Copyright Laws and Fair Dealing: Analysing the Ongoing Dispute Between Dhanush And Nayanthara
INTRODUCTION OF THE DISPUTE
The ongoing dispute between the Raanjhanaa Star, Dhanush, and ‘Lady Superstar’ Nayanthara started when Dhanush filed a ten-crore lawsuit against the actress, her husband, Vignesh Shivan, and their production company, “Rowdy Pictures Private Limited” accusing them of using unauthorized 3-second BTS footage from the 2015 film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan in Nayanthara’s Documentary, “Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale” which was released on Netflix on 18 November 2024.
The film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan was produced by Dhanush and directed by Vignesh, with the lead actress Nayanthara. While The film is credited for uniting Vignesh and Nayanthara, who married in 2022, it is said to be a dark period for Dhanush as he encountered severe financial strains during its production.
Since one of the companies against which the suit was filed is in Mumbai, Dhanush applied Section 12 of the Letter Patent Act, which allowed him to sue the company along with the other respondents. The jurisdiction is vested in the Madras High Court, with presiding Justice Abdul Quddhose. The court had permitted the jurisdiction since most of the cause of action occurred in Chennai. On 27 November 2024, the court directed Nayanthara, Vignesh Shivan, and others to clarify the allegations against them.
However, Nayanthara has made her stance unyielding. Rahul Dhawan, her lawyer, argued that the disputed clip was part of Nayanthara’s ‘Personal Liberty’ as it was shot on her device and was already circulating in the public domain. He clarified that Dhanush’s production company, Wunderbar Films Private Limited, did not own the footage. The defense concluded that the case was without merits, thus not violating copyright laws. Nayanthara had personally responded to the allegations via her Instagram on 16 November, two days before the release of her documentary. She blamed Dhanush for an ‘all-time low’ behavior and accused him of harboring a personal grudge.
ISSUES ARISING OUT OF DISPUTE
- The legal validity of the agreements signed by Nayanthara or Vignesh, including an assignment of copyright of any videos, photos, or other works created on the set of Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, is under scrutiny by the court.
- Whether the BTS footage recorded on a personal device falls under the terms and conditions terms of the agreement.
RULES APPLICABLE IN THE DISPUTE
This case involves invoking Section 52 of the Copyright Act of 1957. The acts that do not constitute infringement, exempting them by allowing them to fall under the purview of “fair dealing with any work,” are listed under this section. Section 52 embodies the fair balance of rights and enables people to use a copyrighted work for specific purposes as long as the use is ‘fair.’ Herein, the court is bound to consider factors, including the extent and context of the copyrighted work.
The Copyright Act of 1957 also protects performer’s rights, primarily under Sections 38 and 39. These rights, however, can be waived through the contents of contractual agreements. The Madras High Court, concerning the present matter, must ascertain where such rights were contractually transferred to Wunderbar Films.
ANALYSIS OF THE DISPUTE
According to the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, copyright ownership is contingent upon the nature of any agreements or the footage in place. If seen from a distance, the person taking the footage appears to be the owner; however, the exception stands when the footage is captured for valuable consideration at the instance of any other person. In these situations, the person whose instance the footage, or in this case, the cinematographic film, is made is the owner. Thus, in such cases, copyright laws would favor the producer if the BTS Footage was created as part of the production process. The dispute shares a similarity with Ilaiyaraaja’s copyright case. [1]
This is usually because the producer controls the entire production, including any ancillary content created during the process. However, the producer can assert his claim to the copyright of BTS Footage only if it is manifested explicitly in the agreement. In accordance with the matter mentioned earlier, M. Arun, an Advocate for Dhanush, has clarified in the legal notice that all BTS Footage, including film and music, belongs solely to Dhanush’s Wunderbar Pictures.
Furthermore, Paragraph 4 of the Legal notice issued to Nayanthara explicitly confers all the rights, including but not limited to Intellectual property rights and copyright in the services for all purposes for the entire territory and perpetually for the whole film to the producer. Furthermore, Paragraph 6 of the same notice gives sole rights to videos and photographs, including Behind the Scenes, shot during the movie to the producer.
