Case Study: Zee Entertainment Enterprises limited v. Sony Pictures Networks India Private limited” : Copyright Protection with respect to Reality T.V. shows

INTRODUCTION

Copyright Law in India is governed by the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 13 of the Act defines the scope of existence of copyright by listing those works in which copyright subsists. Section 14 defines the meaning of copyright and describes the exclusive rights given to the author of the work. This Article analyses Copyright Protection for Format Ideas in Reality Television Programmes through case laws in India and other countries. Fully scripted half-hour dramas have become increasingly costly, with diminishing TRPs. It therefore is not surprising that the reality television genre has become so popular in recent times.

While hit shows can generate high revenues, they also are easily copied, forcing producers to try to protect their creative investments through resort to the courts. The most significant of these lawsuits assert intellectual property rights, concentrating on allegations of idea and format theft.[1] Zee Entertainment Enterprises limited v. Sony Pictures Networks India Private limited and Ors[2] also deals with a  similar issue thatwhether Plaintiff’s popular show “India’s Best Dramebaaz”, a televised talent hunt for child actors in 5-12 year age group has been illicitly copied by Defendant, and hence, infringed Plaintiff’s Copyright in its concept note?

COURT DECISION

1)  On Originality- A talent hunt requires eliminations from a larger pool and selection of a winner from a larger crowd. There has to be some process of auditioning. It is difficult to conceive of any talent hunt that goes about its stated business in any other fashion. There cannot, therefore, be exclusivity in this. Fact that both shows feature children, they seek out children with acting talent from different cities, and fact that they seek out best of these is hardly something in which anyone can claim any Copyright.

2) Defendant programme not infringed Plaintiff programme– In this industry, it is common to use this document called a ‘concept note’. It sets out the thematic structure, unique elements and so on. There is no doubt that copyright can vest in an original concept note as original literary work.[3] These are not just ideas. These are particularized expressions of ideas. But this is not to suggest that every page of a concept note enjoys the same level of protection. In a field as crowded as this there bound to be common elements and a plaintiff claiming copyright in some aspect of a show such as this will not get copyright in those matters that are undeniably in the public domain. It is not possible to accept that there can be any such monopoly in the concept of a talent hunt for children.

In the present case granting copyright protection to plaintiff would mean granting protection to an idea which is not the objective of grant of Copyright. We can understand this by applying different doctrines to understand the judgement in this case.

IDEA- EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY 

The idea-expression dichotomy was formulated to ensure that the manifestation of an idea (i.e. an expression) is protected rather than the idea itself.[4] An idea is the formulation of thought on a particular subject whereas an expression constitutes the implementation of the said idea.

In the present case we can say copyright does not extend to the idea and the idea is selecting child actors through reality shows.  Anyone can express this idea. There cannot be monopoly to seek out children with acting talent, therefore the plaintiff failed in its case.

MERGER DOCTRINE                                     

The idea and expression are intrinsically connected. The expression is no longer copyrightable because granting copyright over the expression will effectively confer the owner with a monopoly over the idea itself. Applying this doctrine courts have refused to protect the expression of an idea that can be expressed only in one manner, or in a very restricted manner.[5]

In the present case under discussion there is one idea that is of selecting child actors through reality shows and the way to express this idea has very limited scope. If both shows of plaintiff and defendant are on the same theme of seeking child actors then both shows will contain child actors, will have judges and selection of child actors will be done from different cities. There is no other way to do these.

SCENES A FAIRE

One may also contemplate instances where the expression of an idea cannot be made without the use of certain elements. The Courts consider these essential elements as non-copyrightable since protecting these will lead to the protection of the idea. Such essential elements are referred to as Scenes A Faire. Similarly, scènes à faire, sequences of events that necessarily result from the choice of a setting or situation, do not enjoy copyright protection.”[6]

In the present case as already said there are some elements which are non copyrightable  as selecting child actors and then declaring from among them a winner, these are sequences of events that necessarily result from the setting of the reality show seeking child actors.

RECENT TRENDS

In the case “Milano v. NBC Universal, Inc.” [7], the court granted judgment in favour of defendant. Court held the similarities were in elements that were not protectable. The similarities between the two works were the generic idea of a weight loss show and the Scenes A Faire (expressions that are standard or common to a particular topic) that flowed from that idea, none of which were protectable.

In a reality format case Fox Family Properties Inc. v. CBS Inc.[8], the court found that most of the elements, such as camera crews following contestants, running for 13 episodes, air dates and titles, were not entitled for protection.

INDIA

The most famous case for reality show and infringement is “Anil Gupta v. Kunal Gupta and Ors.” [9], where the plaintiff, conceived an idea of producing a reality television show containing the process of match making calling it “Swayamvar“. It was held that defendant could not reap the fruits of labour put in by the plaintiff. Defendant show based on concept of spouse selection in any form as a reality TV show cannot be permitted as that has been conceived by the plaintiff at the first instance.”It was also held that the idea per se had no copyright, but in case the same was developed into a concept fledged with adequate details, the same could be registered under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. Further in case the confidential information was used with certain variations, the same would amount to violation of copyright under section 51 and 55 of the Act.

To conclude, it cannot be denied that concept notes that are submitted by individuals need to be given protection in order to encourage ordinary people to communicate their ideas and see their fruition into TV programs. But mere generic idea which is in public domain cannot be grant copyright protection.  The difference between “Zee case” and “Anil Gupta case” is that zee was claiming copyright over something where sufficient skill and judgment was not applied but in the “Swayamvar” case some unique idea was conceived for the first time which was also reduced into writing with adequate details for which sufficient labour and skill was applied in the concept note which was not the case with Zee. It is held that if sufficient skill and judgment applied then copyright protection is granted.[10]

Author: Purnashri Das, Hidayutullah National Law University, Raipur, Intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at pratistha@iiprd.com.

References:

[1] https://www.sheppardmullin.com/media/article/806_Reality%20Format%20Paper.pdf

[2]https://iiprd.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/copyright-and-reality-tv-shows/

[3] Section 2(o) of Copyright Act, 1957 defines Literary work.

[4]R.G. Anand v M/s Delux Films & OthersAIR 1978 SC 1613

[5]The Chancellors Masters and scholars of the University of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing House and Ors,2008 (38) PTC 385 (Del)

[6]Ibid

[7]584 F. Supp.2d 1288(2008)

[8]663 F.3d 122(3d Cir. 2011)

[9]97(2002)DLT257

[10] Eastern book company v. D.B.Modak(2008) 1 SCC 1

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010