1. Introduction

The ongoing legal dispute between Tamil cinema stars Nayanthara and Dhanush highlights key issues in copyright law, specifically the application of the de minimis doctrine, ownership rights, and the implications of privately created footage within a copyrighted work’s ecosystem. The matter revolves around Nayanthara’s Netflix documentary, Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale, and Dhanush’s objection to the use of footage allegedly linked to the 2015 film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan.

The dispute centers on a three-second clip from Naanum Rowdy Dhaan that appears in Nayanthara’s documentary. Dhanush, who produced the original film, has sent a legal notice demanding ₹10 crore in damages for what he claims is unauthorized use of the footage. Nayanthara has publicly criticized Dhanush’s actions, accusing him of harboring a personal grudge and using the legal system to delay the release of her documentary. Nayanthara’s husband, Vignesh Shivan, directed Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, and the behind-the-scenes footage in question is significant to the couple as it marks the beginning of their relationship. Despite repeated requests over two years, Dhanush has refused to grant permission for the clip’s use, leading to the current legal battle. This legal tussle explores the boundaries of the Copyright Act, 1957, touching upon doctrines like de minimis non curat lex (triviality of minor use) and ownership of auxiliary content. The outcome is poised to influence interpretations of copyright law, particularly within India’s entertainment industry.

2. Legal Analysis

• Copyright Act, 1957

Under Article 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer of a film typically holds the copyright to all visual elements directly created during production. This means that any footage shot using the studio’s resources, such as cameras, lighting, and crew, would generally fall under the producer’s copyright. In this case, if the behind-the-scenes (BTS) footage was shot as part of the production process and with studio resources, it would likely be considered part of the film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, and Dhanush, as the producer, would hold the copyright.

Conversely, if the footage was captured privately by Nayanthara or her team using personal equipment, it may qualify as an independent creation outside the producer’s copyright scope. For instance, if Nayanthara’s team used their own cameras to film a candid moment during a break from shooting, this footage might not be covered by the film’s copyright.

The burden of proof would lie on Nayanthara to demonstrate that the footage was created independently and does not reproduce core elements of the film, such as specific scenes, dialogues, or set designs. This distinction is crucial in determining the rightful ownership and whether the use of the footage in her documentary constitutes copyright infringement.

Lets understand this with an example

Imagine a scenario where a BTS clip is filmed using the studio’s cameras, lighting, and crew during the official production schedule. In this case, the footage would be considered part of the film’s production, and the producer, Dhanush, would hold the copyright. Any use of this footage in another work, like Nayanthara’s documentary, would require permission from Dhanush. Conversely, if Nayanthara or her team filmed a BTS clip using their personal cameras during a break or outside the official production schedule, this footage could be considered an independent creation. For instance, if Nayanthara’s team captured a candid moment between scenes using a personal smartphone, this footage might not fall under the producer’s copyright, provided it does not replicate core elements of the film.

This principle was dealt with in the case of India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Yashraj Films Private Limited (2012) where the Delhi High Court dealt with the use of copyrighted material in a television program. India TV used a line from a song and clips from a film without permission. The court applied the de minimis doctrine, which means the law does not concern itself with trifles and ruled that the use was too trivial to constitute copyright infringement. This precedent highlight how minor uses of copyrighted material might be permissible under certain circumstances.

• De Minimis Doctrine

The length of the copyrighted material used is a crucial factor. In this case, the clip in question is only three seconds long, which is extremely short. Courts often consider such brief uses to be de minimis, as they do not capture a substantial portion of the original work. For example, using a few seconds of a song in a news report or a short clip from a movie in a review might be considered de minimis due to their brevity.

— Transformative Use

Transformative use refers to altering, contextualizing, or integrating the copyrighted material into a new work to serve a different purpose. If Nayanthara’s documentary uses the three-second clip in a way that adds new expression, meaning, or message—such as providing commentary, criticism, or background context—it strengthens her case. For instance, if the clip is used to illustrate a point about the filmmaking process or to provide insight into her personal journey, it could be seen as transformative. This is similar to how courts have ruled in cases where copyrighted material is used in parodies or educational content, which often qualify as transformative uses.

— Market Effect

The impact of the use on the market value of the original work is another critical factor. A three-second BTS clip is unlikely to harm the commercial value of Naanum Rowdy Dhaan or its derivative works. Courts assess whether the use of the material could potentially replace the original work or diminish its market value. In this scenario, the brief and incidental use of the clip in a documentary is unlikely to affect the film’s market performance or its potential revenue streams. This is akin to cases where courts have found that minor uses of copyrighted material in news reporting or academic works do not negatively impact the market for the original work.

