Lights Camera Action : Role Of Intellectual Property In Indian Cinema


A growing number of daily releases makes India’s copyright laws particularly important in . Evaluating the original author of such works is of critical importance in order to protect and further encourage individuals to partake in the creative business of creating movies, even though the audience watching such works may be unaware of the internal conflict occurring between the various stakeholders involved in such creative process. Where else would intellectual property be used in a screenplay or a film is the next issue. Sincere to say, intellectual property rights are involved in every phase of the film.

Intellectual Property Copyright

[Image Source : Shutterstock]

The Copyright Act of 1957 enters the picture at this point, offering security against a number of dangers that the manufacturers would otherwise have to bear. It may be said that this protection is essential for the commercialization of pictures and movies. However, to a lesser extent, other IP laws like the Trademark Act and the Designs Act will also be important. This blog major goals are to identify the different elements that make up a cinematographic film and then to analyse the present legal position regarding who is legally responsible for each of the specified elements.

Copy right and Indian cinema

In contrast to book authoring, the process of making a movie involves a lot of collaboration. It is a process that involves numerous people and their contributions, which result in a film. This drawn-out procedure grants rights to several people carrying out various tasks, such as scriptwriting, music composition, art direction, and particular actor appearances[1]. Finding an appropriate which was before work that may be used as a script is the first responsibility for each film production team. A precise elucidation about the ownership of cinematographic films has been provided by Section 17 of The Copyright Act, 1957 Act. According to the law, a scriptwriter who is engaged by a producer to write a good script has no ownership rights to the work he produces.[2] Who is the author of an underlying work that might already exist before a producer decides to develop a movie then becomes a more intriguing question. The Bombay High Court issued an answer to this question, stating the legal position that, in the event that a pre-existing script over which a writer enjoys copyright was provided for the production of a film, the producer would not possess any copyright over such underlying work until and unless such independent copyright was transferred to the producer[3]. Otherwise, the general position of Indian law, through a mere perusal of the Act vests the authorship of such film, unless the contrary is proven with the producers automatically.[4] The lyrical and literary works, which cover the song and its lyrics, are additional elements that make up such cinematographic films. The “Work for Hire” doctrine, which was established in the landmark decision of Indian Performing Right Society v. Eastern India Motion Picture Association, has been largely upheld in India[5]… wherein preconditions (b) & (c) of Section 17 of the Act affect the rights of composers or lyricists. Lyricists and music composers now have the right to royalties even if a record label or producer acquires ownership of the works as a result of the Act’s 2012 revision[6] This glimpse of protection, however, is short-lived when it comes to musical works in cinematographic films, considering that the producer has the ultimate copyright over such work[7] Therefore, the right to royalty exists only if the musical work or literary work, i.e., lyrics were exploited by a non-film song.[8]

Who Owns What and Why

The aforementioned elements are those that are most frequently disputed when discussing copyright ownership. However, as demonstrated, the Indian copyright regime actively supports the notion that a cinematographic film’s producers are the true owners of the copyright. Members of the film community have openly criticised this strategy since it shows a complete disrespect for the individual talent and work put in by the numerous actors and crew members during the production of a film. But this “producer owns all” strategy has existed since the dawn of time. This might be attributed as having its origins in the French copyright system’s “Auteur” or author approach. In this case, it was once believed that the director ultimately owned the copyright to the work because he was the supreme decision-maker and predominantly displayed his vision on screen.[9] However, the focus on producer as the ‘dominant author’ in such scenarios has been reinforced not only by Indian case laws but also recently by the USA as well in the case of Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin[10] It was decided that even while the director may have a significant say in how the movie should be filmed, the producer owns the copyright because they are more heavily involved in gathering the script, creating third parties or employment contracts with performers, etc. Such a strategy has drawn criticism, but it is important to remember that producers are ultimately responsible for all financial risks associated with film production. Giving them all the rights and protection they require seems justified, but there is no getting around the fact that when negotiating contracts with composers, scriptwriters, and others, the latter frequently show a lack of caution when they blithely cede their rights to the work that they were primarily responsible for creating. The contract makes a significant difference when it comes to the right in respect to works utilised in films, even though the music composers in the example above may still assert a royalty claim for non-film works. In the end, relative to all other parties involved, the producer bears the brunt of the financial pain if the movie is a financial failure. In light of this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and courts in other countries have maintained this stance. However, a change would be appreciated if, at the very least, the ability to claim royalties was not restricted to being awarded exclusively for non-film works given that composers might make the majority of their money from the songs they write for movies.


One of the main ways that the general population is entertained is through films or movies. The danger of possible loss that the producer may have to endure, however, increases due to the complexity of the production process and the requirement for the engagement of numerous technical departments.Getting the full profit from the exploitation of the film or movie made is much more challenging in the digital age with movies streaming on multiple digital platforms.It is crucial to have title documents declare in unambiguous terms that all arising rights are vested in the producer from the beginning itself in order to minimise this danger as much as possible, if not completely avoid it.

Author: Kamlesh singh is a third-year student of Bharti Vidyapeeth new law college, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to or at IIPRD. 


[2] Indian Copyright Act 1957, s 17(b), .

[3] Salim Khan & Ors v Sumeet Prakash Mehra & Ors [2013] 5 Bom CR 556.

[7]CISAC v. Aditya Pandey [2016] SCC Online SC 967

[8] Indian Copyright Act 1957, s 19(10).

[10] 791 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015) .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

2 + twelve =


  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • 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
  • October 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