Sajeev Pillai vs Venu Kunna Palli & Ors

AIR 2019
ASHWINA NAMTA, 4TH YEAR , ICFAI UNIVERSITY,DEHRADUN

INTRODUCTION

Article 6bis of the Berne Convention which India signed provides for CONDUCT:

1. Seeking ownership; to oppose certain modifications and other offensive acts;

2.After the death of the author;

3. Remedial measures

Based on this article, the Copyright Act included exclusive rights to authors under section 57.
Back before 1987 the exclusive rights under section 57 of the Copyright Act included not only
books but also from 1987 after the decision the court expanded its scope and included art, music,
and wonder. and cinematograph films. There have been many cases related to copyright and the
most recent case is the one mentioned below which we will discuss.

FACTS

 Thirunavaya is a village in the Malappuram District of Kerala, near the banks of the
'bharathpuzha' river. Thirunavaya was famous for the 'Mamankam Festival'. The Mamankam
festival was held every 12 years by the governors of various provinces in Kerala such as
perumals, seer kings etc.

 Based on this two-year history celebration the film was written by the complainant. He said he
had done a lot of research on the festival and it was his dream plan. Plaintiff is a film director
and scriptwriter.

 You met the producer of the first respondent who liked the text so the plaintiff signed a
memorandum of understanding with the defendant believing it was the M / s Kavya Film
Company registered under the Companies Act.

 You later found out that the MOU you have filed has a non-existent business. At that point the
shooting started and the complainant was the director. After completing two schedules the
complainant was removed from being the film director and another person was appointed. The
appellant's script was cut and modified. Plaintiff is the author of the film so a lawsuit was filed
against the defendant seeking relief and an interim order was also filed to prevent the defendant
from releasing, publishing, distributing, exploiting the film 'Mamankam' by any means of
publishing and publishing the premises before releasing sufficient authorization. credits to the
plaintiff. An additional educated district judge dismissed the application and that is why the
complaint was lodged by the complainant.

 Thirunavaya is a village in the Malappuram District of Kerala, near the banks of the
'bharathpuzha' river. Thirunavaya was famous for the 'Mamankam Festival'. The Mamankam
festival was held every 12 years by the governors of various provinces in Kerala such as
perumals, seer kings etc.

 Based on this two-year history celebration the film was written by the complainant. He said he
had done a lot of research on the festival and it was his dream plan. Plaintiff is a film director
and scriptwriter. He met the producer of the first defendant who liked the script and signed a
memorandum of understanding with the defendant who believed to be the M / s Kavya Film
Company registered under the Companies Act.

 You later found out that the MOU you have filed has a non-existent business. At that point the
shooting started and the complainant was the director. After completing two schedules the
complainant was removed from being the film director and another person was appointed.

 The plaintiff's script was cut and modified. Plaintiff is the author of the film so a lawsuit was
filed against the defendant seeking relief and an interim order was also filed to prevent the
defendant from releasing, publishing, distributing, abusing the film 'Mamankam' by any means
of publishing and publishing the premises before releasing sufficient authorization. credits to the
plaintiff. An additional educated district judge dismissed the application and that is why the
complaint was lodged by the complainant.

HELD BY COURT

That the founder of the work even after the appointment of the employee will have the exclusive
right to claim ownership of his or her work provided under section 58 (1) of the copyright law?

THINKING

Venu kunna pallai & ors ruled on 11dec, 2019 the author has a legal right to protect his
intellectual property in fact after being granted a job, assignment and, the work done by him will
not terminate his legal rights to claim ownership over it. The court considered the matter and the
scope of the code of conduct. Considering all the facts and issues, the Court ruled that the film
could be released without showing anyone's name as its author until the case was dismissed and
ordered the trial court to dismiss the case within six months.

The reason is:

57. Special rights of the author.-

• Independently of the copyright holder and even after the granting of the full or part of the said
copyright, the employee will have the right— (a) to seek the authorization of the work; and (b) to
prevent or seek damages in respect of any distortion, subjugation, alteration or other act relating
to the said function if such distortion, subjugation, alteration or other act damages his or her
dignity: Provided that the author shall not have the right to restrict or claim damages in respect of
any any amendment to a computer program where subsection (aa) of subsection (1) of section
52. Explanation.— Failure to present the work or to present it satisfactorily by the author shall
not be construed as a violation of the rights provided by this section.]

• The right granted to the author of the work in terms of subsection (1), may be exercised by the
legal representative of the author. ”

Thus, the author has the right (a) to claim ownership of the work; and (b) prevent or apply for
damages in respect of any distortion, subjugation, alteration, or other act relating to the specified
function if such distortion, mutilation, alteration, or other act damages his or her dignity. These
exclusive rights may be exercised even by the author's legal representatives in terms of
subsection (2) of this provision.

JUDGMENT

The Court clearly stated the law involved in this. What is contained in s. 57 (1) (a) of the
Copyright Act that even if a copyright is allocated, the copyright holder shall have the exclusive
right to claim ownership. This offer has two phases. The first section will authorize the author to
prevent the opposing party from engaging in any further misrepresentation, mutilation, or
mutilation or any other act that is in conflict with the stated purpose.

In the second part, the author has the right to claim damages in respect of any distortion,
subjugation or other modification of the said work or any other act, in respect of copyrighted
work that may damage his or her reputation. Therefore, copyright is fully protected by the Act by
placing it on a high level as copyright is a form of intellectual property and intellectual property
rights are granted to creators through their work. Therefore, even after the assignment of a job,
the Appellant has a legal right to protect his intellectual property and the right to claim
ownership.
Considering the fact that the filming was completed, and it was ready for release, the respondents
argued that if the release was postponed, the damage done would be substantial and would cause
untold hardship for all those people who made their effort again. film production service.

The court ruled that the release of the movie was allowed on the condition that no one be named
as the author of the film ‘Mamankam’ produced by M / s. Kavya Film Company, anywhere on
screen or in commercials.

COMMENT

Moral rights are protected with extreme caution in civil law countries. The author should get the
credit he deserves for his work as when a creative artist has spent a lot of effort and time and
expressed his ideas. The artist donates to the community his creation. Therefore, even if the
agreement transfers the text of the cinematography from the author to another person, the abuser
may at any time exercise his or her special rights granted under Section 57 of the Act.

The writer's moral rights derive from the expression contemplated in Section 57 itself. They are
the exclusive right of the author or creators to include the paternal right and the right to integrity.

Patriarchal right is the author's right to claim ownership of his work and to be considered by him.
On the other hand, copyright allows an author to seize or claim damages in the event of any
distortion, mutilation, alteration or any other improper act performed in his or her work. It is
important, however, that the action in question should infringe on the dignity and dignity of the
creator or author and that action should be performed before the end of the copyright period in
the work.

Although originally intended to protect only literary works, the concept of moral rights was later
extended to artistic films, music, dramas and cinematographs.

Key point:

in that case that despite the transfer or sale of copyrighted work (Mural) from one creator to
another, all rights of the creator are not revoked. The Creator still retains his moral authority,
which can be exercised where necessary.