Madras High Court Rejects Film Archive's Copyright Claim Over 'Aval Appadithan' Production Stills

The Madras High Court on 27 August dismissed an appeal filed by The Cinema Resource Centre, a Chennai-based film archive, in a copyright dispute over production photographs from the 1978 Tamil film Aval Appadithan.

A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi upheld the 2021 order of a Single Judge directing the archive to return the original photographs, delete their digital and physical copies, and stop displaying them on its website. The judges observed:

“The initial burden was on the plaintiffs to prove their copyright. The failure of the defendants to prove their own copyright cannot, by itself, prove the plaintiffs' copyright. The issue has to be decided by considering all the evidence available on record.”

The photographs were taken during the making of Aval Appadithan, which was produced and directed by late Rudraiah.

Rudraiah's daughter and son claimed that the album containing the photographs went missing after his death in 2014 and later surfaced on the website of The Cinema Resource Centre, a trust that restores and archives materials relating to Indian cinema. They approached the Court seeking a declaration of copyright, return of the photographs and an injunction against their further use.

The trust and its trustee, Sruti Harihara Subramaniam, denied infringement. They said they had purchased the photographs in 2007 from a dealer at Moore Market, Chennai, as part of sacks containing old film material. They subsequently restored, digitised and catalogued the photographs at their own expense.

Senior Advocate N.L. Rajah, appearing for the archive, argued that the heirs had failed to establish that Rudraiah had personally engaged the photographers or paid them for the photographs, as required under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which deals with the first ownership of copyright. The archive also argued that the display was for archival and preservation purposes and was non-commercial.

Advocate R. Sathish Kumar, appearing for the heirs, submitted that Rudraiah's role as producer and director was undisputed and that engaging photographers to document a film shoot was an integral part of the production process, rather than an independent commission.

The Bench held that although there was no direct document establishing payment or engagement, the absence of such evidence had to be considered along with the parties' admissions and the surrounding circumstances.

On the distinction between possession of a photograph and ownership of copyright, the Court relied on the Single Judge's finding that “physical possession of a photograph and ownership of copyright in that photograph are two different matters.”

Applying the civil standard of proof, the Bench held that “the plaintiffs are not required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, as in a criminal case. The Court has to consider all the evidence and decide whether the plaintiffs' case is more probable than the defence of the appellants.”

The judges rejected the archive's argument that the family had acquiesced to its possession of the photographs by acknowledging its preservation work through email. They held that “mere knowledge of such possession or appreciation of the preservation work does not amount to assignment, licence or relinquishment of copyright.”

The Bench also rejected the challenge to the plaintiffs' status as Rudraiah's legal heirs, noting that no other person had come forward to claim his estate or copyright.

Ultimately, the High Court held that copyright in the photographs vested in Rudraiah as producer and subsequently devolved on his children. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge's 2021 decree, with no order as to costs.