logo

74 Responses to “Plagiarism in Hindi Film Industry”

1. vishrant on March 22nd, 2008 7:59 am

   the departed of martin scorsese is from korean ‘internal affairs’

   ‘jinda’ of snajay gupta is from korean ‘old boy’

   the difference
   hollywood purchased the rights
   bollywood didn’t

   i don’t care

   i want to see a good film
   if mahesh bhatt makes it, i am ok with that.
   i am not interested in where he got his inspirations from, copied, bought the rights or not.

   for me the only thing that matters is film is good or not.

   this kind of unnecessary :(( don’t interest me.

   :-??

2. Vivek H on March 22nd, 2008 1:02 pm

   @ Vikrant, I totally empathize with your concern on plagiarism in the whole Indian Film Industry, not only just Bollywood. May be because, I’m also a grad student here in US and clearly understand copyright issues. If at all we are caught with plagiarism, we’ll be facing serious consequences to the extent of loosing the earned degrees. But, your suggestions don’t seem to be practical (even,I don’t have any better ones). Everything is driven by commerce/money, no one cares a shit about acknowledging the original source.
   Last year, when “Partner” was released and was minting moolah in both India and US, the producers of the original “Hitch”, Sony Pictures, were about to sue the producers of “Partner”. It was written about in PFC also. But, after few weeks, no news about it. The whole issue died. Probably, that’s how it works in India. No one gives damn about it.:)

3. Vikrant on March 22nd, 2008 4:05 pm

   Exactly no one gives a damn but why?? What kind of message are we sending? Regarding the suggestions not being practical: I encourage you and all involved to point out specific reasons. You see my motive is to somehow kick start the so called brain storming and if possible involve more people in the exercise.

4. Mithun Gangopadhyay on March 22nd, 2008 5:12 pm

   I have spoken to quite a few people directly affected and involved with this and the common consensus which arises is that we as a society do not believe in the concept of intellectual property or copyright.

   When you have acclaimed filmmakers say blatantly in interviews that originality is overrated, you can imagine the kind of message it sends across the board.

   If one wants to remake that’s well and good but for god’s sake what stops anyone from acquiring the rights for it. Ravi Chopra got the remake rights for “My Cousin Vinny” and according to him it cost him bout 1% of the total budget of the film.

   If mainstream Indian cinema ever wants to be taken seriously on the global level we have to shed our image of being factories of unauthorized rip offs.

   I’m trying to get the options for the rights to a film and it’s miles of paperwork but in the end it’s worth it. And mind you this is just the option and not the rights itself. But if I don’t follow due process and proper procedure tomorrow when I will be at the receiving end, I will have absolutely no moral right to complain.

5. Vivek H on March 22nd, 2008 5:55 pm

   I think the only way that might stop Indian filmmakers from churning out rip offs is getting sued big time. I think that also might not happen. Coz’, I don’t think the big studios in US can keep a watch on all ripped-off desi-versions (regional movies,too) of their own movies and fight it in India.
   As Mithun(4) pointed out, nobody believes or understands the concept of IPR or copyright. So true. They just can’t understand that it is someone else’s idea for god sakes!!! And, it’s just 1% of the total budget of the original film. I’m totally pessimistic about this scenario changing in near future.

6. Darshana on March 22nd, 2008 6:00 pm

   My suggestion is the bicultural broker.

   I’m thinking that Indian filmmakers’ use of stuff from movies of the west without permission has been supported by at least two factors: one is that until very recently I think it was extremely unlikely that any western person would see the Indian popular movie — they’ve never been shown in western venues, and before the vcr/dvd revolution, 99.9% of popular Indian movies didn’t even exist in subtitled prints.

   The second factor is the huge difference in financial scale between Indian and Hollywood budgets - it is unlikely that a even the best-funded Indian production could think of paying, in dollar terms (versus percentage terms, which is another story) the kind of fee for the rights to something that would be the basis of a comparable deal in the west.

   The main factor bringing about change in consciousness about this kind of thing, I would guess, is the now-quite-large bi-cultural audience, in particular Indian-born movie fans living in the west, who keep up with Indian films and also see everything else. Or that’s my guess, anyhow.

