RAJ VIDEO VISION Vs. SUN T V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copyright viz. 8mm, 16mm, 35 mm and TV rights for the entire world in the picture "Oru Iniya Udayam" Tamil Colour and Video and television rights for entire India in the Picture "Nooravathu Naal" Tamil colour and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's limited copyrights viz. 8mm, 16mm, 35 mm TV rights in Overseas Territories, Video and Satellite Television Right in the entire world in the pictures "Oru Iniya Udhayam" and "Nooravathu Naal" Tamil Colour by telecasting the same and for costs.

(2.) THE plaintiff has averred in the plaintiff as follows: Plaintiff is carrying on business in exhibition, exploitation and distribution of motion picture commercial and non commercial, in all gauges, while the defendant is a Television communication centre, transmitting regional language programmes mainly in Tamil. Plaintiff acquired the rights of exhibition, exploitation and distribution of the picture "Oru Iniya Udhayam" Tamil colour in 8mm, 16mm and 35 mm gauges and Television media for the entire overseas territories and video rights for the entire world under agreement dated 6.9.1986. Right to exploit the video rights and television rights in the picture "Noorvathu Naal" Tamil Colour was also acquired by the plaintiff under the agreement dt. 19.8.92. Plaintiff has acquired the limited copyrights as aforesaid and has been exploiting the same without any interference. On 20.3.94, the defendant announced in their programmes that they are going to telecast the aforesaid picture through the satellite communication network, which will be an infringement of the plaintiffs copyright. Hence the present suit.

(3.) ARGUING for the plaintiff, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. Krishnaswami would submit that the plaintiff is carrying on its business in exhibition, exploitation and distribution of motion pictures, commercial and non-commercial in all gauges; that during the course of its business it acquired rights of exhibition, exploitation and distribution of the picture "Oru Iniya Udayam" by entering into Ex.P1 agreement dated 6.9.86; that the producer Pondu Cine Arts for valid consideration and that in respect of the Second Film "Noorvathu Naal" by entering into an agreement dated 19.8.92 as found under Ex.P2 from one Swastik Video Vision, who in turn has acquired the said rights from its producers and thus the plaintiff has acquired the limited copyright for exploiting the same without any interference whatsoever; that while so, the defendant, a television communication center who is transmitting regional language programmes announced in its programmes that they were going to telecast the abovesaid two pictur es through satellite communication network; that when the defendant was informed about the rights of the plaintiff, there was no proper response or acceptable answer, that the plaintiff is vested with the limited copyright of these pictures and any telecast of the same by the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff, would be an infringement of the plaintiff's copyright, Added further the learned senior Counsel that the assignment of the copyrights viz. the Indian Video Rights by the producer woul d include the satellite rights also; that the copyright is a bundle of rights and a single cinematograph work will have multiplicity of copyrights; that cinematograph film is defined under S. 2(f) of the Copyright Act as one which will be construed as including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography including video films; that S. 2(ff) defines communication to public and under the explanation in the said clause "communication through satellite on cable, etc shall be deemed to be co mmunication to public: that under the said provisions of the Act, broadcast is defined as communication to public by any means of any wireless diffusion wherein any one or more of the forms, size, sound or visual images or communication by wire; that the video rights, which was assigned by the producer to the plaintiff's predecessor in title includes the satellite right; that the producer in respect of the picture "Oru Iniya Udayam" by the agreement under Ex.P1 dated 6.9.86 assigned to the plaintiff, the rights of exhibition, exploitation and distribution of the said picture in 35mm, 16mm, 8 mm, TV rights and also video rights in the picture; that the video rights in the cinematograph work has been exhibited in the manner defined under S. 2(f) of the copyright Act and it is being broadcasted in the manner defined under Ss2(dd) and 2(ff) of the Copyright Act; that in regard to the picture "Noorvathu Naal", the predecessor in title of the plaintiff, who was the producer of the picture, assigned by an agreement dated 4.4.1988, the video rights wherein it was granted to the plaintiff predecessor in title the full exploitation of the video cassettes, that the assignor of the plaintiff has categorically stated that video rights included the exhibition of the said picture by means of wireless diffusion and by wire and commun ication to public that if the video rights assigned to the plaintiff included satellite rights also, then the defendant would have no right in respect of the above two pictures; that it is true that satellite right is not defined in the Act, but it is only an inclusive definition coming under S. 2(ff) within the meaning of the word communication to public; that a few decisions of this Court, Bombay High Court and Apex Court threw some light on the meaning of the term video rights, according to which the video and television were appliances capable of use for the size, light, images and sound and would fall within the definition of telegraph and hence the inclusive definition would mean the rights granted, as video rights would also include the exhibition of picture through TV screen. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the decisions reported in 1991 1 L.W. 220, 1994 (2) L.W. 158, AIR 2000 Bombay High Court 416, AIR 1993 SC 2328 and thus it is a fit case where the Court has to give a declaration as asked for along with the consequential injunction.