Reportedly, neither director Eldar Ryazanov’s nor screenwriter Emil Braginsky’s names appear in the credits. Ryazanov’s assistant recently said that
“the director has no knowledge about the film and has nothing to do with it.” On the other hand, sources close to the production team of
I Love New Year have denied any copyright infringements.
The Irony of Fate enjoys a classical status in Russian cinema, with a sequel released in 2007. The movie has been feted with several awards, including the USSR State Prize in 1977.
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd is an Indian film production and distribution company which also owns T-Series.
This is not the first time the Bhushan Kumar owned production house has been
accused of plagiarism. Previously, the music label T-Series was accused of copyright infringement by an
Iranian band,, and by re-use of an
old Hindi soundtrack. The allegations are not shocking, considering that Bollywood movies have hardly shirked from lifting storylines from their Hollywood counterparts (
Knock-out,
Time Bomb[Indian Television]). Hollywood studios have approached Indian Courts for relief, but have
hardly met with any success. Generally, Indian movies keep the original plot intact (i.e the idea), and change the expression radically. This is done to make a profitable box-office business: the sets, dialogues, dance numbers and various other Indian elements are added which change the final expression drastically. And copyright vests only in the expression of an idea,
and not the idea per se; thus Indian remakes/adaptations escape infringement accusations. In the case of
20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Ors., the Court observed that a mere outline or theme is not copyrightable since it is only an idea, but a distinctive treatment of a plot or theme is copyrightable as a literary work or as a dramatic work. When 20th Century Fox contended that the ‘concept and feel’ of the show had been copied, the court held that what really mattered was the qualitative difference between the two shows. The Court observed that "
in such cases it is difficult to determine the difference between idea and expression. It is difficult to determine where idea ends and expression begins. There is no final and exact way of determining what a copy is, or what a copy of the expression is, or what a copy of the idea is, or what a copy of the idea is only. Therefore copyright judgments such as this one should be read in light of their facts and circumstances." A continuing reason for foreign studios' unsuccessful infringement claims of their work is the Indian portrayal of the same storylines, thereby escaping any similarities in expression. Prashant has previously discussed the legal aspects of this
'inspired' copying in this excellent post
here.
Meanwhile, on a related note, the Bombay HC
denied an injunction against the release of an Akshay Kumar production '
72 Miles- Ek Pravas.' Kshitij Movies International had applied for a temporary injunction by virtue of being the assignees to the literary work( a marathi novel titled '72 Miles'), which apparently entitled them to rights to a cinematic adaptation as well. The Court found that the agreement had expired in 2012, and further covered rights limited only to translation of the Marathi novel into the Hindi language. Thus, the Court held that no case was made for granting interim relief.