   And my idea of a solution has to do with these people — I’d suggest that what’s needed is the bi-cultural broker, who knows the Indian film business and the western mentality/expectations about rights, permissions, etc. Probably one of these people born in India, educated/living in the US, probably studying/working in the movie business.

   Somebody like this might be able to explain India and Indian film finance to Hollywood well enough that fair deals could be made — from granting of permission free in exchange for promised credits (i.e., “this story is based on Gone With The Wind”), to some kind of payment, to some kind of percentage/royalty agreement that was dependent on the success of the project.

7. Mithun Gangopadhyay on March 22nd, 2008 6:45 pm

   @Darshana

   While the scale in terms of dollar value is substantial the Indian filmmaker would only be acquiring the Hindi / regional language remake rights which would cost a fraction compared to a deal saying involving the upcoming “Confession of Pain” remake coz the stakes involved are significantly less.

   Remakes are here to stay coz of the proven success factor or a pre-existing fan base. The challenge here is to make it a fair and equitable process.

   Trying to accomplish the mechanism you mention will be faced with two massive obstacles

   1) Producers asking why they should pay for something which they can get for free.

   2) The incomprehensible self delusion on the part of filmmakers to not admit that they are not being original.

8. kcp on March 22nd, 2008 7:21 pm

   Untill there is no proper law in the industry, I am fine with it, provided the makers are open and honest about the source, acknowledge it and at the same time, as an audience I am happy with the overall product.

9. Vikrant on March 22nd, 2008 9:17 pm

   @Mithun-4 & Vivek-5
   “…the common consensus which arises is that we as a society do not believe in the concept of intellectual property or copyright…”
   thats disturbing! I wonder what would that person feel if someone else were to copy his work without any acknowledgment.

   Mithun, good to hear that you are willing to invest your time and efforts in the process. Good luck.

10. Vikrant on March 22nd, 2008 9:20 pm

    @Darshana-6
    Bicultural broker..interesting.
    “…Somebody like this might be able to explain India and Indian film finance to Hollywood well enough that fair deals could be made…”
    I agree with the points that Mithun made.
    For this to happen first the person in charge (film makers and music composer etc) should feel responsible. It seems like many of them don’t care. I think we, the audience should make a big deal out of it and convey that we care. Apparently, Pritam bought the rights for one of his new songs. Now, this could be because he was receiving criticism for his blatant copying and may be he is concerned about his image and popularity and hence decided to buy the rights.

    @KCP-8
    “…provided the makers are open and honest about the source, acknowledge it and at the same time, as an audience I am happy with the overall product.”
    is it really happening though?

11. Vikrant on March 22nd, 2008 9:23 pm

    Mithun
    can you shade some light on how the Hollywood studios address these issues?

12. cdrakenc on March 22nd, 2008 9:57 pm

    Can a bicultural broker be an honest broker? I doubt it.

    I would be very surprised, if one day even a film critic can be a balanced narrator between bollywood and hollywood. often one takes sides, as one should, because this is a competitive business, not just creative artistry.

    As regards plagarism, it is a facile charge that people “copy” stories. plots and scripts are not as important in bollywood as they are in holywood. so whose to say what the worth of a plagarism is? does it matter that the script of a hindi film comes from a tamil film which is itself a copy of an english film?(ie would Aamir Khan’s Audiences really care one way or another if the film as entirely original instead of derivative? I doubt that as well.

    in transnational commerce, often tarrif and non tarrif barriers protect domestic industry. films is one of the most protected industries in the world.

    It is my posit that plagarism is just one form of a non tarriff barrier (just as non- colorblind casting, control over publicity and distribution channels(by hollywood) and open nepotism (by bollywood) are non -tarriff barriers to globalizing the film trade.

    It helps to lose the uppity sanctimony about plagarism. none of us are uninformed children here.

13. Mithun Gangopadhyay on March 22nd, 2008 10:38 pm

    It basically comes down to one’s sense of ethics.
    If anyone is comfortable with passing off someone else’s blood, sweat and tears as their own then I guess there is left to be said and done. Let the Salieri’s of the world rejoice and rule forever.

