[Academy of General Education, Manipal & Anr. v. B.
Malini Mallya, AIR 2009 SC 1982]
One Dr. Karanth, a Jnanapeeth awardee had developed a new
form of ‘Yakshagana’ (a form of ballet dance). He was a director of the
appellant institute. Before he expired, he had executed a will in favour of
the respondent.
The said Yakshagana ballet dance was performed in New
Delhi. Respondent filed a suit for declaration, injunction and damages
alleging violation of the copyright in respect of the said dance vested in her
in terms of the said will and thus the appellants infringed the copyright
thereof by performing the same at New Delhi without her prior permission. The
respondent had claimed copyright in respect of literary and artistic works in
her favour in terms of the said will. The appellant denied and disputed any
copyright of the said dance in Dr. Karanth alleging that whatever work he had
done was in a capacity of a director of the Kendra and assistance of finance
and staff of the organisation.
S. 2(c) of the Act defines ‘artistic work’ to mean (i) a
painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an
engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic
quality; (ii) a work of architecture; and (iii) any other work of artistic
craftsmanship.
The word ‘author’ is defined in S. 2(d) to mean, (i) in
relation to a literary or dramatic work, the author of the work; (ii) in
relation to a musical work, the composer; (iii) in relation to an artistic
work other than a photograph, the artist; (iv) in relation to a photograph,
the person taking the photograph; (v) in relation to a cinematograph film or
sound recording, the producer; and (vi) in relation to any literary, dramatic,
musical or artistic work which is computer generated, the person who causes
the work to be created.
S. 2(o) defines ‘literary work’ to include computer
programmes, tables and compilations including computer databases. S. 2(qq)
defines ‘performer’ to include an actor, singer, musician, dancer, acrobat,
juggler, conjurer, snake charmer, a person delivering a lecture or any other
person who makes a performance.
The Court observed that a dramatic work may also come
within the purview of literary work being a part of dramatic literature.
However, provisions of the Act make a distinction between the ‘literary work’
and ‘dramatic work’. Keeping in view the statutory provisions, there cannot be
any doubt whatsoever that copyright in respect of performance of ‘dance’ would
not come within the purview of the literary work but would come within the
purview of the definition of ‘dramatic work’.
The Court dismissed the appeal by modification of the
injunction order granted by High Court.
