Decided on: 2hth August, 2026
Coram: P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi
Citation: O.S.A. (CAD) 17/2022
Introduction
The Madras High Court Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi in the matter of The Cinema Resource Centre & Ors v. Ganga Rudraiah & Ors, clarified the issue of ownership of the copyright in production photographs, why possessing a photograph is different from owning its copyright, and why archives and collectors need to look beyond the physical item they hold.
Background
The Plaintiffs contented that the photographs in question were taken during the making of the Tamil film Aval Appadithan, by the photographers engaged by the producer and director of the film Mr. Rudraiah under his supervision, while the photographs of his other films stayed with the family, the album for this film alone went missing.
The defendants were The Cinema Resource Centre, a charitable trust that preserves material relating to Indian cinema, and its collector. They said they bought sacks of old film photographs from a dealer at Moore Market, Chennai, in 2007. They sorted, restored, digitised and catalogued the photographs, and created an archive album that they displayed on their website.
The plaintiffs found out about this through a publication and the website of defendant. In December 2014, the first plaintiff asked the second defendant to return the original album, but she declined, offering only to credit the family for “donating” it to the trust. The plaintiffs then sued for a declaration of copyright, a permanent injunction, delivery of the original photographs and destruction of all copies.
The defendants argued that the first owner of copyright in a photograph is the photographer, not the producer of the film. They also contended that the photographs were lawfully acquired and displayed only for archival, educational and non-commercial purposes. However, the Single Judge decreed the suit on 13 July 2021, declaring the plaintiffs as the copyright owners, and directed the defendant to return the originals and furthermore, ordered deletion and destruction of all physical and electronic copies, and restrained further publication. Thus, the defendants appealed to the Division Bench.
Judgment
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court completely dismissed The Cinema Resource Centre’s appeal, firmly ruling that the rightful ownership of the copyright belongs exclusively to Rudraiah’s family. In doing so, the court affirmed a 2021 trial court decree and ordered The Cinema Resource Centre to surrender all original physical photographs and destroy all electronic and digital duplicates within 30 days. This ruling strictly bars the archive from publishing, displaying, or archiving the imagery on its public platforms.
The court’s decision relied heavily on Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which dictates that the person who commissions and pays for a photograph is its primary owner unless a formal written agreement states otherwise. Because The Cinema Resource Centre openly acknowledged that Rudraiah produced the film, the court applied Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act to accept this as an undisputed fact, legally cementing his status as the commissioning authority. Furthermore, the bench clarified that copyright can never be transferred casually; a friendly thank-you email sent by the family praising The Cinema Resource Centre’s preservation efforts did not constitute a legal waiver or assignment of their intellectual property. For cultural archivists and historians,
Conclusion
The present matter serves as a timely reminder that ownership of a physical object does not necessarily mean ownership of the copyright in it. As interest in preserving and sharing film heritage grows, the digitisation, restoration and public circulation of archival material can give rise to significant copyright issues.
The Madras High Court’s decision highlights the importance of clearly establishing copyright ownership at the outset. Where a photograph is taken for valuable consideration at a person’s instance, copyright may vest in that person as the first owner, unless otherwise agreed. Similarly, purchasing, restoring or digitising physical material does not, by itself, confer copyright. Any transfer or licence of copyright should be supported by a clear written agreement.
For archives, collectors, filmmakers and cultural institutions, the practical lesson is clear: physical possession and intellectual property rights must be treated as separate interests. Maintaining proper records, securing written agreements with photographers and other contributors, preserving original materials, and obtaining appropriate permissions before public display or digital dissemination can help prevent disputes.
Ultimately, protecting film heritage is not merely about preserving the physical work, it is equally about respecting and safeguarding the copyright and creative rights attached to it.