As the legal dispute between Nayanthara and Dhanush unfolds, it highlights several nuanced issues regarding copyright ownership, the limits of fair use, and the authority of film producers over materials related to their productions.
The Battle Over Copyright Ownership
The core of this controversy revolves around the ownership of behind-the-scenes (BTS) footage from the film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan. Although such footage is often viewed as supplementary content, its ownership is not always clear-cut.
While producers generally hold the copyright to content created during the production process, the ownership of BTS footage filmed by individuals outside the production crew is less clear. A crucial factor in this case is whether the footage was shot during the filming process at the producer’s request or was filmed independently by cast members or others present on set.
Legal experts point out that if the footage was filmed on personal devices and not commissioned by the producer, the rights might rest with the individual who captured the footage, especially if it wasn’t part of the official production. In this case, since the BTS footage was filmed on a personal device, Nayanthara and her team might have a valid claim to its use.
The situation could become more complicated if the producer formally requested or documented the footage as part of the production process. The producer’s claim to the footage would be stronger in that case.
Fair Use or Copyright Infringement?
In the context of this legal battle, a critical aspect is whether the use of the BTS footage in Nayanthara’s Netflix docu-drama falls under the doctrine of “fair use,” which in India is governed by “fair dealing” provisions under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act. Fair dealing allows using copyrighted material for criticism, reporting, research, or educational use.
However, applying fair use is not always straightforward, especially regarding commercial use. Since Beyond the Fairytale is a commercial Netflix production, Dhanush’s legal team could argue that using the footage harms Naanum Rowdy Dhaan’s market value. On the other hand, if the footage is used for transformative purposes, such as adding new meaning or commentary, it might still qualify for fair use.
The fact that the clip was less than 30 seconds long and not central to the documentary strengthens the argument for fair use. However, if the clip is considered integral to portraying Nayanthara’s personal life or her love story with Vignesh Shivan, courts could determine that it was used without proper authorization, leading to infringement.
Privacy Concerns and Control Over Content
In addition to questions of copyright, privacy concerns come into play. The individuals who filmed the BTS footage likely have control over its dissemination, especially if it was recorded on personal devices. If Nayanthara or Shivan filmed the footage, they could argue that they have the right to decide how it is used, including sharing it publicly.
However, Dhanush’s legal team could counter that the footage, even if filmed personally, should fall under the control of Wunderbar Films, given the contractual relationship between the producers and the film’s cast and crew. This case could set a precedent for how personal footage filmed by actors or crew members is treated under Indian copyright law, especially in the age of social media and documentary filmmaking.
The Impact on Market Value
Whether the documentary harms the market value of the original film also plays a critical role in determining the fairness of using the BTS footage. If the footage in the Netflix docu-drama significantly impacts the commercial value of Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, then Dhanush’s claims for damages could be substantiated. On the other hand, if the use is deemed to have little impact on the film’s market, the courts could rule in favor of Nayanthara, particularly given the brief and incidental nature of the clip’s inclusion.
Legal experts have noted that courts will likely evaluate whether the clip’s use was minimal and whether it was necessary for the documentary’s purpose. In cases of minimal use, the legal doctrine of de minimis, which means “the law does not concern itself with trifles,” might apply. However, the test for copyright infringement is both qualitative and quantitative. If the short clip is considered to be the essence of the film or plays a significant role in portraying the documentary’s subject matter, then it could be deemed a violation of Dhanush’s copyright.
Potential Damages and Consequences
If the court rules against Nayanthara, the legal consequences could include an injunction to prevent further use of the footage and damages. Dhanush has demanded ₹ ten crore in damages, a sum that might seem excessive, but legal experts note that this amount depends on the specifics of the infringement. If the use was deemed willful and blatant, it could lead to higher damages.
Damages are typically calculated based on actual losses, the infringer’s profits from the infringement, and the effect of the infringement on the market. However, in this case, since the footage was used in a documentary with limited commercial impact, it may result in a lower award if the court finds that the violation did not substantially harm Dhanush’s market interests.
Conclusion: Who Controls the Creative Narrative?
This case underscores the broader tension in the creative industries about who controls the rights to behind-the-scenes material and how such content can be used, especially when it is personal. While producers typically maintain control over the final product and its related content, the rise of individual devices, social media, and online platforms like Netflix complicates this dynamic.
As Nayanthara and Dhanush’s legal battle continues, the outcome could have lasting implications for how copyright law applies to BTS footage and the rights of individuals participating in filmmaking. With questions of fair use, copyright ownership, and privacy hanging in the balance, this case will likely become a touchstone for future disputes in the entertainment industry.
