Ownership disputes over cinematographic films often involve competing claims by individuals associated with the production process, including financiers, directors, production managers and production houses. Although many parties contribute to the making of a film, the Copyright Act, 1957 recognises the producer as the first owner of copyright in a cinematographic work. However, being the producer depends not merely on contractual assertions or certification records, but on who undertook the initiative and responsibility for making the film.
On April 8, 2026, in the case of R. Kishore Kumar v. M/s R.R. Cine Productions & Ors. (C.S. No. 362 of 2016 and C.S. (Comm Div.) No. 237 of 2022), the Madras High Court examined competing claims to the ownership of the copyright in a Tamil feature film originally titled Mani, later certified as Money, and subsequently renamed Dhadha. The Court considered extensive documentary and oral evidence to determine the true producer of the film and the first owner of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The dispute began when the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was the author, creator and sole copyright owner of the film Mani. He contended that he had conceived the project, engaged the artists and technicians, directed the film and financed its production. He also claimed he only allowed the film’s title to be transferred for promotional reasons, to R.R. Cine Productions, but the defendants presented themselves as the producer and director, obtained a CBFC certificate in their own name for the film titled Money, and tried to profit from the film. Therefore, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from releasing or exploiting the film.
The defendants denied these claims and asserted that they financed and produced the film. They argued that they had entered into agreements with artists, technicians, and other production personnel, incurred substantial expenditure on production and post-production, and completed the film after making major investments. While the case was ongoing, the defendants also filed a cross-suit, claiming that the plaintiff’s later film Dhadha was merely the same film released under a different title and sought to restrain its release.
Considering competing claims, the Court focused on determining whether the plaintiff or the defendants was the owner of copyright in the film Mani, which had been certified as Money, and therefore entitled to restrain the other from exploiting the work.
To support his claim, the plaintiff relied upon extensive documentary evidence, including title registration dating back to 2012; agreements with the lyricist, music director, dance master, main actors, comedian, cameraman, and other technicians; and shooting schedules and production ledgers showing payments made during filming. He also provided a bound script and confirmation letters issued by artists acknowledging that they had acted in the film under his production. Several technicians also testified in court, confirming that they had been engaged and remunerated by him.
The defendants, on the other hand, relied on professional service agreements they said were signed with various technicians. However, during cross-examination, it emerged that these agreements were dated months before the partnership firm itself came into existence. The Court noted that the partnership started only on 18 July 2015, whereas many of the agreements were dated in March and April 2015. A later partnership deed indicated that business commenced in March 2016. These inconsistencies weakened the credibility of the defendants’ evidence. The Court also noted that many of these documents were produced late and were not backed up by testimony from the people who supposedly signed them.
The defendants also relied upon bank statements and financial records to show that funds had been transferred for production costs. However, the Court found that these records did not match up well with the dates of the disputed agreements or the alleged production expenses. Similarly, the defendants’ claims that the plaintiff took production records were not supported by any independent evidence.
A key issue in the case was the evidentiary value of the CBFC certificate. The defendants argued that since the CBFC certificate listed them as the producer, they should own the copyright. The Court disagreed, explaining that the CBFC’s role under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is limited to certifying films for public exhibition. While the certificate shows the film has been examined and certified, it constitutes only prima facie evidence of the producer’s identity and cannot determine copyright ownership. The Court held that the issue must be decided based on the entire body of documentary and oral evidence placed before it.
After evaluating all the evidence, the Court decided that the plaintiff had established that he took the initiative and responsibility for making the film. He had organised the production, hired the artists and technicians, kept production records, and produced the original bound script before the Court. These facts met the statutory definition of “producer” under Section 2(uu) of the Copyright Act, 1957. So, under Section 17 of the Act, the plaintiff was held to be the first owner of copyright in the cinematographic work. The Court found that while the defendants may have helped with some part of the production, their role was secondary and did not establish ownership of copyright.
Based on these findings, the Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, permanently restrained the defendants from exhibiting or exploiting the film under the titles “Mani” or “Money”, dismissed the cross-suit filed by the defendants, and awarded costs in favour of the plaintiff.
The judgment provides important guidance on copyright ownership in cinematographic works. It reinforces that copyright ownership cannot be decided just by promotional materials, contracts, or certificates. Instead, courts will look closely at who conceived, organised and assumed responsibility for producing the film. The decision shows how important it is to keep up-to-date production records, like artist agreements, payment ledgers, shooting schedules, and scripts, as these can be crucial in settling disputes. For producers, production houses and investors, the case is a reminder that comprehensive documentation remains key to protecting copyright interests in the film industry.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Kratika Patel