KESARI MARATHA TRUST Vs. DEVIDAS TULARAM BAGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against a decree passed by Extra Joint Judge, Pune on 31st January 1981 in Civil Suit No. 6 of 1976. By the impugned decree, the learned trial Judge has awarded nominal damage of one rupee as claimed by the plaintiff with further directions to the defendants to give possession of the block- plate, negative and other materials, used for reproduction of the photograph, if available to the plaintiff, and the defendants, their agents and servants have been further restrained permanently from reproducing the plaintiff's artistic work which is a photograph of one well known poet in Marathi Literature namely Shri. Suresh Bhat. The plaintiff is the well known writer in the field of Marathi Literature. He is also a photographer, which art appears to have been developed by him as hobby. The Poet, Shri Suresh Bhat has published some of his poems in the book titled "Rang Maza Vegala" [Marathi]

(2.) Defendant No.1 is a public trust known as 'Kesari Maratha Sanstha, having registered office at Pune, of which defendant No.2 who is, at present, Speaker of the legislative Council, is the Editor, Printer and Publisher. The defendant trust publishes a daily newspaper known as "Kesari".

(3.) The plaintiff had taken a photograph of Shri. Suresh Bhat in an artistic manner and the some was published on the cover of the book of "Rang Maza Vegala" with specific mention below the photograph that the photograph is taken by the plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that in 1976 certain poets and writers in Marathi Literature were awarded prize for their different works and in the Issue of Kesari dated 19.2.1976 alongwith other writers and poets the photograph of Shri Suresh Bhat appeared and this photograph was for all practical purposes a copy of the photograph taken by the plaintiff. The defendant did not ask any permission of before publishing the photograph. The plaintiff claims that he holds "copy right" in the said photograph which was published by the defendants. Thus there is infringement of plaintiff's copy right.