Court Affirms Raj Television's Ownership Despite Technological Advances and Dismisses Vacate Stay Application
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has reinforced the copyright claims of Raj Television Network Limited over three classic Tamil films, including "16 Vayathinile," "Kalangarai Vilakkam," and "Kudiyirundha Kovil," against Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy, who had streamed these films on his YouTube channels without authorization. The case, which revolved around the interpretation of streaming rights under the Copyright Act, 1957, concluded with the court making the interim injunction against Dhaksnamoorthy absolute and imposing costs on him.
Justice N. Senthilkumar presided over the case, where the applicant, Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy, sought to vacate an ex parte interim injunction obtained by Raj Television Network Limited. The injunction had been granted due to unauthorized streaming of films that Raj Television claimed exclusive rights to, including digital rights.
Dhaksnamoorthy argued that the original agreements from 1999 and 2000 with O.K. Films did not explicitly include streaming rights, as the technology did not exist at the time. However, the court held that the agreements, made prior to the 2012 amendment to Section 18 of the Copyright Act, inherently included future modes of communication unless expressly excluded. Therefore, streaming rights were deemed to be included in the original agreements, favoring Raj Television.
Further, Raj Television Network successfully demonstrated a continuous chain of title and ownership through previous assignments, countering Dhaksnamoorthy's claim of having permissions from original copyright holders. The court found no credible evidence in Dhaksnamoorthy's submissions that could invalidate the plaintiff's established rights.
The court also addressed jurisdictional challenges under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, raised by Dhaksnamoorthy, affirming that copyright infringement constitutes a commercial dispute, irrespective of the suit's valuation.
In conclusion, the court dismissed Dhaksnamoorthy's application to vacate the injunction, ordering him to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The judgment underscores the legal recognition of evolving technological modes under existing copyright assignments, providing a precedent for similar disputes.
Bottom Line:
Copyright law - Streaming rights over films - Rights conferred prior to 2012 amendment to Section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957 are understood to include future modes of communication to the public unless expressly excluded.
Statutory provision(s): Copyright Act, 1957 Sections 18, 55; Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 2(1)(c).
Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy v. Raj Television Network Limited, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833891
