The Copyright Act of 1957 is considered vintage legislation in the field of property laws intellectual in India. The central notion is to protect the originality of an idea once it is expressed via a certain medium. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayThe cinematographic film is a homogeneous material containing many other works which enjoy protection by operation of law or by contract or assignment when all these works are assembled in the final form of a film to which the rights are vested in a producer or director in accordance with the Act. Although many attempts have been made to update it according to the needs of the times, the law still has gaps, especially with regard to cinematography, digital technology, software, etc. An appeal (OS Appeal No. 22 of 20170) was filed, dated September 8, 2016, before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice Ravi Shakdher and Justice Abdul Quddhose against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in which the plea of ​​the plaintiff for injunction against the defendants was rejected. The disputes between the parties revolve around the rights annexed to the film “Aaranya Kaandam”. The appellant/plaintiff wrote the screenplay of the film 'Aaranya Kaandam' and completed the registration formalities with the Mumbai Film Writers' Association. During the process of converting the script into a film, he met the interviewees around May-June 2007 and the pre-production work for making the film in Tamil began in July 2007. The film script in the form of A bound copy has been provided. to respondents in February 2008 and filming began in December 2008. The entire production work was completed on May 25, 2010. When the film began filming, it received many ratings and reviews and won the " Grand Jury Prize” in New York. However, the Film Festival did not gain much commercially due to poor publicity. In February 2012, the appellant came to know that the respondents were attempting to dub 'Aaranya Kaandam' into Telugu without the prior consent of the appellant, which led to the initiation of this action. The summary of the actions filed by the courts below shows that the original order of injunction passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside following the subsequent decision of the respondents. The appeal before the division bench also resulted in the same result. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court, where it was decided with directions to the Madras High Court to dispose of the pending suit as expeditiously as possible by granting it a duration of 3 months. The questions which emerged for consideration were as follows: Is dubbing in Telugu a violation of the rights of the applicant under Section 14(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957? Whether the recast in Telugu constitutes a violation of the rights of the applicant under Section 14(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957? Does the plaintiff have any right to restrain the defendant from duplicating/redoing/doing any other activity in view of the admitted fact that the plaintiff has not entered into any agreement to effect such restraint? Is section 14(1)(d) the only relevant provision in relation to cinematographic films? Is the plaintiff entitled to a permanent injunction? What other reliefs can the plaintiff claim? The appellants have argued that there is no assignment of rights to the screenplay in accordance with Article 19(1) becausefor a valid assignment, there must be an identification of the work, specifying the rights as well as the duration and territory. The budget sheet on which the respondents relied did not advertise the scenario. In this case, there is no transfer either by conduct or by acquiescence in favor of the respondents. If the assignment is presumed, it could only be construed as having been limited to the making of a Tamil film since the respondents cannot use the script unless the rights are granted under section 19. The Dubbing involves the translation of the dialogues embedded in the film emanating from the literary work which primarily belongs to the copyright owner of the literary work. Section 14(1)(d) does not give the producers of the cinematographic film the right to translate the work by any means of dubbing, even because the dubbed film will ultimately result in the creation of a separate film which is prohibited without license or transfer. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred gravely in holding otherwise, which deviates from the precedents laid down in PVR Pictures Ltd. c. Studio 18, 2009 (41) PTC 70; RG Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 CSC 118 etc. On the other hand, the respondents maintained that what was placed on file before the court was a screenplay and not a screenplay, hence the non-existence of copyright in the said work. in favor of the appellant. Respondents are producers under Section 2(d) and would very well fall within the scope of the authors. In addition to this, the appellants received valuable consideration for the script which was made into a cinematographic film of which the respondents who are the owners have the right not only to remake it but also to dub it in a language other than original. and communicate it to the public in the language(s) of their choice. The appellants do not enjoy any special rights since the registration of the film with the Film Writers Association was made after its making. The rights to the script very much belong to the appellant, but the rights to the cinematographic film in question belong to the respondents. . The appeal was partially allowed and the suit was decided, granting an injunction against the respondents to remake/make different versions of the film based on the script in question and the parties were to bear their own costs since the cinema film in question was based on history. narrated by the appellant with regard to the screenplay and the screenplay written by him, therefore there is no doubt about the existence of the screenplay or his authorship. The judges were in agreement in rendering this judgment. This story ends with a moral that when multiple stakeholders are involved in a particular project, there is a lot of confusion, especially regarding who should be rewarded and preferred. In this case, a contract with clear terms and conditions is the quintessence, which can necessarily avoid any confusion or conflict in order to analyze the provisions relating to ownership and assignment/licensing of copyright and address the problems that emerge. Keep in mind: This is just a sample.Get a custom paper from our expert writers now.Get a Custom EssayMovies are for entertainment and are filled with many complexities. The question of intellectual property is therefore even more complex since the answer lies in the fact that each element of a film must be protected. The central point to consider here is who can claim ownership of a film, whether it's the person who made the film or the man who financed it. It is indeed a paradoxical situation: a story cannot make a film and, without a story, it cannot.