Human Behaviour Cannot Be Copyrighted, Right to Privacy Only Encompasses Intrinsic Personality Aspects: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Human Behaviour Cannot Be Copyrighted, Right to Privacy Only Encompasses Intrinsic Personality Aspects: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified that the mere presence of specific facts representing human conduct or sequences of events indicating human behaviour cannot be the subject matter of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The court was hearing an appeal from T-Series challenging a trial court's injunction order that barred the release of a movie titled 'Dear Jassi.'
The film revolved around the tragic incident of an alleged 'honour killing,' depicting the story of a woman whose marriage was opposed by her family. T-Series, facing an injunction suit, claimed to have obtained permission from the deceased woman's husband to produce the movie.
T-Series contended that the film was adapted from a book narrating the couple's story, for which they had acquired the rights from the book's author.
Examining Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which defines the scope of copyright, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat emphasized that the mere presence of certain factual events representing human behaviour cannot qualify as copyrightable material. The mere existence of an idea or factual occurrence, devoid of creative effort or skill in its transformation into a work, does not meet the criteria of a 'work' under the Copyright Act, eligible for copyright protection.
The court clarified that in the current scenario, the life story of Sukhwinder Singh, the husband of the woman allegedly murdered in an honour killing, cannot be considered the subject matter of copyright. However, it may qualify for other forms of protection under different laws and for distinct purposes.
The court determined that the husband lacked the authority to assign the copyright to the respondent company.
On the other hand, the appellants claimed to have acquired the rights to produce a film based on an existing book by its author, Fabian Dawson.
The court noted that the book in question already encapsulates the story of Jaswinder Kaur. Consequently, as part of the literary work authored by Fabian Dawson, the story of Jaswinder Kaur and, incidentally, aspects of Sukhwinder Singh's life were already covered. Thus, the appellants rightfully obtained the legal authorization to produce a film based on the book.
The court's remarks were made in connection with the petition filed by T-Series and others, contesting the order of ADJ Ludhiana. The ADJ's order granted the interim application filed by M/s Dreamline Reality Movies, imposing a restraint on the appellants from producing, telecasting, selling, or releasing the movie under the title "Dear Jassi" or any other name until the final decision of the case.
When the appellants planned to release the film, M/s Dreamline Reality Movies, alleging ownership of film-making rights from respondent Sukhwinder Singh @ Mithu, husband of Jaswinder Kaur, initiated an injunction suit to prevent the appellants from screening their film.
Dreamland Movies relied on an agreement with Sukhwinder Singh, asserting it was executed before the production of the appellants' movie.
Respondents argued that since the story of Sukhwinder Singh, husband of Jaswinder Kaur, was also depicted in the film, the appellants couldn't have produced a movie about Jaswinder Kaur without his consent.
It was argued that since Dreamland Movies had purchased permission to produce a film about their lives, they held the copyright over the story of Sukhwinder Singh.
It was observed that the complete details of Jaswinder Kaur's life story had been documented in court records both in Canada during extradition proceedings and in Indian courts during the trial of Jaswinder Kaur's family members.
Justice Sehrawat additionally remarked that the issue of Jaswinder Kaur's honour killing had undoubtedly been extensively covered by media and social media platforms, with five other films addressing the subject already produced, thereby establishing it as part of the public domain.
The Court asserted that Respondent No. 1 (Dreamland Company) cannot legitimately claim any copyright over the aforementioned love story and the subsequent murder.
The Court rejected the argument that the making of the movie would violate Sukhwinder Singh's right to privacy, citing the Supreme Court's decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
The court held that the right to privacy includes only aspects of an individual's identity and personality that are inherent to their existence as a human being, along with their unique orientations and choices unrelated to others. When an individual engages in social interactions, aspects of their identity related to interpersonal relations or social choices are not unconditionally protected under the right to privacy.
The court further stated that aspects of an individual's identity or personality that are open to commercial exploitation by their own choice are subject to regulation by laws such as the Copyright Act or defamation laws.
The Court opined that, given the commercial nature of exhibiting the film and the financial gains expected, any potential loss claimed by Dreamland Movie Company could be compensated in monetary terms. Therefore, there was no irreparable loss that would justify restraining the appellants from exhibiting the film through an interim order.
Based on the considerations mentioned above, the Court overturned the injunction that prevented T-series from releasing the movie.