If these factors favor Nayanthara, her use may be protected under the de minimis principle.

This principle was further explained in the Super Cassettes Industries Limited & Ors. v. Chintamani Rao & Ors. (2011), where the Delhi High Court discussed the de minimis principle in the context of a news channel using copyrighted works without appropriate licenses. The court considered factors such as the size of the use, the harm caused, and the intent of the user. The court ruled that minor, incidental uses that do not cause significant harm to the copyright owner can be defended under the de minimis doctrine.

• Independent Content Creation

If the footage was privately shot and unrelated to scenes or themes of the movie, the copyright holder for Naanum Rowdy Dhaan might have no claim over it. This determination would depend on several factors:

Location and Context: The location and context in which the footage was shot are crucial. If the footage was captured on the film’s set or during a production-related event, it might be considered part of the film’s production. For example, if Nayanthara filmed the clip during a break on set using her personal camera, but it included elements of the set or ongoing production activities, it could still fall under Dhanush’s copyright. Conversely, if the footage was shot off-set, such as in a personal setting unrelated to the film’s production, it might be considered independent content.

Content: The content of the clip is another important factor. If the clip includes copyrighted dialogues, props, or set designs from Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, it could still fall under Dhanush’s copyright. For instance, if the footage shows actors in costume reciting lines from the script or features distinctive set pieces, it would likely be considered part of the copyrighted work. However, if the clip merely shows casual interactions or BTS moments without any copyrighted elements, it might be deemed independent.

The R.G. Anand v. M/S Delux Films (1978) case established the test of substantiality, asserting that incidental reproduction is not actionable unless it appropriates the essence of the original work.

3. Implications of the dispute

• For Nayanthara: Proving that the footage is her independent creation or falls under the de minimis threshold could set a significant precedent for fair use exceptions in Indian copyright law. This would highlight the importance of context, transformation, and minimal use in determining copyright infringement. For example, if the footage was shot using her personal equipment and does not replicate core elements of Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, it could be considered independent. Similarly, if the three-second clip is deemed too trivial to constitute infringement, it would support the application of the de minimis doctrine. Even if the footage is a private creation, Nayanthara might still need to perform due diligence, such as obtaining formal releases from key stakeholders involved in the original production. This ensures that all parties’ rights are respected and can prevent future legal disputes. For instance, securing permissions from actors or crew members who appear in the footage would demonstrate good faith and adherence to legal standards.

• For Dhanush: If the footage is deemed part of Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, Dhanush’s case is strengthened, reinforcing the producer’s rights over all production-associated content. This would affirm the producer’s control over any material created during the film’s production, including BTS footage. For example, if the clip includes copyrighted dialogues or set designs, it would likely fall under Dhanush’s copyright. However, overreach in legal demands could invite scrutiny over Dhanush’s motivations, especially if the legal dispute appears retaliatory rather than protective of copyright. If the court perceives the lawsuit as an attempt to hinder Nayanthara’s documentary for personal reasons, it could weaken Dhanush’s position. This highlights the importance of balancing legal rights with fair and reasonable enforcement.

• For the Industry: This case underscores the need for clear agreements during production to delineate ownership rights over BTS material, deleted scenes, or derivative content. Establishing explicit contracts that specify who owns what can prevent similar disputes in the future. For instance, production agreements could include clauses that address the use of BTS footage, ensuring that all parties understand their rights and obligations. This clarity can foster a more collaborative and legally secure environment in the film industry.

4. Recommendations for content creators

In the fast-paced world of filmmaking and content creation, legal clarity is paramount to avoid potential disputes over intellectual property. Using BTS footage, secondary materials, or previously created content often involves navigating complex copyright laws. Content creators must adopt proactive legal practices to ensure smooth operations and protect creative and financial interests.

These steps protect the content and foster a collaborative and legally sound environment for future projects.

