AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,Jeeto Unlimited,"Jio KBC Play Along-Darshak
Banenga Khilaadi
Time of
Participation","Game will be played
simultaneously with the
contestant and the home","Gamewill be played
simultaneously with the
contestant  and the home
,audience,audience.
Questions,"Home  audience answers the
same question that has been
asked to the contestant","Home audience answers the
same question that has been
asked to the contestant.
Mode of
participation","Home viewer can participate by
watching  the television for
questions and giving the answer
through SMS/email","Home Viewer can participate
by watching the television for
questions and giving the
answer through JioChat
Basis of
reward","Reward depends on the amount
of money for which the question
is being played","Reward depends on the
amount of money for which
the question is being played
Selection of
winner","Home Viewer will be selected
through digital mode
programming by the channel‟s
technical team","Home Viewer will be selected
through digital mode
programming by the channel‟s
technical team.
Sr. No.,"Answering Defendant’s show, KBC",Plaintiffs’ concept
,,Jeeto Unlimited
1.,"A  question  is  made  public  on
Television and serves as an audition for
aspiring contestants. The viewers can
answer the question. A pool of
individuals giving the correct answer is
selected. During the broadcast of the
episode, the chosen pool of individuals
are given a question whoever answers
first, through a feature called „Fastest
Finger First‟, is selected as a contestant.","Entries are called in
for participation and
are shortlisted to ten
individuals through
lottery. The name of
the contestants is then
captured in ten white
balls which are kept in
a big jar and shuffled
with air pressure, and
one ball is selected by
electronic system by
pushing the jar. The
name inside the ball is
the chosen contestant.
3.,"The contestant playing with the host is
a pre-recorded event. The home
viewers get to watch the pre-recorded
episode and play along on their Jio
Chat App","The contestant and the
home viewer are
playing
simultaneously.
4.,"The games played by the contestant and
the home viewers are separate, and
their rewards are different as well
The  contestant is rewarded with
monetary award for every right answer.
The home viewer, in contrast, is given
„points‟. When these points hit a certain
benchmark, they
are converted into
rewards such as Trips to a foreign
nation, etc.
There is no splitting or overlap of
awards to the contestant and the home
viewer.","If the contestant
chooses  the correct
response from the
responses sent in by
home viewers and
displayed to him, the
contestant is awarded
by increasing the
monetary amounts s/he
has won. The home
viewer whose response
was chosen is
rewarded by splitting
the increase of
monetary amount
between the contestant
and the home viewer.
opportunity to answer the question. If negatively marked for,,
he answers incorrectly, the game ends the first wrong answer,",,
for him and the game ends on,,
the second wrong,,
answer. The,,
contestant is given in,,
total two opportunities,,
to answer incorrectly,,
before the game ends,,
for him.,,
(ii) Trial court has further held that once the issue involves home audience engagement there is bound to be some similarities in the,,
components/segments of the concept, and the concept of a quiz show is a concept which is otherwise well known. This is observed by the trial court",,
in paras 48 to 50 of the impugned judgment and which paras read as under:,,
“48. In the present case, since both the concept involve home audience engagement, similarities as to mode of communication is bound to happen",,
via fixed telephone, mobile smartphones, internet or presently in vogue computer designed mobile software commonly known as 'app'. Since the two",,
concept notes relates to TV Quiz, similarities are bound to occur in the questions asked to the home audience, which may or may not be same as that",,
asked to the contestant. The rewards for correct answer will also be limited in terms of monetary benefits or something which could be expressed in,,
monetary terms. The two game shows however as averred by the defendant no.1 differs in ways as stated in para 18 of the written statement.,,
The KBC show selects home audience on the basis of 'Fastest Finger Test', whereas the plaintiff's concept selects individuals on lottery system.",,
The former then allows an individual game to the home audience, the game of the latter on the other hand is dependent on the contestant on the TV.",,
The KBC show keeps the contestant's and home audience's game separate which can be run with a pre-recorded event, whereas the 'Jeeto",,
Unlimited' provides for a live show whereby the home audience plays simultaneously with the contestant. The rewards system is also remarkably,,
different, wherein the KBC Show the home audience earns points for each answer and they earn points throughout the season which can later be",,
converted into awards, the plaintiff's rewards is only money value which is shared by the home contestant from the prize money of the contestant",,
on  the show.  The prize  money in for the  plaintiff concept's home audience is dependent  on the help sought by the,,
contestant of the show, on the other hand, the KBC show allows the home audience to earn their own points irrespective of the game of the",,
contestant on the show.,,
From the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the 'Jio KBC Play Along - Darshak Banenge Khilaadi' has fundamental and",,
substantial difference from the 'Jeeto Unlimited'. The former cannot be termed as copyright infringement of the latter. Therefore the question of use,,
of the plaintiff's work as a ""spring board"" does not arise at all.â€",,
