Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Nandi Chinni Kumar & Ors.
(2020) 6 ALT 162 (DB) : (2021) 1 ALD 108 (DB) : (2021) 85 PTC 435
In the High Court of Telangana
CMA 355-358/2020
Before Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice T. Amarnath Goud
Decided on October 19, 2020

Relevancy of the Case: Copyright protection to the real-life events of a person that are already in the public domain

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Copyright Act, 1957

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The second appellant, a former football player, entered into a Life Story Rights Agreement with the first respondent. He also issued a No Objection Certificate and Declaration Letter granting them the exclusive right to make a biopic film on his real-life story.
• The first respondent prepared a script and registered it with the Telangana Cinema Writers Association.
• Meanwhile, the first appellant decided to make a biopic on the life of the third appellant. The third appellant happens to be the coach of the second appellant.
• The first respondent approached the court seeking an injection. He contended that he holds copyright over the second appellant’s life story and life events. The first appellant’s movie covered a significant part of it.
• The court had granted a temporary injection in favour of the first respondent. The first appellant is contesting this injunction in the present case.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The first appellant’s counsel argued that they were entitled to use the real-life events of the third appellant. They acquired the requisite rights from him. Moreover, they did not review the first respondent’s registered script. Hence, there lies no question of copyright infringement.
• The first respondent’s counsel submitted that he owned the copyright in respect of the life events of the second appellant. The first appellant’s movie with a character similar to the second appellant constitutes copyright infringement.

Opinion of the Bench

• There are distinct similarities in the plot, depiction, life, and story of the film’s protagonist with the respondent’s registered script.
• When the second appellant entered into a Life Story Rights Agreement, the second appellant would constitute a celebrity.
• The first respondent is entitled to enforce the rights created by the Agreement, and the first appellant’s movie infringed those rights.

Final Decision

• The court found no error in the temporary injunction order and dismissed the appeal.

Satvik Mishra, an undergraduate student at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, prepared this case summary during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2022.