Adaptation of books into theatre and cinema is extremely prevalent in the Indian film industry. In fact, even the first ever full-length silent feature film which was made in India namely ‘Raja Harishchandra’ was an adaptation of an Indian mythological character. In India, adaptations, are governed under section 14 (a) (vi) of the Copyrights Act, 1957. The right to adaptation gives the author a complete authority over his or her work, and even grants freedom to present it to the audience, in the way he or she deems fit. Similarly, in the US, the author Stephen King (henceforth referred as ‘King’) published the novel ‘The Shining’ in 1977. Three years later, an American film director and producer, Stanley Kubrick (henceforth referred as ‘Kubrick’) released his popular film adaptation of the book under the same title. In order to do so, Kubrick had to negotiate a licence to adapt King’s novel for the big screen. It is important to note that, the copyright in the original work remains separate from the copyright in the adaptation. As with regards to The Shining, both the book and the movie are protected by their own independent copyrights. While the copyright in the novel will expire 70 years after King’s death, the copyright in the film adaptation has got nothing to do with King at all.
In Laguerre Saavedra v. Editorial Cultural, Inc., Civ. No. 15-2436, the Federal District Court in Puerto Rica had to deal with an important issue of determining ownership in original works viz-a-viz their adaptations with respect to the novels ‘La Llamarada’ and ‘La Resaca’ written by Enrique Laguerre (henceforth referred as ‘Laguerre’), and theatrical adaptations of these works by another playwright, Roberto Ramos Perea (henceforth referred as ‘Perea’). It is a remarkable case as the Court had concluded, twice, that Perea was deprived of his copyrights by an agreement between other persons which were never executed by him.[i]
Laguerre had written the novels La Llamarada and La Resaca in 1935 and 1949 respectively. La Llamarada was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) in 1936. However, the registration was not renewed, and the work was published without a copyright notice, as required under the 1909 Copyright Act. On the other hand, La Reseca was never registered with the USCO. Both works were available for public use decades ago.
Thereafter in 2001, Laguerre entered into contractual agreements with a theater producer namely, Producciones Teatro Caribeño, Inc., which stated that Perea would prepare adaptations of La Resaca and the producer’s team would perform them. Meanwhile, Laguerre and Editorial Cultural, Inc. (‘Editorial’), a publishing company, were in a business relationship in 2002 which gave Editorial Cultural the right to print one ‘commemorative’ edition of Perea’s theatrical adaption of La Resaca. Furthermore, Editorial Cultural received the right to print up to 25,000 copies of La Llamarada as well in exchange for royalties.
The issue before the District Court was whether Editorial Cultural, can be held liable for copyright infringement after taking into consideration the fact that, it printed and sold 20,000 copies of the theatrical adaptations of the two novels. Editorial Cultural argued that, Laguerre had reserved the printing rights to the adaptations to himself exclusively, as per the Laguerre-Caribeño contracts, and therefore Perea was not entitled to any damages for infringement. Perea argued that he was entitled to recover damages for infringement because, not only had Laguerre authorized Perea to create the adaptations, but such authorisation was not infact necessary since the original works were already in the public domain at the time of creation of the adaptations. The District Court did not recognise Perea, as the copyright owner by relying exclusively upon the Laguerre-Caribeño contracts and, passed a judgment against Editorial Cultural awarding damages to Laguerre’s heirs.
However, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upon reviewing the judgment of the Puerto Rican District Court discovered that Laguerre had no copyright interest in either of the novels at the time when Perea had adapted them into the play scripts in 2001 and 2003, and that both novels had passed into the public domain well before the Laguerre-Caribeño contracts were signed. The reason being that, under the 1909 Copyright Act, works which were created before the year 1978 retained copyright protection for 28 years (plus an additional 28 years if renewed). The District Court had not considered the fact that the novels were in the public use when Perea created his adaptations thereby making him the absolute owner of the derivative works he created, with the exclusive power to authorize their appropriation in any manner. The First Circuit Court therefore, set aside the impugned order which was decreed in favour of Laguerre’s heirs and awarded Perea the all damages and costs.[ii]