6(i) I completely agree with the discussion, reasoning and conclusions of the trial court inasmuch as a concept or a view or an idea is not and cannot in",,
itself be a subject matter of a copyright. Under the Copyright Act it is only a literary work or dramatic work or artistic work or musical work or sound,,
recording or cinematographic film or live shows/performers†rights which are the subject matter of a copyright. The expression “work†with,,
respect to which copyright is granted is defined in Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act and this Section reads as under:-,,
“Section 2(y) ""work"" means any of the following works, namely:-",,
(i) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work",,
(ii) a cinematograph film;,,
(iii) a sound recordingâ€,,
(ii) Besides the above works, the other works in which copyright can exist are live shows or performers rights and broadcasting rights as provided in",,
Chapter VIII Sections 37 to 39A of the Copyright Act. Except such copyrights, statutorily no copyright can exist. Section 16 of the Copyright Act",,
makes this very clear that there cannot be copyright except as provided in this Act, and this Section 16 reads as under:-",,
“16. No copyright except as provided in this Act.â€" No person shall be entitled to copyright or any similar right in any work, whether published or",,
unpublished, otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force, but nothing in this",,
section shall be construed as abrogating any right or jurisdiction to restrain a breach of trust or confidence.""",,
Not only what is a copyright work is provided in Copyright Act, but what is the maximum entitlement of a copyright holder to exploit the copyright",,
work and in which manner is also provided in Copyright Act,1957, and this is stated in Section 14 of the Copyright Act which reads as under:-",,
“Section 14. Meaning of Copyright.â€" For the purposes of this Act, “copyright†means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act,",,
to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely:â€"",,
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer programme,â€"",,
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means;,,
(ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;,,
(iii) to perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public;",,
(iv) to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work;,,
(v) to make any translation of the work;,,
(vi) to make any adaptation of the work;,,
(vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (vi);",,
(b) in the case of a computer programme,â€"",,
(i) to do any of the acts specified in clause (a);,,
[(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for commercial rental any copy of the computer programme: Provided that such,,
commercial rental does not apply in respect of computer programmes where the programme itself is not the essential object of the rental].,,
(c) in the case of an artistic work,â€"",,
2 (i) to reproduce the work in any material form includingâ€",,
(A) the storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means; or,,
(B) depiction in three-dimensions of a two-dimensional work; or,,
(C) depiction in two-dimensions of a three-dimensional work;,,
(ii) to communicate the work to the public;,,
(iii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;,,
(iv) to include the work in any cinematograph film;,,
(v) to make any adaptation of the work;,,
(vi) to do in relation to adaptation of the work any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (iv);,,
(d) in the case of a cinematograph film,â€"",,
(i) to make a copy of the film, includingâ€"",,
(A) a photograph of any image forming part thereof; or,,
(B) storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means;,,
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for such rental, any copy of the film;",,
(iii) to communicate the film to the public;,,
(e) in the case of a sound recording,â€"",,
(i) to make any other sound recording embodying it 1 including storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means;,,
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for such rental, any copy of the sound recording;",,
(iii) to communicate the sound recording to the public.â€,,
Explanationâ€"For the purposes of this section, a copy which has been sold once shall be deemed to be a copy already in circulation.â€",,
Therefore it is seen that what is subject matter of copyright, what is the effect of having a copyright and the right and extent and the manner to",,
exploit the copyright, are all issues which are exhaustively provided in the Copyright Act. Concept is not a copyright work as provided in the definition",,
of work in Section 2(y) or Sections 37 to 39A of the Copyright Act. A concept obviously cannot be a subject matter of copyright because a concept,,
has to be brought into the form of a literary work or dramatic work or musical work or artistic work or cinematographic work or sound recording or a,,
performance/performerâ€s right or live show and only where after there will exist a copyright in the work.,,
When we look at the concept of 'Jeeto Unlimited', with its sub-parts as stated in para 8 of the plaint, it is seen that the parts/components of the",,
concept 'Jeeto Unlimited' would naturally be parts of every show where a home audience/viewers get to play along with the contestant in the studio.,,
The portion of para 8 of the plaint which has been reproduced above in this judgment cannot be said to be a literary work or dramatic work or artistic,,
work or musical work or cinematographic work or sound recording or live show/performance right as per the Copyright Act and consequently,,
appellants/plaintiffs have rightly been denied the entitlement/claim of copyright in its concept of 'Jeeto Unlimited' by the trial court, and the relevant",,
paras of the trial court in this regard have already been reproduced above.,,
