall be treated for the purpose of this Act as the owner of
the copyright and the provisions of this Act shall have effect accordingly. Section 19 (2) provides for that the assignment of copyright in any work
shall among other things indicate clearly the rights proposed to be assigned and the size of the work. Thus, it will be clear that the Plaintiff/Applicant
cannot claim anything more than the rights said to have been assigned to them under the agreements relied upon by them. As stated supra, there is
no mention of the word Satellite in any of the agreements put forward by the Plaintiffs As already adverted to, the copy right for broadcasting or
telecasting the Film through Satellite, cable, wire, wireless or through any other system or any other form, means and modes other than through
Doordarshan terrestrial Primary Channel without restriction of geographical area is a separate right. Satellite right is a new, separate and distinct
specie of right hitherto not visualised and this cannot be said to be included under the agreements relied upon by the Plaintiffs in any event. Such a
right should be specifically contemplated under the agreement. In fact, cassettes are used for home TV, whereas ''U'' matic tapes are used for
Satellite Transmission.......... I am of the view that the satellite television broadcasting right is an independent right for which the Plaintiff cannot
claim any copyright..... This apart, we can also see the difference between the satellite and terrestrial T.V. Satellite TV. signals cannot be received
by normal TV sets unless proper electronic equipment and dish antenna is used to receive the signal sent which feeds to the TV sets via cable. A
regular TV set without cable connection cannot get the program.
Terrestrial T.V. is totally different from satellite TV because anybody with a TV set can receive and watch terrestrial TV programmes without the
need of cable and specialised equipment and huge dish antenna.....Thus, looked at from any angle, satellite TV broadcasting rights are independent
rights and the same have to be assigned specifically and so fin as such rights have not been assigned in favour of the Applicant/Plaintiff specifically,
the Plaintiffs cannot claim any copyright in the same or seek any order of injunction on the ground of alleged infringement by the Defendant.
In Raj Video Vision v. K. Mohan Krishnan and another 1999 P.T.C. (19 1 10) Thangaraj, J. held as follows:
However, the conclusion which can iv arrived at is that when the producers themselves were not aware of their future rights accrued due to
scientific advancements, it cannot be said they had already transferred the rights not in existence by way of assignments. The assignments cannot he
made of rights not in existence and therefore it can he safely decided that the video rights of the film were not given to the assignee and the assignee
in turn as assignors could not have assigned the video rights to the Second Defendant herein.
So far as the case on hand is concerned, the agreements have been entered into in 1991 when broadcast by Satellite Television has not come
into vogue in India and therefore, the Producer, namely Meena Panchu Arunachalam could not have assigned these rights also when she conveyed
the negative rights in favour of Ramesh. Neither Ramesh nor M/s. O.K. Films have dealt with Satellite Television rights in respect of the picture
while executing the deed of assignment in favour of others. For the first time when Sun T.V. has obtained the assignment, the word ""Satellite
Television rights"" are included. But, the original transferee, namely Ramesh himself has not obtained the said rights and therefore, the persons
claiming under him cannot lawfully claim to have obtained Satellite Television rights, Satellite Television rights since not specifically assigned by the
Producer, only remained with her, she has chosen to transfer the Satellite Television rights in favour of M/s. Raj Television Network and therefore,
Raj Television Network are the owners of the copyright in respect of Satellite Television rights. Others cannot claim to have lawfully obtained the
copyrights for Satellite television. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the Plaintiff in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994, namely Meena Panchu
Arunachalam has not conveyed Satellite Television rights in favour of Ramesh and Ramesh also could not have conveyed the said rights to O.K.
Films or M/s. Sun T.V. or others. Therefore, when the Producer has chosen to assign the satellite television rights in favour of M/s. Raj Television
Network, they have become entitled to the same and therefore the Plaintiff in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 is entitled for the declaration prayed for. The
declaration sought for by the Plaintiffs, namely M/s. Sun T.V. in C.S. No. 103 of 1995 and M/s. O.K. Films in C.S. No. 1357 of 1995 have to be
negatived.
Therefore, these issues are answered accordingly.
ISSUE No. 1 in C.S. No. 103 of 1995:-
A contention has been raised by the Second Defendant in C.S. No. 103 of 1995 with regard to maintainability of the Suit by the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff is M/s. Sun T.V., which is an unit of M/s. Sumangali Publications Private Limited, Madras and the assignment is claimed in favour of M/s.
Sumangali Publications Private Limited and since M/s. Sun T.V. is only an unit of M/s. Sumangali Publications Private Limited, there is no
impropriety in M/s. Sun T.V. maintaining the suit as against third parties. Therefore, I hold on this is that the suit is maintainable.
In view of my findings on the main issues, all the other issues to be answered in favour of the Plaintiff in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994. In the result,
the Plaintiff in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 is given a decree as prayed for and the other two Suits are dismissed. Parties are however directed to each
bear their own costs.