Why Dhanush is suing ‘Lady Superstar’ Nayanthara

On Wednesday (November 27), the Madras High Court allowed Dhanush to writer Netflix, Nayanthara, and Vignesh Shivan, Nayanthara’s husband and the manager of Naanum Rowdy Dhaan. The mates met connected the sets of the 2015 film, and their emotion communicative is simply a cardinal taxable of the latest Netflix documentary.

What is the lawsuit and contention about?

On November 16, 2 days earlier the merchandise of her documentary, Nayanthara enactment retired an unfastened missive connected Instagram successful which she lambasted Dhanush for the “vengeance” helium had been “festering against the film”.

She wrote that she spent 2 years “battling it out” with Dhanush for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) granting Netflix support to usage songs and clips from the movie — which Dhanush refused owed to a “personal grudge” against her. Instead, she wrote that the influential movie property sent her a ineligible announcement demanding Rs 10 crore successful damages for the usage of “a specified 3 seconds” of BTS footage.

The nonstop magnitude of the BTS footage utilized is debated, with respective radical connected societal media saying that adjacent to 37 seconds of footage was featured successful the documentary.

On Wednesday, the Madras High Court allowed Wunderbar Films, the Dhanush co-owned accumulation location down Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, to record a civilian suit against those progressive with the Nayanthara documentary. In an affidavit filed with the court, Wunderbar Films has stated that it is seeking a imperishable injunction restraining the defendants from utilizing thing that mightiness infringe upon their copyright implicit Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, including “its Behind the Scenes Footage oregon immoderate different Footage successful transportation with the said movie oregon the making thereof”.

The defendants quality the ownership of the BTS footage. According to the affidavit, they are claiming that the footage was personal, and changeable by persons not commissioned by Wunderbar Films. However, Wunderbar is arguing that the footage was changeable by persons they hired including the director, Vignesh Shivan, and was uploaded to their YouTube transmission successful 2015. The usage of this footage, according to Wunderbar, “clearly violates the copyrights of the applicant”, and has caused “irreparable loss” pursuing the worldwide merchandise of the documentary.

The affidavit besides refers to an “Artist agreement” signed by Nayanthara successful 2014 done which the rights implicit her “performance appearance, likeness, sanction and/or dependable (the Performance) successful transportation with the said film” were vested with Wunderbar “in perpetuity” (forever). Wunderbar is seeking compensation of Rs 1 crore for losses incurred by infringing the copyright.

What are the ineligible issues successful the case? What are the defenses disposable to Nayanthara?

Under the Copyright Act, 1957, the “author” of a enactment has a bundle of ineligible rights including the close to reproduce, contented copies, perform, adapt, oregon construe the enactment successful question. Upon the decease of the author, the ownership of the copyright falls to her ineligible heirs. Under Section 18 however, the writer tin “assign” the copyright “wholly oregon partially” to anyone she pleases, successful instrumentality for compensation.

In this case, the tribunal volition person to spot if the agreements signed by Nayanthara oregon Vignesh Shivan see an duty of copyright of immoderate videos, photos oregon different works created connected the acceptable of Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, and find if the statement would screen BTS footage taken connected idiosyncratic devices. If the tribunal does find that Wunderbar Films holds the copyright implicit this footage, definite defenses whitethorn inactive beryllium available.

One defence would beryllium the de minimis doctrine, an abbreviated mentation of the ineligible maxim de minimis non curat lex which translates to “the instrumentality does not interest itself with trifles”. As the Delhi High Court stated successful a 2012 decision, “To enactment it simply. The maxim fundamentally means that instrumentality volition not resoluteness petty oregon unimportant disputes”.

The Delhi High Court applied this doctrine successful the lawsuit of India TV Independent News Service vs Yash Raj Films. The tribunal was considering a lawsuit where, connected the chat-show INDIA BEATS, a impermanent sang portions of 9 antithetic songs, 7 of which Yash Raj Films claimed they had a copyright over. The tribunal applied the doctrine and rejected Yash Raj Films’ claims of copyright infringement. It stated that “We cannot abstracted from the beingness of the performer her performances” and that successful the mounting of a chat amusement “as agelong arsenic the singing duration is constricted to a infinitesimal oregon truthful astatine a time, it would beryllium a lawsuit of de minimis use, and hence the appropriation of the lyrics would not represent an actionable usurpation of the copyright successful the dependable recording.

The tribunal besides noted that, successful a 45-minute show, the impermanent sang “only 9 songs and the full clip consumed successful the singing is little than 10 minutes” and that the volition was to amusement viewers however the impermanent was introduced to music, not to “appropriate thing belonging to the other”.

In Nayanthara’s case, if the tribunal applies this doctrine, it volition person to spot what was the volition successful utilizing the BTS footage from Naanum Rowdy Dhaan and the ‘size’ of the harm caused to the parties.