Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Delhi High Court interpreted with the help of Sections 13, 14(d) and 2(d) of the Copyright Act and held that the copyright protection of a film is at par with that accorded to literary works and its scope is wider than just duplication. The petition was filed on the ground that the respondent copied the advertisement of the petitioner which amounted to a copyright violation as an advertisement constitutes a 'cinematograph work' under Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the coincidences which appeared in the two advertisements were not incidental and that the defendant’s advertisement contained material and broad similarities which showed that their intent was to copy the advertisement of the plaintiff. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in RG Anand, where it was held that an infringing copy need not be an exact copy but a substantial and material one, he contended that “the test is of an overall impression of an average viewer and not a microscopic analysis”. The counsel for the petitioner also cited the Article 14 of the Berne Convention which states that a cinematographic work is to be treated as an original work and the owner of a copyright in it shall enjoy the same rights as the author of an original work.
Meanwhile, it was contended on behalf of the defendant that on a conjoint reading of Sections 2(m)(ii), 14(d)(i) and 51 of the Act, 1957, it is apparent that to establish a copyright infringement in a cinematograph film, it is essential to show that the impugned work was an actual copy of the plaintiff’s advertisement/cinematograph film.
The following observations were made by the High Court:
Despite the above observations, on the basis of the test laid down in RG Anand, the court held that the two advertisements are neither substantially nor materially or essentially similar.
86540
103860
630
114
59824