Chetan Bhagat’s Copyright Incompetence

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

For the past week, the Indian media has been obsessed about the Chetan Bhagat and Three Idiots production team spat on grounds of copyright and due credit. It almost seems farcical that Bollywood which has in fact thrived on lifting not only concepts but frame-by-frame movies from elsewhere is obsessed whether a movie is 5 or 10 percent similar to another source. But at least this way, many Indians are now exposed to the concept of attribution and copyright. But as far as Chetan Bhagat is concerned, he seems to be on flimsy legal grounds.

The fact of the matter is, Bhagat is complaining that he did not get a proper story credit, but was mentioned only in the credits in the end. The fact of the matter also is, Chetan Bhagat is an MBA from India’s top school, and worked many years as an investment banker. And no matter what the other failings of i-bankers are, they are expected to understand contracts. To read and interpret contracts. And to realize, that if you are not happy with something in the contract, you don’t sign it

Gaurav Sabnis nails it when he pins the blame rightly on Bhagat (or his lawyer). Bhagat signed a contract in 2005 signing away his rights in lieu of payment. One point of contention – placement of authorship/credit – is stated plainly in the contract that was posted by the producer Vidhu Vinod Chopra and is done exactly that way – in the rolling credits. So why all the tamasha? Bhagat is resorting to a typical Indian strategy of appealing to an ambiguous standard of fairness when in fact he has no standing legally. His melodrama complete with a crying mom is textbook manipulation of the Indian media and public who consider personal sentiments above the law. Why has Bhagat been wronged? Because it does not appear fair – is the crux of the argument. Enforcement of contracts apart from ensuring law & order seems to be India’s shortcoming in almost all aspects of life thereby stifling business and economic growth.

Bhagat is an IIT/IIM graduate and probably is fully aware that he wouldn’t stand a chance in court but he fully understands India’s weakness for not enforcing contracts or adhering to law & order. Similarly our penchant for ‘competitive intolerance’ lets random previously-unheard-of religious or ethnic groups demand and get apologies from influential filmmakers for ‘offended sensibilities’. The failings of the judicial system might be partly to blame but the general tendency to mete justice mob-style is not frowned upon unless we are targeted. Bhagat doesn’t incite violent mobs but he sure does whip up the other equally potent weapon in India – emotional blackmail. Previously used by parents to get their kids married off, Bhagat is unabashedly using it to elicit a larger share of the Three Idiots success pie.

Law and Other Things cite the case of Slumdog Millionaire in bringing up the moral rights in terms of attribution. Danny Boyle and his producers acknowledged Vikas Swarup as the author of the book on which their movie was based although they were not legally mandated to. But then again, you can only appeal to the moral or ethnical leanings of individuals but cannot mandate or coerce action based on grounds of “do it because it feels right” unless it is enshrined in law. Bhagat’s failing was in recognizing the potential of his creative work and signing a weak contract. In the words of the Decider, he ‘misunderestimated’ the worth of his work and of course, at that time, he received adequate compensation. You cannot trapeze in after a movie has grossed crores and demand a higher and fairer share. Chopra and Co. may have entertained his tantrums in the media and would’ve been advised to keep mum and avoid the melodrama on their part. Instead, they could’ve asked him to sue them and ask to be seen in court.

One final question for Bhagat – can you please post your contract with the production team of Hello (based on your other book, One Night @ the Call Center)? I would like to see the terms of your contract with them and if similar, why didn’t you create an equally raucous scene back then?

“Chetan Bhagat’s Copyright Incompetence” [Short URL: http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=3178] was published Monday, January 4th, 2010 at 4:42 pm by Patrix, filed under 9rules, India, Law, Movies, and tagged as Bollywood, copyright, Movies. Both comments and linkbacks are closed.

