The Real ‘Nayak’, Satyajit Ray

On 11th August 2023, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the matter of RDB AND CO(HUF) v. HARPER COLLINS PUBLISHERS INDIA PVT. LTD. ?passed an order[1] upholding the single judge decision ruling that the copyright in the screenplay of the Bengali Movie “Nayak” and the ‘right to novelize’ the same vested with Late Satyajit Ray, being the first owner.

?

Facts

‘Nayak’, released in 1966, is regarded as one of the masterpieces of the legendary filmmaker, Satyajit Ray. Among the few films for which Ray wrote an original script, it explores the concepts of charisma, celebrity, and stardom at length, a true examination of cinema itself. The film was written and directed by Ray, on being commissioned by eminent producer R. D. Bansal, Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Writer Bhaskar Chattopadhyay later in 2018 novelized the original screenplay of ‘Nayak’. The same was published by HarperCollins Publishers India Private Limited (“HarperCollins”) and released on 5th May 2018.

R. D. B and Company HUF (“R.D.B. & Co.”) initiated a suit[2] against HarperCollins inter alia seeking a permanent injunction. The Plaintiff stated that it owned the copyright in the film, as well as all the related rights associated with the film. Hence, the Plaintiff sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing and distributing the novel since the Plaintiff alleged that its copyright would be infringed through the novelization of the screenplay by Mr. Chattopadhyay and publication by HarperCollins. The Defendant, on the other hand, disputed the copyright claim by R.D.B and Co. It claimed to have obtained a license from Ray’s son, Sandip Ray, and from the Society for Preservation of Satyajit Ray Archives (“SPSRA”), upon whom the copyright of the screenplay vested with subsequent to Ray’s death in 1993. ?

An Interlocutory Application (“I.A.”) was filed by the Defendant seeking a summary rejection of the permanent injunction sought in the plaint under Order XIII-A Rule 4 of the CPC[3]. The Defendant, in its Written Statement, argued that the plaint was bereft of any cause of action, and that the Plaintiff was not the first owner of copyright in the script or screenplay, nor was there any pleading that the Plaintiff was assigned rights in copyright, in the script or screenplay, by Mr. Satyajit Ray or by his legal representatives. The Defendant also differentiated between the film, and the screenplay of the film as being separate literary works. The Defendants further asserted that Mr. Satyajit Ray solely remained the copyright owner in the literary works and the artistic works associated with the film, which included the screenplay of the film. The Defendant denied the contention of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was entitled to all direct, indirect, and derivative rights with respect to the film.?

The core issue that the Hon’ble Court had to deal with was whether the copyright of the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’ vested with Mr. Ray or Mr. R. D. Bansal. Essentially, the question narrowed down to whether an author who was commissioned through a contract by a producer to write a screenplay would have the ownership of the screenplay or would it vest with the latter?

Decision of the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, who analysed the submissions of the parties, concluded that there was no dispute on the facts, and that neither party claimed that the Defendant was not novelizing the film ‘Nayak’. To determine the issue as to the ownership of copyright of the screenplay, the Hon’ble Court resorted to a simple interpretation of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Act”). The Hon'ble Court inter alia observed that Section 13(1) of the Act gives an exhaustive category of works in which copyright subsisted, wherein Clause 13(1)(a) covers “original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works”, and Clause 13(1)(b) covered “cinematograph films”. Therefore, a copyright in cinematograph films was a separate category of copyright, distinct and different from copyright in original screenplay. Therefore, the plaintiff was held to hold the copyright over the movie “Nayak”, but not the screenplay, as Mr. Satyajit Ray was held to be the original author of the screenplay.

To ascertain whether screenplay of a film attracted Section 13(1) of the Act, the Hon’ble Court interpreted the inclusive definition of ‘literary work’ defined under the Act[4]. Relying on established jurisprudence of giving a wide interpretation to the word ‘includes’, the Hon’ble Court held that:

“the definition must embrace, within its scope and sweep, the normal etymological understanding of the expression ‘literary work’”.

Holding onto this wider ambit of the expression ‘literary work’, the Court took the view that, for the purpose of Section 13(1) of the Act, the screenplay of ‘Nayak’ was a literary work.

Section 13(4) of the Act clarifies that the “copyright held in a cinematographic film shall not affect the separate copyright in any work, in respect of which, or in respect of a substantial part of which, the film is made.[5]” In other words, if a cinematographic film is made in respect of a part of whole or another work in which separate copyright vests under Section 13(1) of the Act, the copyright held in the cinematographic film would not affect such separate copyright. Hence going by Section 13(4) of the Act, the Hon’ble Court held that, copyright in the screenplay vested by Section 13(1) of the Act could not be affected by a separate copyright in the cinematograph film itself.

