- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S. Vijayaraghavan v. Sellappappa Keeran
Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicants filed an Original Application seeking an interim injunction restraining the Respondent and her associates from copying, recording, publishing, marketing, editing, or otherwise infringing the Applicants' copyright in certain works. The Respondent had filed a Suit claiming declaration of her title as owner of copyright in the works of her late husband, Pulavar Keeran, by inheritance, and sought an injunction against the Applicants from exploiting those works. The Suit was at a part-heard stage when the Applicants filed this Application under Order 14, Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C) for a temporary injunction.
The Applicants alleged that they had purchased exclusive rights to the works outright and that the Respondent was attempting to publish an MP3 version of the works without their consent. The Respondent denied the oral assignment of copyright claimed by the Applicants, contending that no written assignment was made, and asserted her right to release a DVD version of the works. The dispute centers on the validity of the alleged oral assignment of copyright and the rights of the parties to exploit the works.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an oral assignment of copyright is valid and enforceable under the Copyright Act, 1957.
- Whether the Applicants are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from exploiting the copyrighted works.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicants' Arguments
- The Applicants claimed they purchased the exclusive rights to the works of Pulavar Keeran outright, with no rights retained by Keeran during his lifetime.
- They alleged that the Respondent had entered into a deal to publish MP3 versions of the works, infringing their exclusive rights.
- The Applicants argued that the Respondent cannot defeat their rights by publishing the works during the pendency of the trial.
- They contended that the oral agreement with late Keeran involved outright payment for recording religious discourses, implying transfer of rights.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Respondent denied any oral assignment of copyright, asserting that copyright transfer must be in writing as mandated by law.
- She stated that late Keeran did not assign copyrights to the Applicants, and the arrangements were only for making copies to test commercial viability.
- The Respondent planned to release a DVD version of the works and contended that the Applicants' Application for injunction was unsustainable in law and fact.
- She argued that the balance of convenience favored her and the Application should be dismissed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| K.A Venugopala Setty v. Dr. Suryakantha U. Kamath, AIR 1992 Kant 1 | Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957 – Assignment of copyright must be in writing and signed by the assignor. | The Court relied on this precedent to emphasize that oral assignment of copyright is invalid and unenforceable under the statute. |
| Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Hotel Gold Regency & Ors., 2008 (37) PTC 587 (Del) | Parties can only enforce agreements that are permissible under the Copyright Act, 1957. | The Court used this decision to support the principle that agreements contrary to statutory requirements (such as oral copyright assignments) are unenforceable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the statutory provisions under Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which govern the assignment and mode of assignment of copyright. Section 18 allows assignment of copyright but Section 19 mandates that such assignment must be in writing and signed by the assignor or authorized agent. The Court found that the Applicants failed to produce any written assignment of copyright from late Pulavar Keeran. The alleged oral assignment was not valid or enforceable under the statutory scheme.
The Court referred to the Karnataka High Court decision in K.A Venugopala Setty v. Dr. Suryakantha U. Kamath, which clarified that oral assignments are impermissible. It also considered the Delhi High Court's ruling in Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Hotel Gold Regency, which held that parties cannot enforce agreements that contravene statutory provisions.
Given the absence of a valid written assignment and the statutory mandate, the Court concluded that the Applicants failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favor. Therefore, the Application for temporary injunction was not sustainable.
Holding and Implications
The Court DISMISSED the Original Application for temporary injunction without costs.
This decision directly affects the parties by denying the Applicants interim relief to restrain the Respondent from exploiting the works. The ruling reinforces the statutory requirement that copyright assignments must be in writing, thereby upholding the legal principle that oral assignments are invalid. No new precedent was set beyond the application of existing statutory provisions and case law.
1. The Original Application is filed for interim injunction restraining the Respondent and her men from in any manner copying, recording, publishing, marketing, editing or doing any other act so as to infringe the cop right of the Applicants in the works detailed in the schedule.
2. The Respondent has filed Suit for declaration of her title as owner of copyright in the works of her husband late Pulavar Keeran (by virtue of inheritance) and consequent injunction restraining from the Applicants and their men illegally exploiting the works of late Keeran. The Suit is in part-heard stage. The Applicants/Defendants have filed this Application under Order 14, Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C, for a temporary injunction.
3. In the Affidavit it is alleged that the Suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff nearly 14 years after the death of her husband. Pulavar Keeran died in November 1990. These Applicants have purchased the exclusive right to the works of Pulavar Keeran outright and he did not retain any right over his literary work even during his lifetime. The Applicants were informed on the evening of 3.2.2011 that the Respondent had entered into some deal with a third party and has proposed to publish MP3 version of her husband's work on 6.2.2011, in which the Applicants alone have the exclusive right. In the midst of trial the Plaintiff cannot usurp law into her hands and defeat the rights of the Applicants by publishing the works of her husband on her own or through anybody. Hence, temporary injunction is prayed for.