« Five Reasons Avatar Still Won’t Win Best Picture

You may be racist if… »

http://pikeyspeak.blogspot.com Piker
If I had a book and if I knew it was going to spin-off an Aamir Khan starrer (or if a big-wig like VVC was going to produce a movie based on it) I would know better than asking Rs.10 lakhs for it. He’s an idiot.
Also, note his ridiculous ISKCON reference out of nowhere. Complete WTFness.

http://www.ipatrix.com Patrix
I have a diminished view of IIMs now.
Also, did you see he is not redacting the email IDs of the people who are writing to him on his blog? So he is not just ignorant of business and contracts but also web etiquette.

http://pikeyspeak.blogspot.com Piker
He is ignorant of any etiquette. You don’t reveal someone’s personal info without express permission. That would have been valid even in the 70s.
And while on the IIMs, go on, don’t be shy. Say you have a diminished views of the IITs too. You won’t be wrong. :) (I won’t take offence. We are hardly what we’re built up to be. Especially people who’ve met me say so.)

http://www.ipatrix.com Patrix
LOL! I don’t mince words in bashing IIT-ians when necessary. My father and father-in-law are both from IIT (the original five, as they claim). But then I’ve realized, education doesn’t make much of a difference in molding individual opinions if they don’t let it.
Anyway, IITs are a technical institute whereas IIMs are business schools hence more geared toward understanding contracts and negotiation which is the crux of this issue. Chetan Bhagat spectacularly fails at that. If he is going to take refuge in emotional blackmail and media manipulation, India has far better people (e.g. Gandhis)

As any fule kno
It is a truth universally acknowledged that the better educated will always get diddled by those of lesser learning. As any fule kno.

http://www.ipatrix.com Patrix
Universally known, sure but if the Palin-ites got hold of it, you would be deemed elitist :) Not that we mind it. No one ever wants the Ordinary Band of Navy Seals to come to their rescue when you can have the Elite ones :)

C
From Chetan Bhagat’s blog
“Also, they did not buy rights of the book – they bought the rights to adapt the book – a basic error they continue to make – whether out of lack of knowledge or to evade the issue. And yes there is a contract to adapt the work – but it doesn’t mean they can claim authorship of the story. You can buy a painting, not claim you painted it – basic copyright law. ”
There is no legal contract you can write via which you can falsely claim sole authorship/creation of a work entirely or in part when it is not in fact the case. I work for a software company and the rights of all the patents I file are turned over to my company. However, they cannot legally remove my name from the list of original inventors via any kind of contract.
“I have a diminished view of IIMs now”
I have a diminished view of IIMs too, but primarily from reading ex-IIMite Sabnis’ uninformed “libertarian” rantings. If the only tool of analysis someone has at his disposal is looking for contractual violations from a “libertarian” POV, then he/she is going to come up with stupid conclusions more often than not.
The crux of the matter is – the opening credits had a frame like
Story – Hirani, Joshi.
with Bhagat’s name missing, apart from public statements dissociating Bhagat from the story credits.
I am not an expert on Indian law, but there is sufficient grounds here to believe that Bhagat can sue to get his name added to the list, irrespective of any contract he has signed.
C
I don’t see why I typed all this when you have linked to a better explanation
http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/2010/01/3-idiots-copyright-controversy-whither.html
Section 57 of the Indian copyright act vests every author with the right to insist that their works be attributed to them. And this right exists independent of the “economic” right to exploit the work. In essence, the section states that “..independently of the author’s copyright and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right to claim the authorship of the work … ”
Why do you claim that this is copyright incompetence when there is a clear lucid explanation that Hirani and Co are morally and legally in the wrong?

http://www.ipatrix.com Patrix
I admit my understanding of the finer points of Indian Copyright Law are tenuous at best but from what I understand, if Chetan Bhagat had a solid case, he would’ve filed suit and battled it out in the courts and not the media. And definitely his crying mom on the witness stand wouldn’t count as evidence.
My grouse with CB isn’t the quality of his books but in the manner in which this issue has panned out. And my reasons for the IIM dig was that at failing to understand why he didn’t sign a stronger contract to begin with. Heck, J.K. Rowling even dictated that only British actors could act in Harry Potter movies. As long as it is clearly defined in the contract, however ridiculous it may sound, it would be enforced. Was he underestimating the worth of his book? Did he think the piddly amount he agreed to accept was remuneration enough? I will not comment on the ‘morally wrong’ because morality is subjective and you cannot legislate it; at least not in this case. No one should face punitive damages for bad manners however despicable they might come across to you.

