|
May 7, 2009
Unauthorized ‘Original’ Imported DVDs not for
hire
In a recent order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Court”)
on April 13, 2009, in Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and
Ors. v. Mr. Santosh V.G.,1
the Court reaffirmed and reiterated the position of law in
respect of infringement of copyright subsisting in
cinematographic works and the unauthorized importation of copies
of such works.
The Court, inter alia, observed that the right to offer copies
of a cinematographic work on rental basis, forms part of the
bundle of rights, vesting with the owner of copyright.
Therefore, a person intending to offer copies of such work on
rental basis ought to procure a proper licence from the owner of
copyright in the work.
The Court also considered the issue of the ‘exhaustion of
rights’2
and noted that the principle of exhaustion would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case and the legislation in
question. Further, the Court considered the provisions relating
to parallel importation3
and observed that there are express enabling provisions under
the Patents Act, 1970 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, however,
the position under the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Act”)
is different and parallel importation is explicitly disallowed
under the Act..4
Facts & the Order of the Court
The Defendant was the proprietor/partner of a concern namely,
Cinema Paradiso (“Video Library”), which
carried out the business of offering movie titles on rental
basis. Amongst others, the Video Library had imported and was
offering original DVDs of films, the copyright in which vested
with the Plaintiff. Though, some of these films had not been
theatrically released in India, they were available in DVD
format in the Unites States. As the films had first been
published in the United States; under the International
Copyright Order, 1999 read with Section 40 of the Act, the
Plaintiff was entitled to the copyright in these films in India.
The Defendant (or the Video Library) had not obtained a licence
from the Plaintiff or its affiliates for offering the DVDs on
hire. It was the contention of the Defendant that no such
authorization could have been procured from the Plaintiff as the
Plaintiff did not render licenses for offering copies of its
films on rental basis for the territory of India. The Defendant
further contended that as all DVDs offered by it were original
and had been procured from authorized dealers abroad, such DVDs
were not ‘infringing copies’5
and their importation did not constitute infringement.
Further, the Defendant argued that as the Video Library was also
into organizing seminars and special screenings for encouraging
critical appreciation of foreign films, it added value to the
whole concept of film viewing. Thereby, the Defendant contended
that the Video Library was serving the societal needs and was
abiding by the “Constitutional imperative that providing
entertainment is a part of fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression.”
In the aforementioned background, the Court, inter alia,
considered the issue whether the importation of copies of
cinematographic works and offering such copies on rental basis
constitutes infringement of copyright in view of the fact that
such copies were meant for sale or rental only in a particular
territory outside India. The Court noted that though the
Defendant may have been importing original DVDs, such DVDs
cannot evade the definition of infringing copy which not only
includes ‘making of copies’ but also includes ‘importation in
contravention of the Act’.
The Court after considering the relevant law and precedents on
the subject opined that parallel importation of original copies
of a cinematographic work cannot preclude the rights of the
owner of copyright as parallel importation itself is expressly
disallowed in view of the provisions of the Copyright Act. The
Court also considered the provisions of TRIPS and noted that
though, Article 11 of TRIPS does not oblige the member countries
to enact legislations for regulating rental rights for
cinematographic works, the existence of Section 14(d) in the Act
makes it clear that the owner of copyright has the exclusive
right to offer or give on hire copies of his cinematographic
work6.
Further, the Court considered that the explicit mention of
exhaustion of rights under Section 14(a) (ii) in respect of
literary (except computer programmes), musical and dramatic
works and the deliberate exclusion of the same in respect of any
other class of works and stated that the legislature consciously
chose to exclude all other classes of works from the exhaustion
principle and thereby “sleight of judicial reasoning cannot
extend its application” to cinematographic works.7
Thus, the Court ordered for the continuance of the ad-interim
order passed earlier in the matter that the Defendant and its
affiliates shall not import copies of any cinematographic works,
the copyright in which, vests with the Plaintiff.
Further, the Court speaking on the issue of fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article
19(1)(a), observed that the law of copyright, being a species of
property law, purports to strike a balance between the
protection accorded to the “expression of idea, in a given form
to promote creativity” and the fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a). Addressing the submissions of the
Defendant, the Court noted that there is no public interest in
insisting upon that the copies of a cinematographic work are
unavailable in India and such unavailability cannot be construed
as an encroachment upon the fundamental freedom of speech and
expression.
The law on importation of copies
of cinematographic works
As given under Section 51 of the Copyright Act the copyright in
a work shall be deemed to have been infringed when any person
without an authorization does anything, the exclusive right of
doing which vests with the owner of copyright. Under Section 14
of the Act, inter alia, the following exclusive rights have been
granted to the owner of copyright subsisting in a cinematograph
film:
-
to make a copy of the film;
-
to sell or give on hire, or offer for
sale or hire, any copy of the film;
-
to communicate the film to the public.
