RAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) How far law protects creative aesthetic expression of an artist 7 Is the intellectual property of an artist governed by the game norms as commercial property ? Where does the freedom (of expression) of the autnor and, where does the Director begin ? What is the scope and width of section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957? These are the questions raised in Mannu Bhandari's suit against M/s. Kala Vikas Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. and its producer and director. Kala Vikas has produced motion picture 'Samay Ki Dhara' under assignment of filming rights of her novel 'Aap Ka Bunty.' Her complaint is of the multilation and distortion of the novel. She pleads for permanent injunction against its screening and exhibition. Although many authors complain of sueh distortions, few have sought judicial protection. Hence, there is no precedent of any law court to guide the film industry.

(2.) The trial court has refused an ad-interim restraint order. The appeal is against this order.

(3.) At the time of the bearing it was realised that apart from the verbal allegations made by the Plaintiff and the defendants, there was considerable common ground, which if properly explored, would bring the parties to an amicable settlement. But, the plaintiff insisted that as a committed author she would like the Court to authoritatively resolve the question of the rights of the authors as the problem is repeatedly faced by the authors and there is no judicial decision The defendant's grievance, on the other band, was that they had made a hugs iavestment and have entered into contracts with the distributors According to the defendants, the plaintiff has filed the suit with the ulterior motive of extracting more money than that paid under the contract. Due to this extreme position taken by the parties, there was no worthwhile attempt on their part to settle the matter amicably.