tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post8346874221530428672..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: The 3 Idiots Copyright Controversy: Whither the Moral Right of Attribution?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-50552514138341384782010-01-17T14:51:48.425+05:302010-01-17T14:51:48.425+05:30Sure Jo,
Would love to see your project when you&...Sure Jo,<br /><br />Would love to see your project when you're done.Shamnad Basheerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-29838111175328288882010-01-17T14:51:03.225+05:302010-01-17T14:51:03.225+05:30Sure Jo,
Would love to see your project when you&...Sure Jo,<br /><br />Would love to see your project when you're done.Shamnad Basheerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-30590394407674638812010-01-10T21:06:15.826+05:302010-01-10T21:06:15.826+05:30Mr. Shamshad, I am a new student to copyright laws...Mr. Shamshad, I am a new student to copyright laws in my MBA course and am making a project on 3 idiots controversy. I got great insights from ur article. I hope you would not mind if i use your article for my project :-). I will also mention this link and your name as a source in my college report in the acknowlegementJyoti S Akhilesh https://www.blogger.com/profile/02239912270907394818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-60088706597166774662010-01-07T20:26:35.660+05:302010-01-07T20:26:35.660+05:30@ Vinod and Talha: Thanks for the comments and poi...@ Vinod and Talha: Thanks for the comments and pointers.<br /><br />@Rohit: I hope Douglas' query and my response thereto clarifies your doubt as well.Shamnad Basheerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-82935077655713701502010-01-07T20:24:50.127+05:302010-01-07T20:24:50.127+05:30Excellent query Douglas,
I would think that the v...Excellent query Douglas,<br /><br />I would think that the very existence of an express contract for "attribution" and payment itself signals the intention of the film-makers to build on the underlying book by Bhagat. Although the parties did not sit at one table and complete the entire process of "adaptation", it's clear that the final piece of work embodies both sets of contributions. One might argue that both parties anticipated and bargained for this in their contract. Our Indian section is broad enough to encompass this as a work of joint authorship.<br /><br />Also, a close reading of Heptullah would suggest that Justice Kirpal stretched out the concept of "joint authorship" a bit wider than prevailing British case law then. <br /><br />You're right that the US may have higher standards and norms to determine joint authorship--but given their general anathema to "moral rights", I really wouldn't look there for guidance in relation to attribution. And I really hope an Indian court doesn't either.<br /><br />Incidentally, the Malcolm X co-authorship dispute seems to have hinged more on the issue of whether the contributions by Almuhammad were "copyrightable" elements at all in the first place. He played more the role of a consultant than an "author".<br /><br />I haven't read Thomas vs Larson, but hope to do so soon. Thanks for pointing me to some of these finer nuances.Shamnad Basheerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-72355529070428586172010-01-07T13:03:11.560+05:302010-01-07T13:03:11.560+05:30Dear Shamnad,
My query was - Where does this "...Dear Shamnad,<br />My query was - Where does this "moral" right come from? <br /><br />Section 57 relates to authorship. By Moral rights, do you mean claiming authorship? If yes, is that what Bhagat is claiming? that he is the Joint author? or does he merely want that sentence at the end of the credits to be placed more prominently?<br /><br />Is there a difference between the two?Rohit Sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550647235703571286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-31157625840991989392010-01-06T18:36:01.343+05:302010-01-06T18:36:01.343+05:30Dear Shamnad,
Thanks for the informative post. Yo...Dear Shamnad,<br /><br />Thanks for the informative post. You say that if Bhagat contributed something substantial to the script then he ought to be treated as a "joint author" under the law. The Indian Copyright Statute defines a work of joint authorship as the work produced by the 'collaboration' of two or more authors in which the contribution of one author is not distinct from the contribution of the other author or authors. Does this definition imply that, to constitute joint authorship, there must be a common design and a common intent to produce a particular work? The ordinary meaning of collaboration is people working together in an intersection of common goals. I believe that in England, joint authorship requires prior common design. I know that the Delhi High Court in the Najma Heptulla case had adopted the English position on joint authorship. The US Copyright statute is more direct in defining a joint work: "a work prepared by two or more authors with the 'intention' that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." Therefore, substantial contributions to the movie 'The Autobiography of Malcom X' by Aalmuhammed did not make him a joint author in the case Aalmuhammed v. Lee because there was no prior intent or design to create a joint work. A similar authority in the context of a theater play is Thomson v. Larson. How does this play out in the context of the whole controversy? Can Mr. Bhagat be a 'joint author' of the movie script? Is common design or intent necessary to prove joint authorship? Should this prong be satisfied before looking at whether the script draws substantially from the book?