14. sk on March 23rd, 2008 1:26 am

    why every body in this forum are hell bent to criticize aamir
    he has acknowledged that the film is not inspired by
    memento but the theme ie short term memory loss is indeed
    i think that does not qualify as plagiarism

    and i want to bring an interesting point
    what do u all think pritam or mahesh bhat or somebody who regularly copy will do when they know that their original work has been stolen by somebody else?

15. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 4:13 am

    @ mithun,

    Ethics is just a cnvenientstick with which to beat up creative artists IMO. a film involves some 200 people of which the script writer is just one. if om shanti om is based on karz, it does not make OSO any less of a creative effort.

    Don’t tell me people pay shakesphere for every performance of hamlet.

    the problem with blindly accepting bad laws and arguments for them based not on enforcible laws but on some vague sense of “ethics” is that people dont ask the right questions to keep creativity alive in the art.

    The right question is certainly not whether someone should be paid for an adaptation or a cover(or a standard) it is why do people like to see adaptations when there are readily accessible originals?

    why do people byu the hip hop version”wild world” when the Cat stevens version is still available?

16. rbehemoth on March 23rd, 2008 6:27 am

    @Cdrakenc, all copyright laws are for limited time period, after which they come into public domain… All of Shakespeare’s original works (I mean, not any of adaptations/interpretations of his work, but his original writings) are in public domain… If I am not mistaken, after a time period of about 70/75 years (depending on the citizenship of the author or something) the work comes in public domain which means that if you are remaking a Charlie Chaplin film (of say 1930), you don’t need to buy original rights… But if you are adapting to screen a book, say, Sophie’s World (1991), you would need to buy the original rights from the publication house…
    I guess a reason why most film production houses don’t buy rights and all is that copyrights are only for implementation of the ideas and not really the idea/concept. Thus, I would expect suing and all to be somewhat difficult to proove. In fact, a mickey mouse is still protected because of trademark rights and not copyright laws, which means people apart from Disney cannot LEGALLY take forward the mickey mouse franchise, I think.
    When it comes to why adaptations being popular and all, for one, looking at cinema as an art, one adds one’s own touch in the existing art of the author/play (say Shakespeare) by interpreting according to one’s own sensibilities or adapting in a current social context… Besides, if people were to not make adaptations and all, Kubrick would not have made atleast 4 of his movies (not that I am a huge fan of his, but still…)

17. Amanda on March 23rd, 2008 7:25 am

    I don’t understand why film producers and music directors don’t acknowledge and go through the correct legal process when remaking films (and, in the case of Pritam, lifting melodies). The industry overall is against piracy (and indeed, they certainly should be against it). They don’t want people downloading mp3s for free and watching films illegally online. Then, why don’t they also take a look at what they are doing and become more ethical in their own practices. Its such a double standard!

18. Mithun Gangopadhyay on March 23rd, 2008 7:53 am

    Shakespeare is public domain as is Ibsen but for each performance of a Tom Stoppard or Neil Labute play royalties have to be given. Sometimes the royalties are waived but permission still needs to be taken.

    The Writer’s Strike which crippled Hollywood arose from the same basic priniciple that if everyone else was making money off their work, why should’nt the writers be compensated as well. And protection doesn’t just extend to the writers but the other guilds make sure that the members get the residuals due to them.

    May I assume that the reason you hold the view that plagiarism is a non-issue and ethics is overrated is that you do not derive your living from the film business ?

19. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 8:09 am

    Behamoth, Amanda, Mithun,

    My view is based on the fact that when it comes to international copywrights, the law is frequently not clear, enforcible or worse equitable or well thought out.

    Thus on whim of the local lawmaker ,works can put on public domain or not.

    I do care whether the original writer gets paid for the fair use of his work. I just say that when it comes to some cases of “plagarism” this becomes an uneforcible process, and worse an undefiable one.

