Unicaus NEWS
Madras HC granted the interim injunction following a copyright infringement swimsuit filed by RS Infotainment, the producer of the 2010 film helmed by acclaimed director Gautham Vasudeva Menon, towards Mini Studio LLP, the producer of Aaromaley. Photo: X/@ministudiosllp
Justice N. Senthilkumar granted the interim injunction following a copyright infringement swimsuit filed by RS Infotainment, the producer of the 2010 film helmed by acclaimed director Gautham Vasudeva Menon, towards Mini Studio LLP, the producer of Aaromaley.
The plaintiff’s counsel Ramesh Ganapathy instructed the courtroom that RS Infotainment was a distinguished manufacturing home that had many critically acclaimed motion pictures comparable to Ko, Ko2, Viduthalai half I and Viduthalai half 2 in its portfolio and was at current producing actor Soori starrer Mandaadi.
He acknowledged his consumer had produced VTV in collaboration with Escape Artists Motion Pictures underneath a 2009 three way partnership settlement and subsequently, holds all rights, together with the precise for replica, adaptation, and public communication, underneath Sections 14 and 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The courtroom was additionally instructed that VTV was such a cult film that it acquired re-released on February 5, 2022 and was exhibited at PVR INOX multiplex at VR shopping center in Anna Nagar, Chennai for over 1,400 days. He accused the producers of Aaromaley of getting used scenes and background music from VTV unauthorisedly.
Stating that Aaromaley was launched in theatres on November 7 and was anticipated to make to be made accessible on the OTT platform too shortly, the plaintiff inisisted on granting the interim injunction, restraining the usage of the scenes and background music of VTV, towards Hotstar too.
“The unauthorised use of the plaintiff’s work not solely violates the plaintiff’s financial rights (as set out underneath Section 14 of the Copyright Act) but additionally undermines his ethical rights (underneath Section 57 of the Act) by modifying, adapting, or presenting his work in ways in which might battle with the unique inventive imaginative and prescient,” the plaint learn.
It additionally went on to state: “The defendant’s refusal to halt these actions or negotiate correct licensing demonstrates unhealthy religion and a transparent intent to infringe upon the plaintiff’s rights. This ongoing infringement warrants rapid authorized motion to guard the plaintiff’s statutory and ethical rights underneath the Copyright Act.”
Published – November 19, 2025 08:10 pm IST