• Contracts and Licenses: All stakeholders should specify the use and ownership of BTS or secondary materials during the production phase through contracts and licenses. Clear contracts can prevent misunderstandings and disputes over who holds the rights to various types of footage. For example, a contract might state that all BTS footage shot with studio equipment belongs to the producer, while footage shot with personal equipment belongs to the individual who filmed it. This clarity ensures that everyone involved understands their rights and responsibilities from the outset. Additionally, contracts can include specific clauses that address the use of BTS footage in future projects, delineating what is permissible and what requires additional permissions. By having these agreements in place, content creators can avoid potential conflicts and ensure a smoother production process. This proactive approach not only protects the interests of all parties but also fosters a collaborative environment where creative contributions are respected and legally safeguarded.

• Pre-Clearance: Obtaining prior legal approval, such as No Objection Certificates (NOCs), for using copyrighted material in unrelated projects can mitigate disputes. This step ensures that all parties are aware of and agree to the use of specific content. For instance, before including a clip from a previous film in a new documentary, securing an NOC from the original producer can prevent legal challenges. Pre-clearance involves a thorough review of the intended use of copyrighted material and obtaining the necessary permissions before the content is published or distributed. This process can involve negotiating terms and conditions that satisfy all stakeholders, thereby reducing the risk of infringement claims. By taking this precautionary measure, content creators can confidently use existing materials, knowing they have the legal backing to do so. This not only protects them from potential lawsuits but also demonstrates a commitment to respecting intellectual property rights.

• Legal Safeguards: Inserting boilerplate clauses for de minimis use of minor clips or snippets in contracts can avoid prolonged legal battles. These clauses can specify that minor, incidental uses of copyrighted material are permissible without additional permissions. For example, a clause might allow for the use of clips under a certain duration (e.g., less than five seconds) for purposes such as commentary or educational content, provided they do not harm the market value of the original work. By defining what constitutes de minimis use, content creators can establish clear guidelines that protect them from claims of infringement over trivial uses. These legal safeguards can be tailored to the specific needs of a project, ensuring that all parties have a mutual understanding of acceptable practices. Implementing such clauses not only streamlines the production process but also provides a legal framework that supports creative freedom while respecting copyright laws. This approach helps maintain a balance between protecting intellectual property and allowing for reasonable, fair use of content.

5. Conclusion

The Nayanthara-Dhanush conflict underscores the intricate and often contentious nature of intellectual property rights within the creative industry, particularly when personal dynamics are at play. This case not only highlights the complexities of copyright law but also the significant impact of personal relationships on legal disputes. The legal outcome, which will depend on the evidence presented and judicial interpretation, has the potential to set important precedents in India. It could influence how courts interpret de minimis use and the private ownership of auxiliary content, thereby shaping future legal standards. This case serves as a critical reminder of the necessity for clear contractual agreements and diligent legal practices. By establishing explicit terms regarding the use and ownership of BTS material and other secondary content, stakeholders can prevent similar disputes. Moreover, it emphasizes the importance of obtaining prior legal approvals and ensuring that all parties’ rights are respected. Ultimately, the Nayanthara-Dhanush conflict could lead to more robust legal frameworks and industry practices that better navigate the complex landscape of copyright law. It highlights the need for a balanced approach that protects intellectual property rights while allowing for reasonable, fair use of content. As the industry evolves, such cases will continue to shape the legal and ethical standards that govern creative works.

Out-of-the box steps to avoid similar legal issues

• Create a “BTS Bank”

Warner Bros. Studio has implemented a centralized digital archive for all BTS footage. Each piece of footage is meticulously labeled with details about its ownership and usage rights. This system allows filmmakers to easily access and use BTS footage for promotional materials, documentaries, and special features without legal complications. The clear labeling helps avoid disputes over who owns the footage and what permissions are needed.

The Indian film and entertainment industry should consider establishing a similar “BTS Bank.” By creating a centralized digital archive for all BTS footage, Indian studios can ensure that all content is properly labeled with ownership and usage rights. This would streamline the process of accessing and using BTS footage, reduce the risk of legal disputes, and enhance the efficiency of content creation. Such a system would also foster better collaboration and transparency within the industry.

• Develop a “Fair Use Filter”

The legal and media & entertainment industries should work together to develop a “Fair Use Filter.” This tool would help content creators quickly assess whether their use of copyrighted material falls under fair use or de minimis principles. By creating a simple questionnaire or app that guides users through key considerations—such as the purpose of use, the amount of material used, and its impact on the market value of the original work—this tool can provide immediate feedback and suggestions for making the use more compliant with copyright laws. This collaboration would ensure that content creators have the resources they need to navigate copyright issues effectively, reducing the risk of infringement and fostering a more innovative and legally compliant creative environment.