Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: copyright in dramatic work in The Academy Of General Education ... vs Smt. B. Malini Mallya D/O Late Sri B. ... on 5 December, 2007Matching Fragments
17. By referring to certain passages from both these works, learned senior counsel submitted that even Dr. Karanth himself did not claim any copyright in respect of 7 prasangas and therefore, it is too much on the part of the plaintiff to claim such a right in these works or in the Yakshagana ballet. It was also submitted that as Dr. Karanth did not bring about substantial changes in the field of Yakshagana, the question of any copyright being claimed by the plaintiff, therefore, will not arise. Pointing to the will executed by Dr. Karanth, it was submitted by Sri. K.G. Raghavan that all that Dr. Karanth had bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff is only a copy right in respect of "literary work and books", but not in respect of "dramatic work" and therefore, the question of copyright in dramatic work also biting bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff cannot be inferred from the contents of the will which document in marked as Ex.P.1. No foundation is laid by the plaintiff to show that the dramatic work also comes within the bequeath made in flavour of the plaintiff.
61. In respect of copyright in original 'dramatic work', the following observations found in Halsbury's Laws of England by Lord Hailsham. Fourth Edition are very relevant:
Only original works are protected under Part I of the Copyright Act 1956, but it is not requisite that the work should be the expression of original or inventive thought for Copyright. Acts are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but with the expression of thought, and, in the case of a literary work, with the expression of thought in print or writing.... There is copyright in original dramatic works and adaptations thereof, and such copyright subsists not only in the actual words of the work but in the dramatic incidents created, so that if these are taken there may be an infringement: although no words are actually copied. There cannot be copyright in mere scenic effects or stage situations which are not reduced into some permanent form.
(ii) In order to obtain copyright for literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, the subject dealt with need not be original nor the idea expressed be something novel, but what is required is the expenditure of original skill or labour in execution and not originality of thought.
63. The above analysis therefore impels me to take the view that though Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act classifies the works into four categories namely original literature, dramatic, musical and artistic in respect of which Copyright exists, that does not give room to take the view that a 'literary work' has nothing to do with a 'dramatic work' and vice-versa. Similarly, it cannot be said that musical work does not have an element of art in it. It is possible to produce a literary work with dramatic elements in it, as in the case of Charles Dicken's "Pickwick Papers". Dramatic works also could contain in its, passages of great literary taste, as in the case of great plays of William Shakespeare. Therefore, the main classification as literary work and dramatic work cannot be construed to mean that dramatic work has nothing to do with literary work. The only difference I see in them is that the dramatic work (plays) forms the text upon which the performance of the plays rests whereas a 'literary work' enables one to read the printed words. Neither of the two can be produced without the imaginative skill of the author.
which means that the text of the Yakshagana prasanga form the basis for the Yakshagana Ballet directed by Shivarama Karanth.
68. I am of the considered opinion that all the above changes brought about by Dr. Karanth in respect of Yakshagana Ballet leads to the inference that the imaginative faculties of Dr. Karanth permeated the entire Yakshagana Prasangas and thus a new look was given to the Yakshagana Ballets. I, therefore, hold that the bequest of copyright in literary works and books in favour of the plaintiff by Dr. Karanth, will have to be treated as the bequest covering the dramatic works also since I have also drawn the conclusion that the dramatic works is also a form of literature. Therefore, necessity of mentioning copyright separately in respect of dramatic works does not arise. The plaintiff, therefore, to entitled to copyright even in respect of the dramatic works namely the seven prasangas, by virtue of bequest made in her flavour in respect of copyrights and books.