    If, for example, I am used to A R Rahman’s songs, and one day A R Rahman rips off an obscure phrase from the 1950’s Memphis stomp in “Hello Mr Edhirkatchi” About 40 million tamils buy CDs and it becomes an oft played number, do you think one generation of tamils owes some retired beebop artist $ 40 million for the success of AR Rahman? Hell no is my view, but you are free to think othervice.

    also, If disney paysoff representatives in the US government and passes a law to keep Mickey mouse and donald duck in copywright for another 200 years, do you think the pluto plastic water bottle makers from surat that sell them on the streets for ten ruppes owe the beahamoth two rupees a pop?

    so these things are not so lack and white, and they are emotional issues, on which people can have morethan one view.

    These are mtters of POLICY being discussed. so these dscussion need not even take cogniscance of the laws a they are currently written. Copywright lawers are asses that will just impliment OTHER laws if we get the laws changed….

20. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 8:21 am

    The big mistake most mainstream bollywood artists make is that they listen to lawyers about how the copywright laws OUGHT TO BE.

    In my view people should listen to lawyers about how laws CURRENTLY ARE, so people dont egrigiously violate laws in the countries they do business in(or with bilateral agreements with the country their work is produced in).

    In the long term Bollywood must just make the environment bend to its will, and copyright laws should be exactly as the industry wills it to be. if that means the right to make adaptations in a reasonable manner, they should make it happen. After all this IS a multi billion dollar industry, and it is not based in the US/ UK for it to be subject to the unjust laws oftern written by the competition(hollywood).

21. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 8:52 am

    I took a picture of an AD which featured some modern art (posted here).

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2070/2272440410_4938240b25_b.jpg

    Now dont tell me I owe the maker of the ad money or even that the photographer of the ad owes money to the painter for using their work as part of the advertizing photographer (or my photograph’s) creation.

    It’s a different matter that we cannot REPRESENT that the painting in it is ur original work.

22. asmaan!l on March 23rd, 2008 9:10 am

    as long as you guys keep making films without giving credit to the original creators we’ll keep downloading the hell outta you’re movies..
    Mahesh Bhatt you can go die…

23. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 9:27 am

    Nobody pirates from a street performer.(nor does he usually care when they videotape him). Pirates only succeed in their efforts if there are a few layers between an artist and his audience.

    Piracy is mainly a business phenomenon. My defense has to do with artistic reproductions/ plagarism

24. Mithun Gangopadhyay on March 23rd, 2008 9:49 am

    As I said as a society we do not believe in the idea of copyright and I don’t exclude myself from it but I have realized to work and sustain in a global economy my attitude has to change.

    Let me give you an example. For all practical purposes a studio in the USA will not consider a film “delivered” unless each and every clearance has been documented. What that means that suppose If I make a film and if in one scene an Ansel Adams print or a Picasso reproduction is recognizable I have to take permission from whoever owns the copyright. Otherwise the studio will refuse to accept delivery and the contract is null and void.

    If tomm I shoot a scene on the streets of New York and one of the passerby sees himself on screen he can sue the filmmaker and the studio and might probably win if he didn’t sign the clearance form.
    Such cases have stopped the releases of films and studios have had to make out of court settlements.

    Now you might think this to be extreme but that is the way the most evolved and advanced film industries in the world work. In the long run it builds up a tremendous amount of discipline for everyone involved in the process.

    And while neither AR Rahman nor the music buying public needs to pay for the usage of a phrase if it falls under “fair usage”, the recording label is def liable to pay royalties if it is deemed that fair usage no longer applies.

    As long as someone is making money off someone’s else’s work the original author or it’s estate is entitled to recompense.

    And there is also another very imp issue involved here.

    Take the situation of Asimov’s “Foundation Trilogy” which every filmmaker worth his salt has been trying to adapt since it was published. Asimov’s estate owns the rights to the works and over the years has negated attempts to film it coz the scripts haven’t been upto par. It’s not a question of money but artistic integrity coz the estate does not wish a hack to destroy the most revered work of SF literature ever. If and when a script worthy of the books ever surfaces then and only then will the film take place. If copyright hadn’t existed a dreadful version would have come out long ago.

    If JD Salinger doesn’t wish “Catcher in the Rye” to be made into a film, do you think we should not honor his wish?

