Sreemanthudu Case: Prosecute Copyright Case Under Law, Says HC
Writer poet R.D. Wilson had lodged the complaint in question stating that he had authored the work ‘Chachhentha Prema’. According to the complaint, he had suggested a formula of ‘land for land’, which was submerged in the project. The novel has sold over two lakh copies and as such, he is the copyright owner, he said.
According to Wilson, producers of the Mahesh Babu starrer approached him and paid an advance for adaptation of his work. He pointed out that the film reflected his idea of ‘land for land’ as a process involving farmers. The complaint also moved the Telugu Cine Writers’ Association, which found the film ‘Sreemanthudu’ to be a copy of the novel.
It was further averred that a Hindi version of the film with Hrithik Roshan in the lead was being considered. After the magistrate took cognisance of the offences under the Copyright Act, the petitioners moved independent petitions for quashing of the criminal complaints. The complainant challenged the action of the magistrate for not taking cognisance for cheating and forgery.
On whether there was an infringement of copyright as alleged by the complaint, Justice Surender said: “A reading of the complaint would reflect that prima facie it is not only the concept which was copied but also the story line of the novel. Making minor changes and copying the main story will not make it his creation.”
“Since both the story in the movie and also the novel of the complainant were compared by eight prominent writers and their opinion was that the movie was a copy of the novel, it cannot be said that there is no infringement of copyright” and required prosecution in accordance with law.
The judge purged the accused of conspiracy as the filmmaker had claimed to be writer there could not have been any conspiracy.
Rejecting the petitioner of the complainant on the failure to the prosecution to deal with cheating, Justice Surender said: “Copying a story is an offence under the Copyright Act. To attract an offence of cheating, there has to be an act of deception pursuant to which the person deceived should have delivered the property or deliberately caused wrongful loss. None of the averments in the complaint make out the offence of cheating. When the offence is violating a copyright, the question of forgery in the present case does not arise.”