Lights, Camera, Intellectual Property Its Place In Indian Film

Introduction

India's copyright rules are especially crucial because of the rise in daily releases. Even though the audience watching such works may not be aware of the internal conflict occurring between the various stakeholders involved in such creative process, evaluating the original author of such works is of critical importance in order to protect and further encourage individuals to participate in the creative business of creating movies.

The second concern is how else intellectual property could be exploited in a script or movie. Sincere to say, every aspect of the movie involves intellectual property rights.

At this point, the Copyright Act of 1957 comes into play, providing protection against a variety of risks that the makers would otherwise have to incur. One may argue that this protection is necessary for the monetization of images and motion pictures. Other IP legislation, such as the Trademark Act and the Designs Act, will also be significant, but to a lesser extent.

The main objectives of this blog are to list the many components of a cinematographic film and then analyse the current legal situation regarding who is legally accountable for each of the listed components.

Copyright and Indian cinema

The process of creating a movie is far more collaborative than writing a book. Several individuals are involved in the process, and it is through their efforts that a film is created. Many persons who do different jobs, such as scriptwriting, music composition, art direction, and specific actor appearances, are granted rights through this drawn-out process.

Each film production team's initial task is to find a suitable pre-work piece that may be utilised as a script. Section 17 of The Copyright Act, 1957 Act provides a detailed explanation of who owns cinematographic films. A playwright who is hired by a producer to develop a solid script is not considered to own the material he does, under the law.

It thus becomes more exciting to wonder who the creator of an underlying work is that could already exist before a producer decides to create a movie. In response to this query, the Bombay High Court provided the following legal position: in the event that a preexisting script over which a writer enjoys copyright was made available for the production of a film, the producer would not possess any copyright over such underlying work until and unless such independent copyright was transferred to the producer.

Otherwise, the producers are immediately considered to be the creators of the film until it can be demonstrated otherwise based on a simple reading of the Act, which is the usual stance of Indian law.  Other components that go into creating such cinematographic films are the lyrical and literary works that surround the song and its lyrics.

Eastern India Motion Picture Association v. Indian Performing Right Society, a key case that established the "Work for Hire" theory, has been substantially upheld in India. If the rights of composers or lyricists are affected by preconditions (b) and (c) of Section 17 of the Act.

As a consequence of the Act's 2012 modification, lyricists and music composers now have the right to royalties even if a record company or producer purchases ownership of the works. Nevertheless, this protection is only fleeting when it comes to musical compositions used in cinematic pictures, as the producer holds the exclusive copyright to such compositions. Hence, a non-film song can only be entitled to royalties if the musical or literary work—in this case, the lyrics—were used in some way.

Who Owns What and Why

When considering copyright ownership, the aforementioned aspects are those that are most commonly contested. Nonetheless, as was shown, the Indian copyright law aggressively promotes the idea that the creators of cinematic work are the real copyright owners. The film industry has openly criticized this tactic since it completely disregards the unique skill and labor put in by the many performers and crew members throughout the making of a movie.

Yet, this "producer owns all" tactic has been around since the beginning of time. This may have its roots in the "Auteur" or author approach of the French copyright law. It was originally thought that the director in this scenario ultimately held the copyright to the work because he was the one who made all of the decisions and who primarily expressed his vision on screen.

The emphasis on the producer as the "primary author" in such situations has lately been supported by US case law as well, namely in the case of Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin.  It was determined that the producer owns the copyright since they are more actively involved in compiling the screenplay, forming third parties or employment contracts with actors, etc., even though the director may have a considerable influence on how the movie should be made. Although this tactic has received criticism, it's vital to keep in mind that producers are ultimately accountable for any financial risks connected to the making of films.

There is no getting around the fact that when negotiating contracts with composers, scriptwriters, and others, the latter frequently exhibit a lack of caution when they blithely cede their rights to the work that they were principally responsible for creating. Giving them all the rights and protection they require seems justified. Although while the music composers in the aforementioned case may still make a royalty claim for non-film works, the contract makes a major difference when it comes to the right with regard to works used in films.

In the end, if the movie is a commercial failure, the producer takes the financial hit relative to all other parties involved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and courts in other nations have continued to take this position in light of this. Yet, considering that composers could earn the majority of their income from the music they create for movies, a change would be appreciated if, at the very least, the opportunity to claim royalties was not limited to being paid only for non-film compositions.

Conclusion

Films and movies are one of the primary forms of entertainment for the general public. Yet, because of the complexity of the production process and the necessity of involving multiple technical departments, the manufacturer may have to face a greater risk of potential loss. With movies streaming on several digital platforms, getting the entire reward from the exploitation of the film or movie created is much more difficult in the modern era.

To minimise, if not totally eliminate, this risk, it is essential that title papers expressly state that all originating rights belong to the producer from the outset.