25. Amanda on March 23rd, 2008 9:55 am

    Its not just piracy which is a business phenomenon. So is plagiarism! Why do you think Bollywood filmmakers and music directors create films that are extremely similar to the originals? Because these originals have already proven to do well in the market so it seems to be a safe business decision to present the film/song in an Indian environment.

    Piracy is wrong because it hurts the industry overall, and because it deprives the creator of the work from the profit they deserve. The industry isn’t afraid to voice an opinion against piracy. How is plagiarism any different from piracy? Its the same basic concept–stealing!

    Bollywood is trying to globalize and the industry wants foreign entities like Hollywood to take them seriously. I think its time that Bollywood think seriously about the unethical practices going on within…

26. kcp on March 23rd, 2008 9:59 am

    Vikrant@10
    I am the most dumb person when finding out what is copied from where. I do not know about the current plagiarism in the industry.
    But for me , to give a few examples, Sholay and many songs of Panchamda are mindblowing piece of art..copied or otherwise, I care a fig.

27. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 10:04 am

    “Why do you think Bollywood filmmakers and music directors create films that are extremely similar to the originals? Because these originals have already proven to do well in the market so it seems to be a safe business decision to present the film/song in an Indian environment”

    So why didnt the original makers succeed so well in India with these same creations?

    I think this is conveniently eurocentric thinking. Often a plagarism works because the artist in question is a successful mediator between the foreign work and the domestic audience.

    This aspect of the framing is entirely a creative choice.

    There is a business implication and I do not say thatit should be ignored, but t equate piracy and plagarism is just convenient criminalization of the creative process. it suits your purpose to think they are the same. so you blinker out the differences.
    so Asserting this without thinking :

    “How is plagiarism any different from piracy? Its the same basic concept

28. K J on March 23rd, 2008 10:28 am

    plagiarism is the same as piracy. all it will take is some big hollywood studio to sue a movie producer for a large amount of money. it will immediately solve the problem. what this plagiarism is also ensuring is that indigenous ideas are being shot down by producers all the time. but the biggest problem is that plagiarism is a problem rampant in all forms of indian cultural arts.
    i think starting to write e-mails about these instances to the original movie’s producer or director and requesting them to sue is something i’ll begin soon. hopefully, with enough number of e-mails someone will stop the sanjay guptas and abbas-mastans from making a living, by feeding from the plates of other people.

29. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 10:31 am

    One person’s “concept stealing ” is another’s education.

    While you may want people to get paid for a cultural education, I may think knowledge is the treasure for all of humanity and thus is free to “concept steal”

30. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 10:33 am

    “plagiarism is the same as piracy.”

    nope.

    chalk and cheese.

31. Mithun Gangopadhyay on March 23rd, 2008 11:08 am

    While as an end user you may not care where the content originated from but the author def does.

    Going by your stance I may assume two things

    1) The whole Kaavya Vishwanathan / How Opel Mehta got kissed controversy was of no consequence whatsoever.

    2) The age old argument that “I don’t care how much rain forests get cut down or the hole in the ozone increases as long as I have regular access to cheap energy” still holds true.

    If the end user / consumer like yourself feels that the ends justify the means then I give up dude. You win.^:)^

32. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 11:18 am

    I wasnt arguing with you. The isues you raise , however, are important.

    I do think that the consumer of an entretainment product IS the ultimate, but not sole arbiter of artistic reativity. thus a reproductin of the mona lisa may not be art at all, wearas me taking a picture of a model dressed like the mona lisa may be art(or not haha) ..

    In kavya vishwanathan’s case, she wsn’t being judged on her creativity, as much as on her flouting laws ALREADY in existance , which she had agreed to obey through signing agreements with her publishers. So I think youre arguing abut something very different than I am, in that case. If Kavya had said she WAS influenced by (say) tenesee williams in a novel she had written, that would have been the issue I was addressing.

33. dabba on March 23rd, 2008 12:36 pm

    @cdrakenc -
    fine arguments. i understand the nuances you are trying to delineate here. i think.

    if i may re-word your central thesis for clarification :

    plagiarism is not the same as piracy - agreed

    Existing laws must be respected and adhered to, and bollywood must use its clout as and when possible to bend or change the laws to suit its requirements - agreed. aka lobbying. We’re not talking moral relativism here. Just bargaining power.

