The Copyright Act, 1957 is considered to be a vintage legislation in the field of intellectual property laws in India. The central idea is to protect the originality of an idea once expressed through a certain medium. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Motion picture film is a homogeneous material with numerous other works within it which enjoys protection by operation of law or by contract or assignment when all these works are put together in the final form of a motion picture whose rights are vested in a producer or maker within the meaning of the law. Although many attempts have been made to update it according to the needs of the time, the law still has gaps especially regarding cinematography, digital technology, software, etc. An appeal (OS Appeal No: 22 of 20170), dated 8th September, 2016, was filed before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justices Ravi Shakdher and Abdul Quddhose against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge the only one in which the plaintiff's request for an injunction against the defendants was rejected. The disputes between the parties concern the rights attached to the film "Aaranya Kaandam". The appellant/complainant has written the screenplay of the film 'Aaranya Kaandam' and has completed the registration formalities with the Film Writers Association, Mumbai. In the due 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 was handed over in the form of bound copy. 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, it received countless ratings and reviews and won the "Grand Jury Prize" in New York. The Film Festival, however, did not gain much commercially due to poor publicity. In February 2012, the appellant came to know that the defendants were attempting to dub "Aaranya Kaandam" into Telugu without the prior consent of the appellant, which led to the institution of this suit. The summary of actions of the lower courts shows that the initial injunction order passed by the learned Single Judge was vacated by the subsequent move made by the respondents. The appeal to the judging panel also ended with the same outcome. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court where the Madras High Court was directed to dispose of the pending case as expeditiously as possible envisaging a duration of 3 months for the same. The issues that arose for consideration were: Whether dubbing into Telugu constitutes an infringement of the rights of the plaintiff under section 14(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957? Whether the remake in Telugu constitutes an infringement of the rights of the plaintiff under section 14(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957? Whether the plaintiff has any right to restrain the defendant from dubbing/redoing/doing any other activity in view of the admitted fact that the plaintiff has not entered into any agreement to effect such restriction? Is section 14(1) (d) the only relevant provision in respect of cinematographic films? Whether the appellant is entitled to a permanent injunction? What other remedies can the appellant claim? The appellants have submitted that there is no assignment of rights to the screenplay pursuant to Article 19, paragraph 1, because for a valid assignment, there must bean identification of the work, specifying its rights, duration and territory. The budget sheet relied upon by the interviewees makes no reference to the script. In this case there is no transfer of behavior or acquiescence in favor of the respondents. If assignment were assumed, it could only be interpreted as limited to the making of a Tamil film since the respondents cannot use the script unless the rights are attributed to figure 19. Dubbing consists of the translation of the dialogues contained in the films originating from the literary work which belongs primarily to the owner of the copyright of the literary work. Article 14(1)(d) does not give the producers of the cinematographic film the right to translate the work by any dubbing means, also because the dubbed film will ultimately lead to the creation of a separate film which is not permitted without license or assignment. Therefore, the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in deciding otherwise by departing from the precedents established in the case of PVR Pictures Ltd. v. Studio 18, 2009 (41) PTC 70; R.G.Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118 etc. On the other hand, the respondents submitted that what was placed on record before the court was a script and not a screenplay therefore there was no copyright in the said work in favor of the appellant. Respondents are producers within the meaning of section 2(d) and would do well to fall within the ambit of authors. In addition to this, the appellants were paid a valuable compensation for the screenplay, transformed into a cinematographic film, which gives the defendants, who are its owners, the right not only to remake it but also to dub it in a language other than the original. and communicate it to the public in the language or languages ​​of their choice. The appellants do not enjoy any special rights as the registration of the film with the Film Writers Association was carried out subsequently. The rights to the screenplay are very much vested in the plaintiff, however the rights to the subject motion picture film are in the hands of the defendants. The appeal was partially allowed and the suit decreed, granting an injunction against the respondents from remaking/making different versions of the film based on the subject screenplay and the parties were left to their own devices as the subject cinematographic film was based on the story narrated by the appellant with respect to the screenplay written by him and therefore there are no doubts regarding the existence of the screenplay or its authorship. The judges were in agreement in making this judgment. This story ends with a moral that when multiple stakeholders are involved in a particular project, a lot of confusion exists especially as to who should be rewarded and preferred. In this case, a contract with clear terms and conditions is essential which can necessarily avoid any confusion or conflict in order to analyze the provisions relating to the ownership and assignment/licensing of copyright and address the problems emerging therein. Please note: This is a sample only. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay. Movies are meant for entertainment and are filled with many complexities. The issue of intellectual property is therefore even more complex since the answer lies in the fact that every component of a film needs protection. The central point to consider is who can claim ownership of a film, the person who directed the film or the man who financed it. It is in fact a paradoxical situation that a story cannot make a film and without a story there cannot be a film. By author.