| This
means that the last three episodes, the conclusive part of which was
to air today (9 June), could not be aired, as an appeal to vacate
the stay filed by the channel yesterday was refused by the court.
The
court said that it was not possible to grant the prayer of the channel
to refuse a stay, "in view of the detailed reasons recorded
in the order, which dictation took more than two and half hours".
Before
writing the order, the court heard the marathon arguments for three
hours.
The
vacation judge held: "Pending the hearing and final disposal
of the suit, it is absolutely just, necessary and proper that the
plaintiff is entitled to
an injunction of this Hon'ble Court,
restraining the defendants
from in any manner whatsoever infringing
the copyright of the plaintiff in the original 'literary work'."
While
the above statement was on the issue if violation of Chiang's copyright,
the court further took cognisance of the allegation of breaching
the confidentiality of information passed on by Chiang to the channel.
The case is expected to come up for an appeal on Monday (11 June).
The
court said that the literary work was the "concept note of
the television programme, Work in Progress, and stopped the
channel from directing or making or copying or reproducing the same,
or publishing or broadcasting or otherwise reproducing the work
by making and broadcasting the television programme Summer Showdown
without the plaintiff's consent".
It
said that granting the request of the channel would make the case
infructuous, "in as much as the programme
is limited
to 10 June", but the interests of the channel would not be
compromised if the stay is ordered, as the channel had stated that
the programme is aired for only two to three minutes a day.
CNN-IBN,
in their affidavit, argued that Chiang had no serious case and was
merely trying to create confusion, and that she had failed to show
that what she sought to protect has been copied by the channel.
"No
attempt has been made by the Plaintiff to draw out any alleged similarities"
between her work and what the channel televised, said the affidavit.
"Making
a hero out of a common man by giving him a target of 30 days to
solve a problem of their choice, creating drama and tension, involving
public by SMS polls, showing the authorities as antagonists is completely
different from pitching civic agencies from five cities against
each other to solve civic problems without any of the ingredients
of the Plaintiff's concept note," says the affidavit.
The
channel stated that it would be incorrect to call Chiang's note
one on a reality show, and that she alone held the copyright to
a reality show involving people solving civic problems.
Besides,
CNN-IBN has done programming of this nature, it had been argued
by them, and that many other channels have shows of this nature.
The
channel argued also that for copyright infringement to be alleged
there must be substantial and frame-by-frame imitation of Chiang's
work, but the CNN-IBN show is materially different from what her
concept note said.
Chiang's
petition seeks payment of damages worth Rs 500,000, plus costs of
court case, and also reserves the right to ask for higher damages
and pay the court fees accordingly.
Chiang
had filed a petition with the court saying that in or about November
2005, she had an idea of a reality television programme which would
follow citizens from different parts of the country as they took
the initiative and set out to solve a civic problem of their choice
in their locality.
The
programme would follow the chosen protagonists through the quagmire
of bureaucracy and conflicting interests and destructive attitudes
as they tried to solve a civic problem of their choice.
Chiang
says in her petition that she had worked out a written project concept
note for this reality show and had it registered with the Film Writer's
Association, Mumbai.
Subsequently,
Chiang sent it to CNN-IBN's Rasika Tyagi by email, and the latter
responded back on 21 March, 2006 - by Email - that she had taken
a look at the project and found it interesting, and asked Chiang
to come to Delhi to discuss the project further.
The
channel discussed the content in detail but did not agree to the
budget she wanted, so Chiang says she got Arun Gaurisaria as the
'Line Producer', who re-worked the budget and sent it over to Tyagi.
Chiang
said in her petition that she also discussed the concept with Ramchandran
Srinivasan, another producer.
Srinivasan
sent an email dated 24 July, 2006 to CNN-IBN Editor-in-Chief Rajdeep
Sardesai. Srinivasan referred to Chiang's proposal and stated that
he could cut down the budget if he produced it.
Srinivasan,
in fact, forwarded the budget as well as the original concept to
Sardesai who replied to the email.
On
3 February, 2007, Gaurisaria met Sardesai on a flight and discussed
the project, and again emailed the concept note of the proposed
television programme to the latter.
As
there was no reply, Gaurisaria sent a reminder email dated 15 February
to Sardesai.
Chiang
says that despite many follow-up emails by Gaurisaria, CNN-IBN had
then fallen silent.
On
or about 19 April, Chiang's petition says, she was shocked to see
promotions of a programme titled Summer Showdown on the CNN-IBN
Television Channel, "which seeks to showcase five families
across five cities, trying to find solutions to civic woes that
come with summer.
The
promo videos suggest that the television programme Summer Showdown
follows the chosen protagonists through the quagmire of bureaucracy
and conflicting interests and destructive attitudes as they try
to solve a civic problem of their choice.
In
short, she alleges that it was a straight take-off from her original
work, which had already been registered in her name, and said that
the only difference was, instead of individuals setting out from
four corners of India, as she had first visualised, there were five
families, but this was a mere 'cosmetic change'.
The
channel denied charges of breach of confidentiality because it said
Chiang had been repeatedly sending the proposal unsolicited by CNN-IBN.
|