    Let me elaborate on this a little bit. Two instances -

    1) Neem and Basmati. US Pharma companies wanted to patent the benefits of neem (and the functional compounds therein). Indian industry and scientific community successfully lobbied and prevented the patent from being approved by the US Patent office so that the average villager is not paying to brush his teeth. Same with basmati. The americans have patented their variants of the same as Texmati etc, but good ol basmati remained untouched. The principle that they used was that this knowledge has resided with indians and the world for centuries, so you can’t start charging for it now.

    2) i’m not familiar with the intricacies of intellecctual property as it pertains to music, but there is a lot of talk on whether artists should earn loyalty when someone samples their hook to create something new. This is where things get gray.

    And I think this is the area that cdrakenc is trying to talk about. That no law can cover all these varioous instances, and hence we must take a more nuanced approach to what is inspiration to forge a new work of art.

    What Mithun and others on this thread are galled by I think is, what they perceive as intellectual bankruptcy (by the guptas and the bhatts), and the consequent dearth of “good” films, and a complete lack of support for original ideas.

    For anyone that has tried to sell a script, or get a film made in Bollywood, this is a real problem. In 2004, I was in Bombay trying to break into Bollywood, and for every idea I pitched to producers, i was reverse pitched an existing Hollywood movie that they wanted me to adapt.

    Adapting Hollywood movies to an Indian setting poses its own challenges (amma-thangai sentiment, saangs, no kissing, no sex etc), and if it were recognized as such, and people paid appropriately, I may have consented. But, the minute you do it, any creativity you bring in adapting it will be diminished, and you don’t get your due as a creative. I don’t want no fucking shaabashi, and daaru. Give me MONEY.

    From this forum, i recently found out that baazigar was copied from some movie. When I watched the movie in 1992, I liked it immensely, and since I had seen the indianized version, I don’t care what the source material was. This is the majority position.

    But I hated Zinda, and all those Gupta and Bhatt films. Is this hypocrisy? Yes. Due to some perceived allegiance to the sequence in which i saw them.

    In the long run, it becomes a two pony race. as witnessed in american enterprise, all fields have come down to two main competitors (auto, computers, airlines). All the others have been eaten up and the stakes have been raised too high for new entrants. The average Hollywood film is made for $70MM, and they go on to earn $200MM+

    The reason why Hollywood buys rights to books, movies in foreign launguages and everything under the sun, is that there are laws in the US where they can lose their shirt if someone sues them. It is cheaper for them to buy the rights, than what they will pay to settle. But, they are not doing this out of some sense of ethics or moral values.

    These laws were created by them, to protect themselves from competition. Military powers around the world use similar moral judgement and rhetoric/propaganda against terrorists, saying they don’t play by the rules. They are craven, have no values, aren’t real men. This is war, and they play by the rules (guerilla) that suits them. Why must they acquiesce to laws created by victors, to protect the victors?

    I don’t know if the laws in the US can be applied to someone in a different country. Legally, I don’t know if the US studios can sue Indian filmmakers. If they can, perhaps they haven’t because there is nothing for them to gain.

    Maybe they are doing it in other ways by entering film production in India, giving multiple film contracts to directors and stars so that they can churn out their original shit, and eventually squeezing out the cottage industry filmmakers like the Bhatts. If you pay the stars exorbitant amounts, and people only go to see the stars, who else can afford to pay these stars but the Hollywood studios and few Indian corporates?

    I don’t have answers, but we must keep an open mind and question all forms of rhetoric we are fed. especially the ones that are passed off as conventional wisdom.

    Final thoughts. All those that weighed in on this thread, and on PFC in general…

    What’s the difference in degree of inspiration/plagiarism in Gupta’s Zinda (Old Boy) and Kaante (Reeservoir Dogs and every other movie of his), Bhatts films (from Hum Hain Raahi pyaar ke, to Criminal to Jism), to the favored boys on this site - Nishikanth Kamath’s Dombivli Fast/Evano Oruvan (Falling Down), and Navdeep’s Manorama SFU (Chinatown).

