Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellants coupled with the material placed on record and the impugned order of the trial Court and limited jurisdiction of this Court in interfering with the impugned order of the trial Court, it is clear that the plaintiffs are claiming copyright over the dramatic work as alleged in the suit. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court has observed that copyright has come to an end in the year 2011 itself and, therefore, on the date of filing of suit, there was no copyright in existence in favour of the plaintiffs and claim of the plaintiffs regarding adaptation of artistic work of the plaintiffs by the defendants cannot be believed and the plaintiffs can be compensated in terms of money in future. These observations of the trial Court is legally not tenable in view of Section 22 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides as under:-

C/AO/197/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022 "22. Term of copyright in published literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works.--Except as otherwise hereinafter provided, copyright shall subsist in any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (other than a photograph) published within the lifetime of the author until 1[sixty years] from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies.

8. The Copyright Act also defines term "adaptation" in Section 2 (4), which includes amongst other things, in clause

(ii) that in relation of a work or an artistic work, the conversion of work into a dramatic work by way of performance in public or otherwise. Thus, features of copyright registered and somebody else adopts such work and convert it into a dramatic work by way of performance in public or otherwise would fall in term "adaptation". Now, admittedly in the present case, the C/AO/197/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022 pleadings of the plaintiffs alleging adaptation by defendant, who is an ex-employee has not been denied by the defendants by filing written statement or affidavit even before the trial Court nor before this Court. When the pleadings of the plaintiffs, which are based upon documentary evidence coupled with affirmation on affidavit are not challenged by other side, at interlocutory stage, such pleadings of the plaintiffs need to be accepted at least for the purpose of interlocutory order of injunction. In the present case, the plaintiffs have produced various documentary evidence showing that its artistic work having copyright have been used by defendants by changing only the name of the Show. This factum has not been denied by the defendants by filing reply or affidavit. Thus, entire approach of the trial Court in deciding interim injunction application and ultimately rejecting it is arbitrary one and against the provisions of the Copyright Act. Therefore, under the circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the trial Court needs to be interfered with and the injunction, as prayed for by the plaintiffs against the defendants, needs to be granted.