Copy-right Or Wrong? A Lowdown On Nayanthara Vs. Dhanush

In India, the discourse around Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has often been fraught, lacking nuance. It바카라�s everywhere, and still it바카라�s nowhere. The latest feud between actors Nayanthara and Dhanush centres around the use of clips from Naanum Rowdy Dhaan (2015)바카라�starring the former and produced by the latter바카라�s Wunderbar Films바카라�in the Netflix documentary Nayanthara: Beyond The Fairytale, which released on November 18. According to an open letter shared by Nayanthara, the documentary crew had been in communication with Dhanush바카라�s team for over two years, trying to source their NOC (no-objection certificate) to use clips from the film, but were refused. After some behind-the-scenes (BTS) clips from the film emerged in the Netflix doc바카라�s trailer바카라�which Nayanthara maintains were shot on 바카라�personal devices바카라�바카라�Dhanush바카라�s lawyers sent a notice for the clip to be taken down or face claims of damages to the tune of Rs 10 Crore.

What might seem like a straightforward case of copyright infringement, could be more twisted. While using clips from the film would result in direct infringement, the BTS footage might be a matter of contractual technicality. Delhi-based advocate Naveen Nagarjuna says that since the clips are used for commercial purposes (Nayanthara stands to financially benefit from her documentary) and doesn바카라�t come under the purview of 바카라�fair use바카라�, it will entirely depend on the contents of the clip. 바카라�Most producers put in a clause saying you shouldn바카라�t be recording anything on sets,바카라� says Nagarjuna, 바카라�since you don바카라�t want clips to be leaked. But if [the clip shows] actors talking behind the scenes, or taking pictures on the sets, I don바카라�t think it바카라�s infringement per se. Unless there바카라�s a scene from the film in the clip.바카라�

The clip in the documentary uses snatches of the BTS footage from the 2015 film to showcase Nayanthara바카라�s love story with director Vignesh Shivan, who she eventually married. In the open letter, Nayanthara has attacked Dhanush for being 바카라�vile바카라� and holding a 바카라�personal grudge바카라� against the couple, by demanding Rs 10 Crore for a meagre 3-second clip used in the trailer. However, the montage in the final documentary is around 15-20 seconds for the sequence. Who owns the BTS footage 바카라� Dhanush? Or was it shot on personal devices as Nayanthara claims?

Anumita Verma, who specialises in IPR and practises in Delhi HC, says the first owner of copyright is defined under section 17 of the Copyright Act, as 바카라�Work-for-hire, or work prepared within the scope of employment.바카라� Also, Verma mentions how ownership of the BTS footage will be determined by a specific clause in the contract between actor and producer. 바카라�There바카라�s a clause called 바카라�deliverance바카라� in most contracts between actors, producers which states BTS footage will be handed over to the producer after the completion of a shoot. We have to see if the clause is there in this specific contract.바카라�

While recognising that not issuing the NOC was entirely Dhanush바카라�s prerogative, Nagarjuna says it will be a 바카라�long shot바카라� on the actor/producer바카라�s part to realise the damages he바카라�s claiming. 바카라�If he바카라�s suing her for 10 Cr, he will have to pay Rs 10 lacs as court fees, so that will underline that the party바카라�s intent to fight the case is not based on a whim. On top of that, there바카라�s the lawyer바카라�s fee. So, it will have to be a financially prudent decision,바카라� says Nagarjuna. 바카라�She might also show up on the first day of the hearing and might agree to take out the three-seconds clip. All sorts of things can happen.바카라� Everything said and done, Nagarjuna doesn바카라�t see Dhanush going to court since the documentary is already out. And with the words already exchanged in the public domain, mediation looks difficult.

This is not the first time such a case has come to the fore. Earlier this year, musician Ilaiyaraaja had sent a similar notice to the producers of Manjummel Boys (2024) for using his composition. After initially demanding Rs 2 Crore, the musician reportedly settled the dispute for Rs 60 lacs.