    As far as I know rights were not obtained, and acknowledgements not proferrred in any of the above films. Why do you view some favorably and not the others?

    Moral relativism?

34. Amanda on March 23rd, 2008 1:13 pm

    @cdrakenc: So why didnt the original makers succeed so well in India with these same creations?

    I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say: The original films didn’t do well in an Indian market, but the proved to do well in the country they were produced in. Therefore, it became a safer venture for Bollywood to produce a film along the same lines as the original with Indian stars and by tweaking the plot a little bit, adding a couple of song-and-dance numbers to meet the needs of the Indian audience.

    Perhaps, in this regard, one can argue that because the nuances of the original and the remake are different, it cannot be considered plagiarism.

    I agree with that to a certain extent–for example, Black is very different from The Miracle Worker and Maqbool is very different from Macbeth, even though they are inspired (then again, all art is inspired by something. However, one should be upfront about that source of inspiration)

    But, some Bollywood films are way TOO similar to films from Hollywood and hence are examples of plagiarism (in the broad sense of the term). I can’t admire filmmakers for enjoying profit from a film which derives its plot from someone else’s hard work. I would feel just as against it if Hollywood were to steal a Bollywood film plot. It is not trying to enforce propaganda unthinkingly–its just a matter of own personal values and one’s own concept of right and wrong. I don’t think a writer, music director, etc. would be happy to find out that someone else has created a product similar to theirs without acknowledging that and paying them anything. Maybe the public doesn’t care, since for them the final product is what matters…but it does matter for the artist…

    By the way, I’m just curious, have you had a chance to read Stephen Alter’s Fantasies of a Bollywood Love Theif? There is a really interesting chapter in which he is talking to Vishal Bharadwaj and VJ is asking him for film ideas which do not fall under copyright laws so he can create a film the easy way…I just wanted to know your take on that…

35. Vivek H on March 23rd, 2008 1:27 pm

    @Vikrant(9)”..

36. Abhijit on March 23rd, 2008 3:15 pm

    @dabba (33)
    “What

37. Abhijit on March 23rd, 2008 3:34 pm

    The point I’m trying to make is that there’s plagiarising, there’s borrowing and then there’s influence. Zinda is a cut and paste job and it’s not brave enough to re create the “golden moment” of the original. I have absolutely no respect for a work like that. I think when a director steals frames, angles and camerawork, he ought not to have his name on the screen. Kaam kya kiya sir ne? :)

    Kaante borrows and recycles so it’s not exactly a copy but it’s not original either. Too many cliches. Nothing new technically so basically raddi material, insignificant.

    Manorama, can’t call it an adaptation or remake. Too original for either. But I guess a lot of hard work went into it and it shows, both in the writing and in the visuals. Here too, the “golden moment” has been done away with, but the shock value is maintained, keeping in mind the sensibility of the indian audience. So I have great respect for the film and the film maker.

38. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 4:51 pm

    Dabba,

    Thank you for a wonderful summary/ analysis of my most central ideas about patents and copyrights. i think you and I agree about many things, if indeed your opinions are in line with what you have stated above.

    I just want to make it clear: I am NOT in support of intellectual whoring , where people are just being hacks because it makes them money(priyadarshan’s interviews come to mind here) but if someone really takes the trouble to adopt sense and sensibility to an indain setting , it is frustrating that they are reffered to dismissively as if they don;t know how to write original scripts.

    There are instances where filmmakers try to remake the script of a foreign film scene to scene. as amanda pints out, some of them deliberately try to come under “copyright laws. My view here is that these people, far from being pirates (as a few have suggested in the discussion above) provide a valuable service to both the Audience and the original film. You, or I, as critics may not respect Mahesh/Mukesh Bhatt too immensely, but I bet more people have seen and liked/ disliked Murder than have seen unfaithful. More in india have seen Zinda than have liked/ disliked old boy (I liked the former stencil and disliked the latter) . What harm did these “remakes” do/ they brught to sharp relief the fact that the great game of international film production is, in reality lawless. While large studios(bollywood or hollywood) have used the situation to brand the world with their version of “laws” through bullying and using international patent attorneys, it is not nesceary for every small tom dick and harry to obey these “laws” . these filmmakers that make frame by frame rips are shining inspiratin(even if their films aren’t) that people should make the friggen films they want. nobody usually can / does do crap, even if films are ripped scene by scene, across countries.