Nayanthara’s defence may invoke the Latin maxim, “De Minimus Non Curat Lex,” which translates to “The law does not concern itself with trifles,“[2] Established in India TV Independent News Service Vs. Yash Raj Films[3]. However, it is to be noted that Dhanush had explicitly refused to grant the NOC (No Objection Certificate) twice, portraying his adherence to protecting his copyright rights. Furthermore, A legal notice had been issued to Nayanthara by Dhanush prior to the usage of the clip, stating the consequence of using the BTS would be a ten-crore lawsuit, which Nayanthara openly neglected by incorporating the said footage in the trailer of the documentary.
In India, the ‘Fair Dealing’ concept enshrined under Section 52 is similar to the idea of ‘fair use.’ [4]This allows the party to use copyrighted work without the copyright owner’s permission for research, news reporting, etc.[5] The idea is affected by the market value of the original work and its usage. Fair Dealing includes non-commercial use such as educational purposes or news reporting; however, as soon as the use turns commercial, it does not constitute fair dealing. It is provided that the courts also consider the market impact, audience perception, and concept of ‘transformative work’ while determining cases under Section 52. According to the merits of the dispute, the BTS Footage is used commercially (Netflix Documentary), thus raising the presumption that it is not fair use. Furthermore, if the documentary generates revenue and ends up competing in the marketplace with the original film, it would undermine the fair dealing claim.
The Copyright Act of 1957 protects transformative work, which states that an artist can take existing material and crucially modify, reinterpret, or build upon it to create something fresh and distinct.[6] This was visible in the comedy group AIB’s 2015 video, “Every Bollywood Party Song’ which was a parody of Yo Yo Honey Singh’s “Party All Night.” This did not amount to infringement as it was inspired work. Emotions like mere ideas are also not subjected to pre-emption because they are common property.[7] Contrastingly, the clip used in the documentary was the direct replica of work in Dhanush’s Film, thus defeating the idea of transformative work.
Soon after this dispute, SS Kumaran, a well-known producer, director, and music composer, disclosed serious allegations against Vignesh and Nayanthara. He claimed to own the copyright to ‘LIC’ (Life is colourful), which he registered in 2015 and renewed every year for six years. In 2023, Vignesh’s manager had requested the title name, which Kumaran had declined. However, a week later, the same conversation sparked some heat, and Vignesh proceeded to use the name even though the copyright belonged to Kumaran. When LIC (Life Insurance Corporation) sent Vignesh a legal notice and filed a complaint with the producer’s council, he changed the name from ‘LIC’ to ‘LIK’ (Life Insurance Kompany.) Thus, this dispute underscores the respondent’s recurrent practice over Intellectual property rights, as evidenced by the abovementioned action.
The matter between Dhanush and Nayanthara stands to hinge on the contractual framework of the agreement, primarily the copyright sections – concerning the use of fair dealing in the commercial context and the legitimacy of claims over BTS Footage. It is seen that Dhanush, via the agreed contract, was the owner of all the BTS footage and had warned Nayanthara against its use. Moreover, the commercial use of the clip and the absence of transformative work implies Nayanthara’s claim under Section 52 of the Copyright Act of 1957 is slightly negating. If the court upholds Dhanush’s claim, it would portray the significance of respecting contractual obligations and copyright laws within India’s entertainment industry.
Author: Hitakshi Mishra, 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] Llaiyaraja v. B. Narsimhasn, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 364
[2] Kamble Sayabanna Kallappa v. Lifestyle International (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Comp AT 498
[3] India TV Independent News Service (P) Ltd. v. Yashraj Films (P) Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4298
[4] Romesh Chowdhry Vs. Ali Mohamad Mowsheri, AIR 1965 J&K 101
[5] Super Cassettes Industries Limited v. Chintamani Rao, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4712
[6] Ravinder Singh & Sons v. Evergreen Publications (India) Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13480
[7] R.G Anand V. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118 AIR 1978 SC 1613
