Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Home About MLI Firm Rankings Research & Methodology e-Zine Contact Details
INDIA
Are Characters Copyrightable in India?
Pravin Anand and Prachi Agarwal,
Anand and Anand
Their recognition persists long after the particular circumstances in which they were depicted have been
Western Europe
forgotten. India, having one of the biggest Film Industries Bollywood demands that a stronger copyright
Central and Eastern Europe protection be imparted to these characters, above and beyond the conventional norms.
On the other hand there has been some reluctance regarding the literary/ fictional characters, as the visual
depiction of the same is not apparent and varies from one reader to the other.
Therefore it is more challenging to protect a character under copyright which is portrayed in textual form as
well as to prove infringement as opposed to the characters in comic books, cartoon characters, movies
which are visually depicted.
Also recognising for the first time the possibility of copyright in a character described only by written word
even though no such case had existed. Copyright protection had been granted to characters portrayed in
cartoon even prior to Nichols.
Borrowing the principle, several cases recognized copyright in characters within and separate from the work.
In the case of Toho Co. Ltd v. William Morrow and Company Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 1206, it was held that the
Godzilla character was entitled to copyright protection apart from any film, as it had developed a constant set
of traits that distinguished him/her/it from other fictional characters in the same manner in which the
character of James Bond (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. American Honda Motor, 900 F. Supp. 1287) has been
held to be copyrightable because of an identifiable set of traits that had developed over the course of the 16
James Bond Films.
Similarly, copyright was recognised in Rocky Balboa, the dominant character in each of the movies Rocky I,
Rocky II and Rocky III being a highly delineated character. The physical and emotional characteristics of
Rocky Balboa and the other characters were set forth in tremendous detail and the interrelationships and
development of the characters are central to the movies.
That the Rocky characters are delineated so extensively that they are protected from bodily appropriation
when taken as a group and transposed into a sequel by another author. (Anderson v. Stallone, 1989 WL
206431.)
Therefore, in order for a character to be copyrightable, its personality and characteristics should be more
unique and specific.
The test has often been criticised as restrictive despite having been followed in various subsequent
decisions which held that that copyright existed in the characters.
On the basis of the said principle, in the case of Walt Disney Productions v The Air Pirates et. al, 345 F.
Supp. 108, it was held that an examination of the copyrighted works of plaintiff readily discloses that the plot
of the piece not only centres around the character but is quite subordinated to the characters role and
therefore would be held protectable under the copyright of the work, as component parts. Where the movie
did not revolve around intricate plots or story lines and instead focus was on development of characters, the
charactersconstituted the story being told. (Anderson v. Stallone, 1989 WL 206431.).
Recently in Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. ParagSanghavi and Ors., 223(2015)DLT
152, the Delhi High Court explicitly recognized copyright in movie characters. The characters involved were
Gabbar Singh, Jai, Veeru, Basanti, Radha, Thakur, Dhannoand Sambhawhich have been portrayed in the
movie Sholay.
The Plaintiff claimed that the film Ram GopalVarma Ki Aag by Defendants, infringed the Plaintiffs various
rights in the film Sholay including the copyright of the Plaintiffs in the movie characters. The Plaintiffs also
argued that these characters are extremely developed, unique and distinctive making them sufficiently
delineated wide widely identifiable traits and are so central to the entire plot that they constitute the story
being told and thus, merit copyright protection.
The Court held that the use of similar plot and characters in the impugned film coupled with music, lyrics and
background score etc. amounts to infringement of copyright. However, the operation of the order is currently
stayed subject to deposit of money decree by the Defendants and the said decision is under appeal before
the Appellate Court for final adjudication.
(a) Whether the character commands copyright protection (as already discussed above);
(b) Whether the alleged infringer is copying such development and not merely a broader and more
abstract outline.
The basic premise of copyright being that it only protects the expression of idea and not the idea itself, the
similarity between the two works to be assessed must concern the expression of ideas, not the ideas itself.
As also held in the Indian case of RG Anand v Deluxe Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613, the courts should
determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of
expression adopted in the copyrighted work.
