2024

The Minnal Murali Case and the Rights Acquisition in Films

TL;DR
The Ernakulam District Court issued a temporary injunction halting the production of merchandise and spin-offs related to the Malayalam superhero film “Minnal Murali,” following a copyright lawsuit filed by the film’s writers. The writers argued that their consent was bypassed when Weekend Blockbusters, Netflix India, and others attempted to create spin-offs and merchandise. This article discusses the layers of rights associated with cinematographic films and their underlying works. While producers own the copyright of the film as a whole, the underlying elements like unique characters may retain separate copyright protection under Indian law. The lawsuit underscores the complexity of the acquisition of rights for cinematographic film, which includes distinct rights for scripts, characters, and music. The producers of “Minnal Murali” purchased screenplay rights from the writers, but unclear contractual terms could mean gaps in transferring the rights needed for merchandise or spin-offs to future rights owners like Netflix. Thus, the case highlights potential pitfalls in rights management, stressing the need for comprehensive contracts to prevent disputes.

The District Court at Ernakulam recently passed a temporary injunction prohibiting the production of spin-off projects or merchandise based on the Malayalam superhero film “Minnal Murali”. The order was passed in a copyright suit filed by the screenplay writers of the movie against the production company Weekend Blockbusters, Netflix India, and the comic book company Amar Chitra Katha amongst others.

The writers allege that their copyright was infringed when the defendants sought to create merchandise and spin-offs based on the film’s characters without obtaining the writers’ consent. The defendants had previously even released a graphic novel based on the characters of the film. The District Court awarded the writers a temporary injunction halting further commercialization of the storyline or the film’s characters as long as the matter was sub-judice.  It brings to the fore the potential for copyright disputes in cinematographic films which are a composite of separately copyrightable content.

A film is not simply an audio-visual recording, but it is composed of underlying works like a screenplay, soundtrack, musical lyrics etc. Under Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer is deemed the author of a film, i.e., the person who creates the work and owns its copyright. However, the underlying works may have different authors, such as the writer for the screenplay and the music composer for the soundtrack. The authors of the underlying works hold rights that are independent of the copyright over the film at large. Furthermore, there is a distinction between the authorship and the ownership of the copyrighted work. Although the writer can continue to be the author of the screenplay, they may transfer the ownership of its copyright to the producers while entering into a contract for the film’s adaptation.

In addition to the right to adapt the screenplay into a film, the author can license other rights to the producer such as the right to create graphic novels or merchandise based on the film characters. These rights are independent of the screenplay because characters in a film that are deemed original and unique, receive standalone copyright protection.[1] If deemed sufficiently distinctive and unique, the characters from Minnal Murali would be given separate copyright protection. Thus, the producers of the film would need to obtain the right to sell merchandise based on the film’s characters from the writers.

The producers of Minnal Murali purchased the rights to the screenplay from its writers. Netflix went on to purchase the rights to the film, including the digital release rights from the producers. While the writers may have licensed certain rights to the producers, such as the right to adapt the screenplay for film production, this does not necessarily mean that they transferred the rights to create spin-offs or adaptations in other media formats. Usually, streaming companies and media houses like Netflix are expected to purchase all commercially significant rights flowing from a screenplay. However, the producers of Minnal Murali would only be able to transfer the rights they acquired from the writers of the film to Netflix. This means that if there were any oversight on the part of the producers in acquiring the different rights to the film and its several components, there would be a gap in Netflix’s ownership as well. In such an instance, the screenplay writer’s copyright suit may be valid. It is unclear whether this is the case as the contract between the writers and the production company of Minnal Murali is not publicly available.

The case raises the need for clarity around the various rights that make up part of a film. While larger companies are well-equipped with legal teams that have such understanding, smaller entities may not be. In such instances, there may be an oversight where certain rights are not acquired, leaving parties open to potential legal challenges. The Minnal Murali case may end up serving as a cautionary tale that teaches the wider film industry such a lesson.

[1] Arbaaz Khan v. Northstar Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (Suit (L) No. 301 of 2016), Bombay High Court