The Idea-Expression Dichotomy and the tale of a forgotten movie

?“A movie is being released today and it is based on my book”, a client approached a lawyer.

?“How do you say so?” asked the lawyer.

“My book is based on a son’s search for his biological father and the trailer of the movie shows the daughter searching for her biological father.”

“The movie has to lift entire essential scenes from your book, the treatment of the characters must be the same. Just the concept does not prove anything”

“I had sent the script to the producer/director’s husband. I have the RPAD proof”

“But this shows that you have sent it to every possible producer in Bombay!!!”

“Well, this is a story that needs to be told”

“This is not proof of access per se. But even assuming access, I am not prepared to file without seeing the movie. I am required to plead the similarities, point out how it is an infringement”

The lawyer asked for multiple copies of the book, one copy he kept and another he gave to his friend asked him to read the book overnight and watch the movie the next day. He also requested his client to make a few of his friends watch the movie to file an affidavit stating the similarities. This was keeping in mind the test laid down by the Supreme Court in RG Anand vs. Deluxe Films that a viewer who has read and seen the work is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.

This movie was incidentally released along with another highly awaited movie of a Bollywood Superstar. That movie was flooding all theatres and this movie was playing a solitary show in a few multiplexes. The lawyer sent his friend to a multiplex in one corner of the city and he rushed to another one the next morning to watch the movie. The tickets were not being sold. Turns out he was the only one asking for tickets to watch the movie and the screening was cancelled due to insufficiency of patrons. The lawyer rushed to another multiplex, missed the first ten minutes but managed to catch the rest of the movie. The audience was hardly 10 people.

The movie had no connection with the book except the concept. The lawyer’s friend also made the same assessment. He also had the same thing to say, the movie had 6 patrons that is the minimum required to start a show.

The client and his friends had a different story. The client and his brother watched the movie on the same night they approached the lawyer. The movie had stopped showing in most of the city. The only show screening was the late night show the next day which they attended with their friends. Needless to say, they were the only 10 persons in the theatre. The owners decided to finish the 2.5 hour movie in 1.5 hours. The client and his friends fought with the theatre officials, police were called and after issuance of sufficient threats, finally the movie was screened in its entirety from 2 AM to 5 AM.

By the next day, the movie had stopped screening in most of the city. The client and the lawyer had a heart to heart. The lawyer said, “There are at least 10 movies starting from Mamma Mia which have the same concept. The story structuring, conceptual treatment of the characters and the ending are all different. Suit is not maintainable.”

“Sir you just get an injunction against screening, they will settle”

“Why do we need to get an injunction when the movie itself has stopped screening in the city”

?“Sir, you wasted two valuable days. We should have simply filed the suit”

“At least we were responsible for the movie running for two days.”

“What about damages?”

“At best, we will get reimbursement for our tickets”

#copyright #advocates