Another theory that has emerged from various cases as also RG Anand, is that if the dissimilarities in the two
works are broad and material which negate the intention to copy and the coincidences are merely incidental,
no infringement of copyright is made out. However, No plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how
much of his work he did not pirate.Sheldon v Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F. 2d 49. Thus, care has to
be taken in given undue emphasis upon the disparities.
The test of concluding whether the second work is a pirated copy is the impression of the average viewer.
Twentieth Century Fox film Corporation v. Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt Ltd, 2010(44) PTC 647 (Bom.).
Applying the same test, the fictional character of Ralph Hinkley in the TV series The Greatest American
Hero was not considered as similar to Super man even though the character superman was found to be
sufficiently developed to command copyright protection.
The Court however did not agree with the Defendants analysis that every skill that the two characters share
should be dismissed as an idea rather than a protected form of expression on the reasoning that that
approach risks elimination of any copyright protection for a character. Warner Bros Inc. v. American
Broadcasting Companies, 720 F. 2d 231.
The 9th Circuit of US also introduced the Krofft Test (Sid & Marty KrofftTelevision v. McDonalds Corp., 562 F.
2d 1157) which is a two-prong test. The first prong involves determination of substantial similarity between
the ideas in the two works and is called the extrinsic test and relies on objective criteria.
Under the second prong being the Intrinsic test, it must be shown that there is substantial similarity of
expression between the two works and is subjective and based on the response of the audience to the look
and feel of the two works. If the two works are dissimilar under the extrinsic test, the works need not be
tested under the intrinsic test. (Anderson v. Stallone, 1989 WL 206431.).
In the Indian case, Raja Pocket Books v. Radha Pocket Books, 1997 PTC 17 (Del), the Court held that the
use of NAGESH amounted to infringement of the copyright in the character NAGRAJ of the Plaintiffs.
Section 51 of the Indian Copyright Act provides infringement. Applying the test of RG Anand, the Court held
that NAGRAJ and NAGESH have the same meaning, namely King Snakes and same functionality, both are
capable of doing same and similar work and for the purpose of climbing both use rope in the form of snake.
V. Conclusion
While the final outcome of the Sholay case will further clarify the fate of copyright in Characters, there are
still many gaps in law that need to be filled. The ambit of protection of character that has been touched upon
by the Indian Courts is very narrow. However, since the fundamental objective of copyright protection is to
foster and encourage creativity, even a single step towards strengthening copyright protection will boost
creativity.
While the Sholay case did not specifically state whether a character from a work of fiction would be
protectable on its own, separate from the story of which it is a part, an analogy could be drawn. To copyright
something, three basic elements are required- originality, fixation and expression. Therefore there is no
reason why a character which is original and fixed in tangible form should not be eligible for copyright
protection as long as it does not denote a mere idea and therefore, it is important that the Indian Courts
should ponder over extending protection to characters.
With the increasing prevalence of cinema and literature and migration of characters from one medium to
another or development of character from one sequel to another, we are living in some fascinating times.
Biographies
Managing partner Pravin Anand focuses on intellectual property, litigation and dispute resolution. He
completed his law studies in New Delhi in 1979 and has since been practicing as an intellectual property
lawyer. Mr Anand has been a counsel in several landmark intellectual property cases involving the first Anton
Piller Order (HMV cases); the first Mareva Injunction Order (Philips case); the first Norwich Pharmacal Order
(Hollywood Cigarettes case); Moral rights of Artists (Amarnath Sehgal case); Recognition for pro bono work
for rural innovators at grass root level (National Innovation Foundation Award - Govt. of India); First order
under the Hague Convention (Astra Zeneca case) and several significant cases for pharmaceutical clients
such as Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. He is a co-author of two volumes of Halsbury's Laws of India on
Intellectual Property and serves on the editorial board of several international intellectual property journals.
Mr Anand is also author of the India chapter in Copyright Throughout the World - WEST (Thomson Reuters).
Prachi Agarwal BSc. LL.B, works in the litigation department of Anand and Anand. She completed her
studies at National Law University, India in 2007 and at George Washington University, US in 2008. Ms
Agarwal is actively involved in intellectual property litigation practice including patents, trademark, copyright
and designs and also provides clients with legal advice in intellectual property law matters. She previously
worked at IP law firm Ditthavong, Mori and Steiner, Virginia, US and is licensed to practice in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, USA and India.
Top