Section 51(b) further states that when any
person without a licence from the owner of copyright:
-
makes for sale or for hire, or sells or
lets for hire, or offers for sale or hire; or
-
distributes either for the purposes of
trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the
owner of the copyright; or
-
by way of trade exhibits in public; or
-
imports into India,
any infringing copies of a work, the same
shall constitute infringement of copyright. However, the Act
carves out a specific exception for ‘one copy’ imported for
private and domestic use of the person importing such copies.
Thus, Section 51(b) makes it clear that the
unauthorized importation of copies of any class of work
(including cinematographic works) constitutes infringement of
copyright.
Moreover, under Section 53 of the Copyright
Act, the Registrar of the Copyrights (on a request being made by
the owner of copyright) is empowered to order that copies of a
work, made out of India which if made in India, would infringe
the copyright in the work, shall not be imported to India and
the import of such copies shall be prohibited or restricted
under the Customs Act, 1962.8
This provision makes it clear that parallel importation is not
allowed under the law of copyright. Also, under Intellectual
Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 dated
May 8, 2007, a right holder to an intellectual property can
procure registration with the customs department and intimate
the department to suspend clearance of infringing goods at the
port. As these rules also cover copyright, the right holder to a
cinematographic film can take benefit from these rules to
restrict the importation of infringing copies of his film.9
Similarly, under the Export and Import Policy
(“Policy”) 1997-2002,10
any person importing copies of a cinematograph film in the form
of video tapes, compact discs, digital video discs etc. needs to
ensure that all applicable Indian laws governing the
distribution and exhibition of films, including the requirements
under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (“Cinematograph Act”)
have been complied with. Under, the Cinematograph Act, it is
mandatory to procure a certificate from the Board of Censors for
any film which is purported to be publically exhibited in India.11
Further, the Policy makes it clear that no importation of any
unauthorized or infringing copies of a film shall be allowed.
Therefore, in view of the above, for the
importation and distribution of copies of a cinematograph film,
the following requirements have to be met:
-
Authorization from the owner of copyright
in the cinematograph works ought to be procured
-
Certificate from the Board of Censors
must have been obtained.
Conclusion & Analysis
In view of the statutory provisions, the
adjudication of the Court reaffirms the established principle:
parallel import cannot preclude the owner of copyright in a
cinematographic work from enforcing his rights against a person
who, without authorization, imports and offers for hire copies
of his work. The question whether such unauthorized imported
copies are original or pirated, bears no relevance to the issue
of infringement.
The Court rightly remarked that the specific
mention of exhaustion of rights in respect of literary (except
computer programmes), musical and dramatic works and the
deliberate omission in case of any other class makes it clear
that the legislature intended not to apply the exhaustion
principle to any other class of works including cinematographic
works. Thus, the observation of the Court that ‘exhaustion of
rights in each case would depend upon the language of the
relevant statute’, may bear pertinence to all cases where the
principle of exhaustion would be in question.
____________________
1. CS (OS) No.
1682/2006
2. The principle of ‘exhaustion of rights’
essentially means that once copies of a work have been put
into circulation, the owner of copyright has exhausted his
rights and such owner cannot exercise any control on further
exploitation of such copies.
3. ‘Parallel Importation’, refers to
import of goods which have been procured from authorized
sources in another country. Parallel Importation, thereby
by-passes the authorized domestic suppliers or licensees in
the country of importation.
4. Section 30, sub-clause (3) and 4 of
the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 107-A of the Patents
Act, 1970.
5. “Infringing Copy” has been defined
under the Copyright Act to mean a copy of a film made on any
medium by any means, if such copy is made or imported in
contravention of the provisions of the Act.
6. Under Article 11 of TRIPS, a member
state is obliged to provide for domestic legislation
regulating rental rights in respect of computer programmes.
However, members are expected from such an obligation in
relation to cinematographic works unless in the member state
“such rental has led to widespread copying of such works
which is materially impairing the exclusive right of
reproduction conferred…on authors…”
7. Section 14(a)(ii.) states that the
owner of copyright is entitled to issue copies of the work
to the public “not being copies already in circulation”.
8. Section 11(2)(n) of the Customs Act,
1962 gives a parallel power to prohibit or restrict the
import of goods for the protection of copyright.
9. Nishith Desai Associates had written a
hotline on the said Rules on
November 8, 2007, ‘Government issues Circular on border
enforcement of IPRs
10. Public Notice No.64/1997-2002 issued
by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of
Commerce on January 29, 2002.
11. Similar provision could be found under
Section 52-A of the Copyright Act which mandates that no
person shall publish a video film if such a film is required
to be certified for exhibition under the Cinematograph Act.
|
|
|
You can direct your queries or
comments to the authors
|
|