This Court would like to reiterate the fact that even for the sake of arguments if existence of a concept is to be taken as a copyright work under the,,
Copyright Act, and which cannot be unless the concept is transformed into literary work or dramatic work or artistic work or musical work etc, the",,
concept floated by the appellants/plaintiffs of a play along audience sitting at home was a concept already in public domain and as admitted by plaintiff,,
no.1/PW-1 in his cross-examination and as noted in para 39 of the impugned judgment. Once the concept propounded by the appellants/plaintiffs,",,
assuming it can be granted a copyright although it cannot be in law, yet since the concept was otherwise in public domain, hence the",,
appellants/plaintiffs could not have succeeded in the suit claiming that the concept 'Jeeto Unlimited' is an original work which is essentially a well,,
known play along concept of audience sitting at home. A copyright is claimed for an original work or original creation in view of Section 13(1) of the,,
Copyright Act. It is noted that in the plaint there is no averment that appellants/plaintiffs are first in the world who have innovated such a concept of,,
play along audience sitting at home, and also as conceded before this Court that from a reading of the plaint filed by the appellants/plaintiffs no such",,
averment exists in the plaint.,,
I cannot agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs by placing reliance upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this,,
Court in the case of Mr. Anil Gupta and Anr. Vs. Mr. Kunal Dasgupta and Ors. (2002) ILR 1 Delhi 250,2002(25)PTC1(Del) that a concept can be a",,
subject matter of copyright. In the said judgment the concept of “Swayamvar†on television was held to have a copyright as a concept, however,",,
in my opinion, not only on facts the said judgment would not be applicable, but also that there cannot be any law against the law declared by the",,
Supreme Court in the case of R.G.Anand (supra) which holds that there cannot be a copyright in an idea or subject matter or theme or plot etc, with",,
the fact that every idea or subject matter or theme or plot etc necessarily would have some common or basic features. It is the law declared by the,,
Supreme Court in R.G.Anand’s case (supra) that will prevail and not that which is declared by a judgment of a learned Single Judge of a High,,
Court. Unless and until however the idea or subject matter of theme or plot etc is converted into a literary work or dramatic work or musical work or,,
artistic work etc, the concept on its own with its essential components, cannot be a subject matter of copyright, as already discussed above especially",,
with reference to the provisions of Sections 2(y), 14 and 16 of the Copyright Act. I therefore reject the argument urged on behalf of",,
appellants/plaintiffs by placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Mr. Anil Gupta. (supra).,,
11(i) Learned senior counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs then argued that the respondents/defendants should be held guilty of breach of confidentiality,,
and for which purpose reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Film and Shot and Anr. Vs. Sundial Communications,,
Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. MANU/MH/0243/2003, however there is no issue of confidentiality in the present case inasmuch as and as already stated above",,
the appellants/plaintiffs have conceded in the cross-examination of plaintiff no.1/PW-1 that the concept of play along audience sitting at home is,,
otherwise well known existing prior to the concept 'Jeeto Unlimited' of the appellants/plaintiffs.,,
(ii) In any case, the issue of confidentiality in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs in the facts of the present case will not exist, in view of the",,
appellants/plaintiffs admitting in para 13 of its plaint that they had given the consent letters that they were not to hold the media houses responsible in,,
case the contents of their concept is broadcasted by a programme similar to the concept note of the appellants/plaintiffs called as 'Jeeto Unlimited'.,,
This aspect has been appropriately considered and dealt with by the trial court in paras 53 and 58 of the impugned judgment and which paras read as,,
under:-,,
“53. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the said concept note was discussed in a meeting with the defendant no.1 in Mumbai in which representative of,,
Defendant no.1 were present and also present were the two plaintiffs and Ms. Gunjan Kawatra (friend of plaintiff). The plaintiffs alleged that before,,
this meeting they were asked to sign consent letter which out of compulsion they had to sign.,,
The plaintiffs have twice alleged that he was made to sign the consent letter when he met the officials of defendant no.1 and 4. The Plaintiffs in,,
their own pleadings under Para 13 of the Plaint have stated the effects of signing a consent letter that 'a consent letter in the television industry,,
allegedly releases the media houses from any liability in case they broadcast content that is similar to the concept note that is being presented before,,
them'. Despite knowing the consequences of the consent letter, the plaintiff claimed to have been rendered helpless for signing the consent letter",,
twice. Yet, the plaintiff failed to produce the contents of consent letter alongwith his plaint. And not to say no effort was ever made by the plaintiff to",,
call for the production of said consent letters from the defendants,if it were in their custody.â€",,
This Court therefore rejects the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs based on alleged confidentiality as regards the concept of 'Jeeto Unlimited'.,,
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Dismissed.",,