SAMEER WADEKAR AND ANOTHER V. NETFLIX ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD 

INTRODUCTION

The Plaintiff, a writer, initiated legal proceedings against the Defendants, claiming that they have infringed upon his copyrighted literary work titled ‘VETAAL’ by producing a web series named ‘BETAAL.’ This case emerged in 2020 after the Plaintiff discovered advertisements for the Defendants’ web series. He asserted that he had previously shared his work with Wilson Louis, who expressed interest in adapting ‘VETAAL’ into a film and has connections with Netflix, alleging that his work was copied through this channel. However, during court proceedings, the Defendants were unable to demonstrate any association between Wilson Louis and Netflix.

The Defendants argued that their promotional efforts for the web series began in 2019, while the Plaintiff only presented evidence of their advertisements from 2020. Therefore, they contended that the Plaintiff could not claim ignorance, as their promotional materials were publicly accessible. Additionally, the Defendants stated that the title of their web series was derived from the well-known Hindu mythology story ‘VEDALAM.’

FACTS

1. The Plaintiff, a registered writer with the ScreenWriters Association, authored a literary work titled ‘VETAAL’ between 2013 and 2014. He subsequently registered this work with both the ScreenWriters Association and the Copyright Office in 2015. The Defendants in this case include Defendant No. 1, who is the Distributor; Defendant No. 2, the Producer; Defendant No. 3, the Writer; and Defendant No. 4, the Director of the web series ‘BETAAL.’ This web series was released as an “Original Series” on the OTT platform Netflix.
   
   
2. Upon viewing a 146-second trailer for ‘BETAAL,’ the Plaintiff identified around 13 similarities between the trailer and his copyrighted work ‘VETAAL.’ He asserts that these similarities constitute copyright infringement, as they demonstrate a clear connection between the two works. The Defendants had intended to release the web series on May 24, 2020, which prompted the Plaintiff to take legal action.
   
   
3. In light of these claims, the Plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction from the Court to prevent the release of the web series ‘BETAAL.’ This legal request highlights his concerns regarding the potential violation of his intellectual property rights and aims to protect his interests as a writer in the face of what he deems an infringement of his creative work.
   
   ISSUES
   
   

1. Whether the web series ‘BETAAL’ infringes upon the Plaintiff’s copyrighted work ‘VETAAL’ is a central issue in this case. The court must evaluate the degree of similarity in the portrayal of elements between the two works to determine if this constitutes copyright infringement.
2. Whether the court should grant the Plaintiff’s request for an ad-interim injunction to prevent the release of ‘BETAAL’ is another significant issue. This decision will require the court to balance the Plaintiff’s rights to protect his intellectual property against the Defendants’ interests in launching their work, while also considering the potential harm to both parties. These issues are crucial to the legal proceedings and will guide the court’s ruling.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF

1. The counsel for the Plaintiff argued before the Court that ‘VETAAL is an original literary work based on a fictional narrative created entirely from the Plaintiff’s imagination, which includes unique props, characters, and locations. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have infringed upon his copyrighted work, claiming that the video trailer for ‘BETAAL’ depicts scenes that, while presented differently, share a striking similarity to those found in ‘VETAAL.’ 
2. When the Court inquired about how the Defendants could have copied the Plaintiff’s work if ‘VETAAL’ is indeed original, the Plaintiff responded that he had sent his copyrighted work to several well-known producers, including Wilson Louis, a filmmaker and director. The Plaintiff contended that Wilson Louis was particularly interested in making a film based on ‘VETAAL’ due to his purported contacts at Netflix. 
3. To support his claims, the Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Kadam, submitted Exhibit B , which contains email correspondence between the Plaintiff and Wilson Louis. However, the Court did not find any evidence linking Wilson Louis to Netflix, which led to skepticism about the Plaintiff’s assertion that his original work had been copied. This lack of substantiation raised doubts about the credibility of the Plaintiff’s claims regarding copyright infringement.
   
   CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS
   

1. The Defendants presented their arguments in two main points. Firstly, they highlighted that on July 16 and 17, 2019, they conducted extensive promotions for their web series across various media platforms. In contrast, the Plaintiff only became aware of the advertisements for ‘BETAAL’ on May 7, 2020. Therefore, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiff could not claim ignorance of the promotional activities, as these advertisements were publicly accessible and widely disseminated in the media.
   
   
2. Secondly, the Defendants contended that the title ‘BETAAL’ is derived from ‘VEDALAM,’ a term rooted in Hindu mythology. They pointed out that many individuals are likely familiar with the story of Vikramaditya and Vetaal, and the cultural significance associated with the name Vetaal, which implies mastery of supernatural powers. Consequently, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiff’s claims lack merit and that he should not be granted an ad-interim injunction to prevent the release of their web series. This contention underscores the Defendants’ position that their work is both original and not infringing on the Plaintiff’s copyright.

