Dubbing Does Not Include Broadcasting: Madras High Court Clarifies Broadcast Rights in Film Copyright
It was ruled that the telecast of the film through satellite television by the defendants did not amount to infringement of the appellant’s copyright
The progression of media from traditional cinema halls to satellite television and digital broadcasting has altered the way in which cinematographic works are used commercially. Simultaneously, these developments have increased the complexity of copyright licensing in the entertainment industry. The decision of the Madras High Court in Lahari Recording Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Jain Television (Mala Publicity Service Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors. provides the needed clarity on the scope and nature of broadcast rights in cinematograph films, particularly in the context of satellite television use.
The case arose as a challenge to the judgment of a Single Judge dismissing two suits filed by the appellant, Lahari Recording Company Pvt. Ltd., one seeking an injunction against the telecast of the Telugu version of the film Roja, and the other seeking damages of INR 1 crore for alleged unauthorised broadcast. Aggrieved by the dismissal of both suits, the plaintiff approached the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
The dispute originates from an agreement dated June 16, 1992, under which the appellant acquired the exclusive right to dub and remake the Tamil film ‘Roja’ into Telugu and exploit the same for a period of 25 years in specified territories. The appellant contended that it had invested substantial resources in dubbing the film and had released the Telugu version in certain regions. The dispute arose when the defendants announced that they would telecast the Telugu version of the film through their satellite network. The appellant asserted that the telecast infringed its copyright, claiming that its rights over the dubbed version were exclusive and comprehensive.
The denial of the injunction and damages was affirmed, and both appeals were dismissed
The defendants disputed this claim by drawing a distinction between different categories of rights in a cinematograph film. They contested that the appellant had acquired only limited rights, primarily relating to dubbing and theatrical use, and that satellite broadcasting rights had never been assigned to the appellant. Instead, those rights were separately licensed through independent agreements. The producer of the film, Kavithalayaa Productions Pvt. Ltd., supported this position and clarified that while the appellant was entitled to use the Telugu version within certain territorial limits, the agreement did not contemplate or include satellite television rights.
The Single Judge, after examining the contractual arrangements and the evidence on record, held that the appellant did not have any satellite rights assigned in their favour and that their rights were confined essentially to theatrical use. Accordingly, the telecast of the film through satellite television by the defendants did not amount to infringement of the appellant’s copyright. On this basis, both the suit for injunction and the suit for damages were dismissed. The present appeals, therefore, required the Division Bench to consider whether these findings necessitated interference.
In addressing the appeals, the Madras High Court adopted a restrained approach consistent with appellate review, focusing on whether the conclusions of the Single Judge were legally or factually untenable. The Court first recognised that copyright in a cinematograph film is not a single indivisible right, but a bundle of distinct rights that can be assigned separately. The Court affirmed that rights relating to dubbing, theatrical exhibition, television broadcast, and satellite transmission operate in different domains and must be specifically granted if they are to vest in a licensee or assignee.
The appellant’s attempt to equate dubbing rights with full ownership over the dubbed version was accordingly rejected by the Court. Further, the Court rejected the argument that the holder of dubbing rights could be treated as the “producer” of the dubbed film for all purposes, particularly so as to claim satellite broadcast rights. Even though the appellant had obtained certification in its name for the Telugu version, such certification did not expand the scope of rights beyond what was contractually granted. The Court emphasised that the extent of copyright ownership must be determined strictly on the basis of the agreement between the parties, and not on assumptions arising from subsequent acts such as certification or release.
Another important aspect that emerged from the record was that the producer had entered into an agreement granting limited satellite telecast rights to another party, thereby enabling the defendants to broadcast the film. This further cemented the conclusion that such rights were treated as distinct, both commercially and legally, from those granted to the plaintiff. In the absence of any assignment of satellite rights in favour of the appellant, the Court held that there could be no infringement arising from the defendants’ telecast.
The Court therefore upheld the findings of the Single Judge in their entirety, concluding that the appellant had failed to establish any right that was violated by the defendants. The denial of the injunction and damages was affirmed, and both appeals were dismissed.
The Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the continuing importance of precision in copyright licensing within the film industry. As modes of use have diversified, including theatrical release, satellite broadcasting and digital streaming, the division of rights has become increasingly pronounced. The decision carefully establishes that each right constitutes a separate commercial asset, and that parties must ensure that their agreements clearly and expressly cover the modes of use they intend to control.
As broadcasting technologies continue to evolve, with satellite television now complemented by OTT streaming platforms and digital distribution channels, the distinction of rights in such works would likely become even more complex. The Madras High Court’s decision, therefore, embodies a key principle that mere acquisition of dubbing or remake rights does not confer the right to broadcast a film through satellite television. In the absence of an explicit grant via a contract, such rights remain with the original owner or may be validly assigned to others.
Disclaimer – The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the authors and are purely informative in nature.