There is no copyright in an idea: Bombay High Court refuses injunction against release of Zombivli

The Bombay High Court recently refused to restrain the release of Zombivli, a film produced by Saregama India, in a copyright infringement suit filed by a filmmaker (Tarun Wadhwa v. Saregama India Ltd & Anr)..The order was passed by Justice Gautam Patel in an interim application filed in the suit against Saregama by Tarun Wadhwa, an amateur filmmaker..Wadhwa claimed that he began working on a comedy about zombies in April 2018. In May 2018, he registered a synopsis with Screen Writers’ Association (SWA) and then shared it with Saregama through its division, Yoodle Films.Yoodle purportedly asked Wadhwa to submit a fully developed and complete screenplay when ready, which Wadhwa had done. This process was repeated another time, before Saregama said that it had no interest in continuing the proposal further. On July 30, 2020, Saregama announced the production of its forthcoming film Zombivli, which Wadhwa claimed came from the idea submitted by him..Wadhwa claimed that in his application that he had the origin of the germ of idea and authorship, that Saregama had complete and continuous access to his work and that there was prima facie proof of usage by Saregama of his original work.Thus, in a nutshell, he made two claims -That Saregama India illicitly used his material to make a Marathi film (which is breach of confidentiality) andSaregama infringed his copyright in one, or possibly three published works (copyright infringement)..While describing the plot of the movie in question, Justice Patel made some amusing observations in the judgment."To my very great disappointment, this is not a documentary about town planning in areas to the north of Mumbai. It is described, instead, as something called a ‘ZomCom’. This is explained to be a comedy about ‘zombies’. Though there may be some romantic elements, the film is not portrayed as a ‘ZomRomCom’. That, I am told, would be difficult to imagine.""We meet here a protagonist, Bhuvan, a brilliant science graduate but unemployed by choice since his career ambition is to become something called a ‘YouTube Star’, or, as Mr Ajatshatru puts it, a ‘YouTuber’. Apparently, this is now an avocation...".Justice Patel was of the opinion that on the actual sharing of the material, there was no controversy. The judgment stated,"This is, therefore, not a question of ‘originality’ in the work per se but the dichotomy between an idea and its expression in copyright law (as distinct from confidentiality law). There is no copyright in an idea. It exists only in a particular expression of an idea, that is to say, how individual elements, none of which are in themselves susceptible to copyright protection, are put together.".The Court also distinguished between copyright infringement and breach of confidence, stating,"Copyright is a right in rem, but a confidence obligation is entirely in personam. Copyright has a statutorily defined term. Confidence does not. There is no copyright except as provided by the statute, and infringement is also prescribed by statute. A confidence obligation is one in contract or equity (or both). There are statutory defences to a copyright infringement action. These do not apply to a breach of confidence action. The distinction between copyright and confidence assumes importance where, say, a manuscript has been submitted for publication. An obligation not to use the submitted manuscript may be implied and enforced under confidence law, and may extend to a plot or a developed idea that may not otherwise be protected by copyright...".On the breach of confidence, Justice Patel stated that the plaintiff failed to present a clear and unambiguous identification of the original material other than which was copyrighted, thereby failing to make out a case."Therefore: for a cause of action in breach of confidence to succeed there must be precision, there must be originality, and there must be completeness. All the required elements of confidentiality must be shown. It is not enough to show only some of them," the order stated..As for the issue of copyright infringement, Justice Patel stated that mere similarity does not always imply copying or infringement.“Once a plaintiff disclaimed exclusivity in crucial concepts, and also does not show with precision and accuracy the matters outside copyright law for which breach of confidence protection is claimed, I do not see how an injunction can be granted,” Justice Patel observed..With the observations, the Court refused to grant injunction on the release of the film. The order has since been appealed against..Advocates Rahul Ajatshatru, Ankita Singh and Krishma Shah, briefed by A&P Partners, appeared for Wadhwa.Saregama was represented by Senior Advocate Dr Veerendra Tulzapurkar and Advocate Hiren Kamod, who were briefed by Smriti Yadav, Shwetank Tripathi and Bhavik Shukla of Khaitan & Co..[Read order]