4. In the Counter, the allegations in the Affidavit are controverted. The Applicants are claiming that they had orally purchased the copyright from Late Keeran. He did not assign copyrights to the Applicants. The arrangements with the Applicant/First Defendant was only to make copies to determine the commercial viability and market for the work of late Keeran. At no point of time, he did sell or assign or part with the copyright. The copyright cannot be assigned orally. It can be only in the written form. On 6.2.2011, this Respondent decided to release a new developed version of the ‘Kamba Ramayanam Kalangiyam’ and other spiritual works of Late Keeran by way of DVD. This Application is unsustainable in law and on facts. The balance of convenience is in favour of the Respondent. Hence, the Application may be dismissed.
5. It is the contention of the Applicants that the First Respondent has approached the Late Pulavar Keeran for the purpose of recording and selling audio cassettes of religious discourses and lectures of Late Pulavar Keeran and he demanded an outright payment of Rs. 2,500/- for every discourse to be recorded in a single cassette for which the First Respondent agreed for the same. This allegation is available in the Written Statement and in the reply notice issued by the First Defendant which is marked as Ex.P.2 The Written Statement further goes to say that the above said was the manner and method in which the business transactions between the Late Keeran and the Defendants were conducted. Hence, it is patent that the copyright was not transferred to the Applicants by means of any written assignment. The above said allegations in the reply notice and Written Statement do not indicate the date on which both Late Keeran and First Defendant entered into the agreement.
6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Sivam Sivanandaraj would contend that the assignment or transfer of a copyright can only be in writing which is a statutory mandate and that in the absence of any written conveyance of transfer, the claim could not stand. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of Karnataka High Court in K.A Venugopala Setty v. Dr. Suryakantha U. Kamath, AIR 1992 Kant 1, in which the learned Judges have extracted Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and explained the import of provisions also. The extraction of the relevant provisions and operative portion of the decision are as follows:
“8.………………Section 18 of the Act provides for “Assignment of copyright”. It reads thus:
“18(1): The owner of the copyright in an existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in a future work may assign to any person the copyright either wholly or partially and either generally or subject to limitations and either for the whole term of the copyright or any part thereof:
Provided that in the case of the assignment in any future work, the assignment shall take effect only when the work comes into existence.”
Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 18 are not relevant for our purpose. Therefore, it is open to the owner of the copyright who is normally the author of the work to assign it to any person in respect of his existing work, as well as of the future work. In this case, we are concerned with the copyright of the existing work because the work has been printed. It was only at the stage of publication of the book, the printer-Defendant came forward with a plea that the Plaintiff-author of the book had assigned the copyright orally. Section 19 of the Act provides for the “Mode of assignment”. It reads thus:
“19(1) No assignment of the copyright in any work shall be valid unless it is in writing signed by the assignor or by his duly authorised agent.
(2) The assignment of the copyright in any work shall, among other thing indicate clearly the right proposed to be assigned and the size of the work.”
9. Thus from the aforesaid provisions contained in S. 19 of the Act, it is clear that assignment of the copyright must be in writing and signed by the assignor or his duly authorised agent. In addition to this, the assignment must in clear terms state the rights proposed to be assigned and the size of the work. No other mode of assignment is valid inasmuch as when the statute specifically provides that assignment of the copyright must be in writing and signed by the assignor, no other mode of assignment such as oral assignment (sic) is neither permissible nor it is valid. In fact sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act in categorical terms states that no assignment of the copyright in any work shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by the assignor or his duly authorised agent.”
7. He also draws attention of this Court by citing a decision of the Delhi High Court in Phonographic Performance Ltd.…Plaintiff v. Hotel Gold Regency & Ors.…Defendants, 2008 (37) PTC 587 (Del) in which it is observed on the provisions of Copyright Act, 1957 that the parties can only agree to do what the law permits they to do and if they agree on something which is not permissible under law, such an agreement to that extent would not be enforceable.
8. In view of the provisions under Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act 1957 the assignment of copyright can only made by writing and if it is made other than writing, it is not at all enforceable in law. When the statutory requirement is not fulfilled, the agreement whether orally by any other means is not sustainable.
9. In order to obtain temporary injunction, the Applicants have to show prima facie case and the balance of convenience. But in view of the above said observation, this Court is unable to find any prima facie case nor balance of convenience in favour of the Applicants. Hence, they have to be non-suited for the relief prayed for. The Application is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Original Application is dismissed without costs.
Alert