C
“if Chetan Bhagat had a solid case, he would’ve filed suit and battled it out in the courts and not the media.”
what is the basis of this reasoning?! Do you know how many years it takes a court case to progress in India. Ruchikas molestation case is in its 19th year. What Chetan did was write about the issue on his blog. This is like me asking you file a PIL in an Indian court instead of writing this particular blog post if you are truly convinced of your reasoning. The guy has full freedom to speak about his thinking on his blog or to the media, especially given that he is right and Hirani and Co are wrong.
“And definitely his crying mom on the witness stand wouldn’t count as evidence. ”
When did Chetans mom take the witness stand? Why are you sidetracking the primary issue of authorship credit?
“my reasons for the IIM dig was that at failing to understand why he didn’t sign a stronger contract to begin with.”
What do you mean by a stronger contract? How can Bhagat speculate how Hirani is going to adapt his book far out in the future?
When you order food from a restaurant, can you just get up and leave without paying, because you did not sign a contract to the effect? I never signed a contract when I was hired that said that all of my inventions shall continue to be attributed to me. The attribution cannot be changed by law, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to sign a contract for this purpose. If you buy a pack of biscuits from a shop and find the pack to be empty when you go home, then the shop keeper is legally required to take it back. There is absolutely no requirement for a contract to that effect be signed by anybody.
“Was he underestimating the worth of his book? Did he think the piddly amount he agreed to accept was remuneration enough?”
Where has Bhagat complained about his remuneration?! What are these side-tracks for?
“I will not comment on the ‘morally wrong’ because morality is subjective and you cannot legislate it”
What?!! Is rape immoral behaviour or merely illegal? If there is no moral basis for a law then there is no reason for it to exist. Why do you think one can never legally sign a contract that turns over authorship/invention credit to some other person. Because it is an attempt to overturn the truth and that is immoral behaviour. Any legal system, metes out punishment to the offender. If the offender was never morally in the wrong, then the legal system needs to be fixed. It is perceivable that some moral offences are hard to nail down and hence laws for such an offence would be redundant and counter-productive but this is clearly not the case here. And we know which section of the Indian copyright law, Hirani and Co have violated.
I think you are fundamentally confused by the phrase “immoral behaviour”, because of the emergence of the so called “Moral Police” in society. Their “Morality” has nothing to do with the moral behaviour I am referring to.
“No one should face punitive damages for bad manners however despicable they might come across to you.”
Bad manners? This is an attempt to steal credit from an original author and the evidence is there for anyone to see. What if you wake up one fine day and see that someone has used your PhD Thesis almost in its entirety for their own PhD defence with no attribution either. Gosh! What bad manners!
Further Hirani has said that Bhagat’s contribution amounts to 2-3%. In the US there are libel laws protecting public figures like Bhagat. Hirani, if found guilty (which is easily done) will have to issue a public retractment and pay damages to Bhagat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
Another point I want to make is, the overwhelming presence of “libertarians” in the Indian blogosphere, whose only tool of analysis is the contract that was signed has made discussion of simple issues extremely painful. The contract is not the be-all and end-all of all things.
You cannot sign any kind of contract and assume it is legal. Conversely you cannot behave in any manner you wish because it does not violate any contract. Illegal does not mean “violation of contract”. For example any pre-nup contract in the US is illegal if it was signed just a few days ahead of the wedding. Because that is coercive behaviour. Contracts signed under duress are illegal, contracts overturning the truth are illegal, contracts for slavery etc are illegal and the basis for all of this is morality.
Ms
I followed only part of the hangama and thought it was ridiculous for all parties and badly reflected on CB more than copy cat movie makers. But the VVC vid on you tube shows that there was a 4 hr script narration in Hong Kong ,and there is a signed NDA to prove this. VVC and co did a big PR stumble but may just flash CB’s name in bigger font size and get away with it.
Looks like Cb got 1 lac + 10 lac for signing away the rights . And he had done this before with Hello so he was not a newbie who got taken by some big time producers. Hardly duress or uninformed party .
Why cry on tv ? Mere pass maa hain. Main toh aam admi hoon, badi izzat karta hoon unki. Chota credit diya junior artist ke saath etc…..lol I was half expecting him to say “Jai Maharashtra , Jai Shivaji” to try the Marathi manoos angle in the industry ;-)

Nerve Endings Firing Away

Chetan Bhagat’s Copyright Incompetence

Related Posts

Subscribe