The next question up for determination was in whom would copyright in the screenplay of “Nayak” vest with? The Hon’ble Court answered this question through Section 17 of the Act. A simple reading of the opening words of Section 17 established that “the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work”.[6]

The Court first applied the definition of an "author" under the Copyright act to Section 17. Under the Act, an ‘author’ in relation to a literary work, is "the author of the work"[7]. This indisputably clarified that the author of the screenplay of the film "Nayak" was Satyajit Ray. However, delving into the provisos of section 17, the plaintiff relied on clause (b), emphasizing that the making of the film was financed by Bansal undertaking sole responsibility of its commercial release and exploitation. The plaintiff therefore asserted that, it became the owner of all direct, indirect, derivative, and related rights with respect to the film.

The Court however was of the view that clause (b) does not cover a screenplay. It only applies to a situation where one person makes a cinematograph film at the instance of another person, and hence will not apply in the present case. However, the court extensively examined into comprehending the fundamental nature of the working arrangement between Mr. Bansal and Mr. Ray to understand whether it constituted a "contract of service" or a "contract for service."

The Court cited a recent Supreme Court judgment[8] which had determined and studied the criteria for distinguishing between a "contract of service" and a "contract for service". It requires courts to intricately weigh various factors, including control, compensation, contract nature, etc.

In the present case, the Court held the viewpoint that the relationship between Mr. Bansal and Mr. Ray did not fulfil the requisites of a “contract of service”. This was primarily because it was a contract between equals. This distinction underscores that Mr. Ray exercised independent creative authority over the screenplay. A "contract of service" pertains to situations where a film producer engages a scriptwriter by providing valuable consideration for script creation, thereby retaining copyright over the script.?

This brought the Court to a conclusion that under section 17, Satyajit Ray was the author of the screenplay of ‘Nayak’ and therefore the first owner of the copyright. Accordingly, the prayer for permanent injunction was rejected and the Hon’ble Court furthermore allowed the I.A. filed by the Defendant through its order dated 23.5.2023[9].

Appeal against Single Judge Order

An appeal was filed by RDB and Co. against the aforementioned order of the Ld. Single Judge.

The Hon’ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, finding no merit in the challenge, emphasized on right of the Defendant to novelize the screenplay of Mr. Satyajit Ray. The Hon’ble Court observed that Section 14 of the Act, which explained the meaning of the copyright, stipulated that the rights vested in the copyright owner. As noted earlier by the Ld. Single Judge in his order, the Hon’ble Division Bench also observed that Section 14(1)(a)(i) of the Act “authorises, in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, inter alia, reproduction of the work in any material form” [10]. Hence, novelization would certainly fall under the ambit of reproduction of screenplay in any material form.

The Hon’ble Court held that the right to novelize the screenplay of ‘Nayak’ solely vests with Mr. Satyajit Ray, who was the author and the first owner of the copyright. Under Section 18(1) of the Act, and this right could be assigned by him and, subsequent to his demise, by his son and others upon whom the right devolved, to any other person[11]. Thus, upon the demise of Mr. Satyajit Ray, the copyright of the screenplay of ‘Nayak’ vested with his son, Sandip Ray, and with SPSRA. Hence, the assignment of the right to novelize the screenplay of the film "Nayak", by Sandip Ray and the SPSRA, in favour of the defendant was apt and in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

For all the reasons noted by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the appeal was dismissed as being devoid of any merit and the order of the Ld. Single judge was upheld.

?

[1] The Division Bench Order dated 11.08.2023 can be accessed from here, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/rdbandcohufvharpercollinspublishersindiapvtltd-487080.pdf

[2] CS(COMM) 246/2021

[3] Order XIII-A of the CPC empowers a Court to summarily decide a commercial suit where there is no compelling reason why it should not do so, without recording oral evidence.

[4] Section 2(o), Copyright Act, 1957- “literary work includes computer programmes, tables and compilations including computer databases”.

[5] Section 13(4), Copyright Act, 1957

[6] Section 17, Copyright Act, 1957

[7] Section 2(d)(1), Copyright Act, 1957

[8] Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi v. New Assurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 151

[9] The Single Judge Order dated 23.5.2023 can be accessed from here, https://164.100.69.66/jsearch/judgement.php?path=dhc/CHS/judgement/23-05-2023/&name=CHS23052023SC2462021_150114.pdf

[10] Meaning of copyright- Section 14. (1) (a) (i), Copyright Act, 1957

[11] Assignment of copyright- Section 18(1), Copyright Act, 1957