Introduction
In India, love for movies is unbeatable and exceptional because of its amazing capacity adapt to the mind of the viewers and make them indulge in the fictional world portrayed in the movie. Everyone connects to the characters, theme, songs of the movie as a part of their life and thus it stays with them. “Ranjhanna” is one such iconic movie released in 2013 which was a compelling, emotionally charged love story which ruled everyone’s heart and became a cult favourite. Its unique take on unrequited love, performance of the actors and A.R. Rahman’s music resulted in powerful cinematic experience.
Recently, the movie “Tere Ishq Mein” has surfaced a lot of confusion in the mind of the viewers due to it being portrayed as “Spiritual Sequel” of the 2013 movie “Ranjhanna”. The term “Spiritual Sequel” has become Bollywood’s favourite as it promises familiarity without any actual continuity and nostalgia without licensing. It primarily means that it only involves theme or stylistic elements from its predecessor and does not necessarily continue with the plot. A movie when termed as “Spiritual Sequel” leverages a brand value of the previous film as it causes a certain sense of promise of the brand, theme or the genre. It helps viewers revisit the concept & story of the previous film helps connect them with the upcoming film. Unfortunately, in India, it does not have any formal legal recognition as it is essentially a marketing term and not a legal category. India recognizes IP based on rights and its expression and not on idea or thought. As “SpiritualSequel” is just a promotional phrase, it does not carry a legal recognition.
The Dispute Between EROS and Aanand L Rai
The recent rift between EROS & Aanand L Rai has emerged on the similar topic where EROS has filed a lawsuit demanding 84 Crore as compensation against Aanand L Rai and his production Colour Yellow Media Entertainment LLP for allegedly using the goodwill of its previous movie “Ranjhanna” by promoting it as “Spiritual Sequel” and phrases like “From the World of Raanjhanna” without the consent of EROS.
It claims to be the “exclusive and sole owner of all the Intellectual Property including its copyright, registered trademarks, prequel, sequel and remake rights of the film Ranjhanna being its producer and Anand L Rai has infringed its trademark and copyright rights by not consenting EROS before promoting.
Using the phrase “From the Worldof Raanjhanna” or hashtags like #WorldOFRaanjhanaaa gives rise to the connection between EROS’s “Raanjhanna” and the current film. Even the use of similar characters, emotional arcs, background score or same actor strengthen the IP claim.Audience may perceive the new film as a successor of the earlier one, leading them to expect similar storylines, themes, or characters, and thereby forming misleading or unfounded expectations.
In the recent case, another point came to attention that the character played by Mohd Zeeshan Ayyub of “Murari”, a sharp-witted friend whose perspective adds conscience to the plot, occurs to be resembling. Such claims can amount to infringement and Indian Courts have recognised that unlawfully using the brand name or similar characters amount to copyright & trademark infringement & passing off.
Inspiration vs Infringement
In the ongoing dispute, one fundamental question arises regarding intellectual property law: Where the Permissible Inspiration Ends and Unlawful Commercial Exploitation begins?
There is a very thin line between getting “inspired” by a film & “infringing” it. Whenever a person just draws an idea or theme or emotion from a movie, its considered inspirating but when the same thought extends to similarity of plot or characters or music, it is infringing.
Though Indian Copyright law under section 13 provides protection to original literary, artistic works & cinematograph films, it does not grant any protection to mere ideas. In the landmark case of R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978), the court held that expression of ideas can be protected and not only the idea. This distinctionbecomes particularly relevant when a new film is marketed in such a way that willingly evokes an earlier film, creating an impression of continuity or association without legal authorisation.
Commercial Goodwill and Compensation Claims
Films like “Raanjhanna” gains a commercial goodwill over the years which creates a space in the hearts of its viewers and promoting films linking it to the earlier film can harm the goodwill and brand value of the film, therefore demand of EROS for such a high claim point that IP infringement comes with a price.
EROS claims to be the exclusive owner of its intellectual property rights and defendant has unlawfully commercially exploited it. The Plaintiff also issued a Cease and desist before the release of the film, continued association with film was notice even after partial compliance by the defendants strengthen the claim for compensation.
Liability of Multiple Parties
EROS not only sued Aanand L Rai for the infringement but also Super Cassettes Industries (T- Series), writer Himanshu Sharma & Netflix Entertainment Services LLP making it a multi-party infringement suit for battle over Raanjhaana & Tere Ishq Mein.
Online Platforms are not only hosts, but also promote, distribute & monetise from the project. According to Section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957, any person who makes profit from such infringed content even after being aware of the same, falls under the ambit of copyright infringement.
Thus, it is the responsibility of such intermediaries to takedown the content once they are aware of the alleged infringement. Promoting & monetising frominfringed content harms the goodwill of the film & the production, thus in the ongoing battle, streaming platforms & music labels are also impleaded.
Conclusion
Eros’s approach to Bombay High Court for protection of its rights signifies that intellectual property is such an asset for its creator. It takes years for a film to relate to its audience and gain goodwill in society. “Raanjhanna” is one such film. Misusing its character similarity, music & calling the impugned film its “Spiritual Sequel” for personal gains is infringement and claiming a high compensation is valid.
One needs to understand the distinction between inspiration and infringement and should respect that. Unlawfully using someone else’s brand name or goodwill will come with a price.
References
2. https://selvams.com/blog/bollywood-copyright-infringement-inspiration/
3. https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1618212/copyrightability-of-movie-characters