JUDGMENT

The Court denied the Plaintiff’s request for any relief sought in the proceedings. After considering the Defendants’ contentions, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s interim application. Consequently, the Court permitted the Defendants to proceed with the release of their web series ‘BETAAL.’

Following this ruling, the Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Kadam, sought the Court’s permission to amend the plaint to include additional claims for damages. The Court granted this request, stating that the application would be evaluated on its merits once heard. Furthermore, the Court provided a timeframe of eight weeks for the Plaintiff to file a written statement, acknowledging the constraints imposed by the ongoing lockdown.

Analysis of the Case: Ameer Wadekar and Another v. Netflix Entertainment Services Pvt. Ltd.

The case of Ameer Wadekar and Another v. Netflix Entertainment Services Pvt. Ltd. highlights critical issues surrounding copyright infringement in the context of digital media, as well as the complexities involved in establishing a legitimate claim of originality in literary works.

Copyright Infringement Claims

At the heart of this case is the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Defendants infringed on his copyrighted work, ‘VETAAL,’ by creating the web series ‘BETAAL.’ The Plaintiff claimed to have identified numerous similarities between the two works, leading to a strong assertion of copyright violation. However, the Court’s skepticism regarding the Plaintiff’s evidence, particularly the failure to establish a direct link between his work and the Defendants’ project, undermines the validity of his claims. The lack of substantial proof connecting **Wilson Louis** to **Netflix** further complicated the Plaintiff’s argument, revealing a significant gap in the evidentiary foundation required to support a claim of copyright infringement.

Public Domain and Prior Promotion

The Defendants’ argument emphasized that their promotional activities for ‘BETAAL’began well before the Plaintiff became aware of the web series. This highlights an important aspect of copyright law: the concept of works being in the public domain. The Defendants’ marketing campaign, conducted in July 2019, and the availability of these materials for public viewing negated the Plaintiff’s claim of ignorance. The Court recognized this point, which ultimately influenced its decision, suggesting that the Plaintiff’s inability to monitor the public domain for potential infringements contributed to the case’s outcome.

Cultural Context and Originality

The Defendants also argued that the title ‘BETAAL’is derived from ‘VEDALAM,’ a term rooted in Hindu mythology, which further complicated the Plaintiff’s claims. This highlights the interplay between cultural narratives and copyright law. The Court had to consider whether the similarities pointed out by the Plaintiff were indeed original expressions of creativity or if they were based on common cultural themes that could be reasonably interpreted by multiple creators. The notion that many people might know the story of **Vikramaditya and Vetaal** adds to the complexity of defining originality in this case.

Court’s Decision and Implications

The Court’s decision to deny the Plaintiff relief and allow the release of the web series ‘BETAAL’ underscores the need for clear, compelling evidence in copyright disputes. The ruling emphasizes the importance of demonstrating a direct connection between the works in question and the necessity of a well-founded claim of originality. Moreover, the Court’s provision allowing the Plaintiff to amend the plaint to add claims for damages reflects a willingness to consider further arguments, but the initial dismissal signals a high threshold for proving infringement in similar cases.

Broader Context and Lessons

This case serves as a cautionary tale for creators regarding the protection of their intellectual property in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. It underscores the importance of securing rights and documenting communications when sharing creative works with others. Furthermore, it highlights the need for individuals in the creative industry to remain vigilant about the promotion of their own works while being aware of the cultural narratives that may intersect with their creative expressions.

In conclusion, Ameer Wadekar and Another v. Netflix Entertainment Services Pvt. Ltd. illustrates the complexities of copyright law, particularly in relation to originality, public domain, and cultural narratives. The case emphasizes the critical importance of robust evidence in supporting claims of infringement and serves as a reminder of the need for creators to proactively protect their intellectual property rights in an increasingly interconnected media landscape.

CONCLUSION

The Court denied the Plaintiff’s interim application and allowed the Defendants to proceed with the release of their web series ‘BETAAL’ for three main reasons. First, the Plaintiff could not establish a connection between Wilson Louis and Netflix, which weakened his claim that his copyrighted work had been copied. Additionally, the Court observed that the Plaintiff had delayed in bringing the case to Court, even though the Defendants had been promoting their web series through various print and online media. Lastly, the Defendants were able to show that the title ‘BETAAL’ originates from ‘VEDALAM,’ a popular story in Hindu mythology.

CITATION: 2020 SCC Online Bom 659 

JUDGE: K.R. Shriram J. 

PLAINTIFF: Sameer Wadekar and Another 

DEFENDANT: Netflix Entertainment Services Pvt. Ltd.