Sameer Wadekar v. Netflix - A Myth Rewritten?
- 5 hours ago
- 5 min read
Introduction
In today’s world, where the law is compared to creativity, ownership of an ‘idea’ has become increasingly complex. The Bombay High Court judgment in Sameer Wadekar and Another v. Netflix Entertainment Services Pvt. Ltd. serves as a reminder that copyright laws are not protection from competition, but rather a speed bump to distinguish originality from copying.[1] In a streaming-driven digital world, the case shows how Indian copyright legislation reconciles two opposing mandates, safeguarding the results of creation and maintaining creative freedom.
Facts of the Case
The defendants, Sameer Wadekar and another, were independent screenwriters who alleged that Netflix's online series Betaal (2020), which was directed by Patrick Graham and produced by Red Chillies Entertainment, copied significant elements from their registered script Vetaal, which was registered in the year 2015.[2] Their story, a horror-thriller about an Indian village haunted by zombie soldiers, integrated folklore and mythology into military conflict.
The plaintiffs had contended that they had distributed their script in the film industry, including to one Mr. Wilson Louis, who was linked to production houses. When Betaal's 146-second trailer was released in May 2020, they spotted around a dozen points of resemblance from the haunted tunnel to zombie soldiers and mythological undertones and went to the Bombay High Court seeking an ad-interim injunction under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.[3]
This Contention was rejected by Netflix, which asserted Betaal was an original work taken from the public-domain story of "Vikram and Betaal" and that there had been neither access nor copying of the plaintiffs' script. The business further contended that publicity regarding Betaal started in 2019 and that the plaintiffs' snap motion in 2020, only days before publication, was barred by delay and laches.
Issues Before the hon’ble Court
1. Has the plaintiff's registered copyright work "VETAAL" been infringed by the defendants by creating and releasing the web series " BETAAL "?
2. Is the plaintiff entitled to an ad interim injunction to prevent the defendants from releasing the web series on 24 May 2020?
Contention from both the sides
Plaintiffs' Contentions
The plaintiffs had argued that Betaal had copied their script's overall creative expression, i.e., the mixing of horror and folklore in a military setting. They added that the convergence exceeded usual themes in narrative structure, tone, and visual imagery. They cited R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, which held that infringement takes place when the viewer thinks that the defendant's work is a "copy" and not an original creation.[4]
They also based their argument on Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, to argue that delay does not make an injunction ineffective where the infringement is ongoing, as each display of the work is an ongoing violation.[5] They further based their argument on Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak to argue that their work contained a sufficient "modicum of creativity" to be protected.[6]
Defendants’ Contention
Netflix contended that the plaintiffs were attempting to monopolise public folklore, which is a part of India's cultural heritage and thus beyond private ownership. Referring to Indian Performing Right Society v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association, the defence noted that copyright applies only to expression, not ideas or themes.[7]
They not only denied the plaintiffs' work entry but also highlighted the fact that the people who created ‘Betaal’ had come up with the story on their own. Netflix also argued that the one-year delay by the plaintiffs in seeking relief was an indication of acquiescence and opportunism, as per the principle of Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Supreme Court held that undue delay will disentitle equitable remedies.[8]
Court's Reasoning and Decision
Justice K.R. Shriram of the Bombay High Court dismissed the interim injunction application. The Court then reaffirmed the notion of the idea-expression dichotomy and held that copyright lies only in the original form of an idea and not the idea itself. Since both Vetaal and Betaal drew inspiration from the ancient myth of Vikram and Betaal, no exclusive right could be claimed on either of the works.[9]
The Court found no evidence of access credible, since the plaintiffs could not link their circulated script with the defendants or the OTT platform. To base a claim of similarity on generic tropes like "zombie soldiers" or "haunted tunnels" was insufficient, since these tropes fall under the horror genre. The Court relied on R.G. Anand, to decide that one work would not be confused with the other by an audience.
The court also pointed out the delay and laches on the part of the plaintiff, as the web series was reported publicly in July 2019, nearly a year prior to when the plaintiff viewed the 146-second trailer in May 2020. In addition, the court further observed that the word "Betaal" takes its origin from widely known hindu mythology, which genuinely diminishes the plaintiff's argument for exclusive originality.
Ultimately, the Court denied an injunction prohibiting Netflix from streaming “ BETAAL” but it granted liberty to the plaintiffs to pursue damages in a full trial if they later proved substantial similarity. [10]
Analytical Discussion
The Sameer Wadekar v. Netflix ruling finds a delicate balance between intellectual freedom and rights of ownership in India's dynamic OTT space. The Bombay High Court's case rests on the idea-expression dichotomy reaffirmed in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films , that copyright guards expression, not ideas. In that finding, the court had held that Leila and the plaintiffs' script had only dystopian themes, standard fare for the genre; the court reaffirmed the cultural commons doctrine. As rightly pointed out by SpicyIP, this approach helps protect the “creative commons,” where similar ideas can exist without being copied.[11]
The court further put the emphasis on the access to the proof, which is also a reflection of international practice, such that sheer thematic similarity cannot lead to infringement.
On delay, the court followed the Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, noting that although delay does not exclude relief, it generally weakens claims with a weaker prima facie.
Lastly, the decision administers the idea of creative pluralism: preserving creativity without employing copyright to kill inspiration. Excessive use of copyright, as scholars like Nimmer caution, would "chill creative progress."[12] The case thus explicitly states that artistic creation thrives not through isolation but through legal borrowing, a principle indispensable for modern-day storytellers dealing with shared mythologies and cybernations.
Conclusion
The Sameer Wadekar judgment reinforces fundamental copyright principles in the streaming era. It establishes that public-domain folklore cannot be monopolised, and creative borrowing, when conveyed uniquely, is still lawful. The Court's balanced approach safeguards creators' rights and the innovation ecosystem on digital platforms.
For new authors, the ruling underlines two principles: prove your originality, and move fast if infringement is suspected. For streaming services, it provides judicial reassurance that inspiration, when true, should not dread being taken to court.
Overall, the ruling maintains the fine balance between protection and advance, reminding us that in copyright law, art can follow life, but not another artist's work.
Author: Khushi Chaurasiya, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.
[1] Sameer Wadekar & Another v. Netflix Entertainment Servs. Pvt. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 659.
[2] Id.
[3] The Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, § 51, India Code.
[4] R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118.
[5] Midas Hygiene Indus. (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90.
[6] E. Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.
[7] Indian Performing Right Soc’y v. E. Indian Motion Pictures Ass’n, (1977) 2 SCC 820.
[8] Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 448.
[9] Sameer Wadekar, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 659.
[10] Bar & Bench, Bombay High Court rejects plea to restrain Netflix from streaming “Betaal”, May 23, 2020.
[12] Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 2.03[B][1] (2023).
Comments