synopsis
Madras High Court dismisses Netflix India's application, allowing Dhanush's copyright infringement case to proceed over unauthorized use of behind-the-scenes footage in Nayanthara's documentary.
Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed Netflix India's application to reject a plaint filed by Dhanush's production company, Wunderbar Films, over alleged copyright infringement. The court will hear Wunderbar's interim injunction application on February 5, 2025.
At the heart of the dispute is the use of behind-the-scenes footage from Dhanush's 2015 movie "Naanum Rowdy Daan" in Nayanthara's documentary "Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale" without permission. Dhanush claims that this footage was used without his consent, violating his copyright.
Netflix India argued that the court lacks jurisdiction, as its office is in Mumbai, and that Dhanush should have obtained leave to sue all defendants, not just Netflix. They also pointed out that a picture from the movie set was uploaded in 2020, and Dhanush took no action, suggesting that there was no urgency in filing the suit.
According to the argument, the plaint was only filed one week after the documentary was released, thereby showing there was no urgency warranting bypassing Section 12A (Pre-Suit Mediation) under the Commercial Courts Act. The subsequent argument was to reject the plaint itself for non-compliance of Section 12A.
However, Senior Advocate PS Raman, representing Dhanush, countered that the producer owns the copyright to all content created during the movie's production, including behind-the-scenes footage. He argued that Nayanthara signed a contract agreeing that her appearance in the movie's costume and hairstyle would be the producer's copyright.
Regarding the photo posted in 2020, Raman argued that the cause of action arose only when there was a copyright infringement, which would be the unauthorized usage of behind-the-scenes footage. He told the court that an email was sent to the defendants to desist using the footage and a suit was not filed till the release of the documentary as the plaintiff came to know about the part of the footage used only after the release of the documentary.