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12548816802830751238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-3003948077510651582010-01-06T17:36:41.605+05:302010-01-06T17:36:41.605+05:30Good article Shamnad. I have some sympathy for Bha...Good article Shamnad. I have some sympathy for Bhagat, but somehow feel he ought to blame his lawyers (rather than V.V. Chopra) for not expressly stating in his contract with the producers how and where and in what font size his credit is to be shown on screen.Winnowedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11073005581801465319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-24202480417493133962010-01-06T09:37:45.654+05:302010-01-06T09:37:45.654+05:30On a separate note, and on the intersection of law...On a separate note, and on the intersection of law and literature, the battle between technical compliance of the law v/s compliance in spirit is not a new conflict. A number of commentators have commented specifically on this issue as it had arisen "The Merchant of Venice". (For instance http://www.jstor.org/pss/1228870)Talha Abdul Rahmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15293487928376447189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-52086113205394165142010-01-05T20:37:19.420+05:302010-01-05T20:37:19.420+05:30This comment has been removed by the author.Shamnad Basheerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-82144612727239093272010-01-05T20:37:10.029+05:302010-01-05T20:37:10.029+05:30This comment has been removed by the author.Shamnad Basheerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-87963845456831439872010-01-05T20:37:09.840+05:302010-01-05T20:37:09.840+05:30This comment has been removed by the author.Shamnad Basheerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-40767332526579361762010-01-05T20:37:03.891+05:302010-01-05T20:37:03.891+05:30This comment has been removed by the author.Shamnad Basheerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-25528239368742902402010-01-05T20:36:29.658+05:302010-01-05T20:36:29.658+05:30Dear Rohit,
If Bhagat contributed substantially t...Dear Rohit,<br /><br />If Bhagat contributed substantially to the 3 idiots script, he is treated as a "joint author" under the law. The argument therefore is that by denying his authorship (albeit "joint" status), the producers have violated his moral right to attribution.Shamnad Basheerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-71234380306761001482010-01-05T20:34:23.397+05:302010-01-05T20:34:23.397+05:30Dear Abhinav,
Terrific query. Firstly, a contract...Dear Abhinav,<br /><br />Terrific query. Firstly, a contractual clause stipulating credits does not amount to a waiver of the moral right of paternity. It simply means there is a positive obligation to include name in the rolling credits--nothing more..nothing less. It does not give the producer the license to hold out to the world that there was no substantial contribution of Bhagat to the script..for that would amount to a violation of his right to rightful atttribution.<br /><br />But had the producers expressly contracted for a "waiver of moral rights", one might argue this both ways. On the one hand, given factors such as the asymmetry in bargaining power between authors and publishers (in most cases), courts might read the moral rights protection clause as one embodying a strong "public policy". Consequently, any contract in contravention of such public policy is void. On the other hand, courts might also refuse to treat this as embodying a higher public policy-rather it is like any other normal legal right capable of being waived.Shamnad Basheerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152989743112178836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-31469782184036268642010-01-05T10:44:36.441+05:302010-01-05T10:44:36.441+05:30I agree with the post...chetan's work should h...I agree with the post...chetan's work should have been acknowledged up front in the movie instead at the end. But having read the book and seen the movie, I find both of them very different and Chetan's wrong when he claims that 70% of the film is based on his book.Pranav Sachdevahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03039589469816306633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-7829607397362475022010-01-04T21:37:40.998+05:302010-01-04T21:37:40.998+05:30Are you sure that Section 57 really refers to a si...Are you sure that Section 57 really refers to a situation like this? <br /><br />I know very little about copyright law, but just reading the Section seems to suggest that it permits an author to claim authorship over a work even after having assigned his copyright in it. <br /><br />In a situation like the present one, Bhagat's claim is for attribution of credit to his book, in terms of his assignment contract. He is not claiming authorship for the movie's script. <br /><br />Section 57 appears to me to serve a different purpose. Under Section 18, once you assign your copyright in a work, the assignee becomes owner of the copyright. This obviously gives him rights to exploit the work to the extent permitted. Therefore, when the assignee becomes the owner of the copyright, a question would arise: Does the assignor have any claim left over the work? Section 57 appears to come into the picture in such a situation, and suggest that the assignor can still claim authorship, even if he cannot prevent economic exploitation of the work. <br /><br />In the 3 idiots controversy, the dispute is whether the contract of assignment has been duly honoured or not, and not whether Bhagat is the author of 3 idiots or not. I'm sure Bhagat does not claim to be.Rohit Sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550647235703571286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-82733949535690644192010-01-04T14:48:55.884+05:302010-01-04T14:48:55.884+05:30If Disney's could give credit to Rudyard Kipli...If Disney's could give credit to Rudyard Kipling for "The Jungle Book" why can't Vidhuji not do the same. It is fairly simple ask from Chetan. I support his cause.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09362724744863871728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-68063822667171211182010-01-04T10:55:45.908+05:302010-01-04T10:55:45.908+05:30Thanks Shamnad, this is very informative. One quic...Thanks Shamnad, this is very informative. One quick question on moral rights and attribution [pardon my ignorance, but I know little of the subject]: how would moral rights work in the context of shadow written works? I would think that if an author were not capable of waiving his/her rights of authorship in a work, this wouldn't help the cause of shadow authors' contracts of assignment. If Celebrity X were certain that Author A would always be able to claim some day that he/she is the true author of the work that Celebrity X signs off on, that would tend to reduce the price that Author A can get for his shadow written work. I ask this since I wonder if the controversy is not a function of contract - by agreeing to a clause capable of "technical" compliance (and contracts are to be construed technically), has the author not waived all broader moral rights? [The clause could have said "prominent" credit must be given, but as you rightly point out, this is a function of bargaining positions] Unlike constitutional rights, aren't statutory rights capable of waiver?Abhinav Chandrachudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07888178798437765865noreply@blogger.com