    The only possible backlash is if there is some audience around the world that feels moral outrage at the ripping. which is why this battle is fought in the court of public pinion.

39. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 6:01 pm

    It seems like I have opened up a Pandora’s box. I guess it was my fault, I was not clear enough in the article. Please allow me to restate the premise.

    I think plagiarism is a problem and its effect on society is “corrosive”. Lets just worry about the cases where it is obvious. For example, I don’t think you would disagree if I say that the Hindi movie ‘the Killer’ was heavily inspired from ‘Collateral’. It can be included as an example of plagiarism. I feel there needs to be mechanism that helps prevent or discourage practice of such blatant plagiarism and hence I made a few suggestions expecting that people will respond with shortcomings or ways of improving them or entirely new ideas. But instead of that the discussion spiraled down to the argument of what constitute plagiarism.

    I agree that it is important to discuss what constitute plagiarism and what is on the borderline etc. But its a gray area and at times very subjective. May be someone should write an article about it. Lets reserve our arguments for future.

40. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 6:08 pm

    vikrant,
    I think the issue that raised the big debate here is whether plagarism of any sort is a malaise at all.

    I am of two minds mostly because there does seem to be a market for plagarized goods in the entretainment inustry du monde.The topic itself , to me was like the zen kaon about whether a dog has a buddha nature, to which the monk mumoken replied “mu” or “unask the question” (because of the imprecise nature of all the terms - dog, has, buddha nature) in the question.

    Which is why you fel there is a spiralling out of relevence from the topic you put forth(which itself was , to me like the zen kaon abut

41. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 6:20 pm

    Lets ask people involved in the business of movie making. Lets ask our own PFC featured members. What is their take on plagiarism? Do they see the need for a mechanism to discourage it? If so, what is their suggestion?

42. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 6:25 pm

    cdrakenc,
    I think blatant plagiarism is corrosive, regardless of its market. Do you disagree with it? If you do then I would be interested in your reasons.

43. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 6:27 pm

    yes I do.

    reasons summarized both by me and dabba above.

44. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 6:37 pm

    I am not against adaptations or inspired work. All I am asking for is to give credit where its due. If you can thank Government ministry and hotels and stars in the beginning of the movie then why can’t you mention the sources from where you derived your inspiration? I don’t think doing that will belittle one’s work. Classic case is “the departed”. Yes it was inspired from ‘infernal affair’ and Scorsese made it clear and bought the rights. Thanks to Scrosese for making it, people like me wouldn’t have known about or watched the ‘infernal Affiars’, otherwise. So, both films benefited from it.

45. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 6:45 pm

    I’m not sure, but i think a governmnet department you acknowledge is not going to come back at you with a battery of lawers in the future and demand 40 million pounds sterling because you admitted “inspiration”.

46. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 6:49 pm

    cdrakenc-44

    I think I have misunderstood something, because Dabba made a point (see below) that corroborate my stance that plagiarism is corrosive. See below

    “For anyone that has tried to sell a script, or get a film made in Bollywood, this is a real problem. In 2004, I was in Bombay trying to break into Bollywood, and for every idea I pitched to producers, i was reverse pitched an existing Hollywood movie that they wanted me to adapt.”

47. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 6:53 pm

    cdrakenc-45
    So, basically I should just continue copying foreign movies blatantly without crediting the source since it is cheaper, easier and it sells. Is that what you suggest?
    I think if I am scared of being sued then it behooves me to make sure that my work is original and in case of influence I have communicated with the parties involved (if possible).

48. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 6:57 pm

    vikrant 47,

    that is not nescesarily an acknowledgement that the plagarizer is wrong, as much as an acknowledgement that the plagarizer lives in an unqual world where he is a the mercy of powerful ruthless people.

49. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 7:00 pm

    Im not saying that people SHOULD rip films blatantly. Im saying that, having done so, it is better never to acknowledge “guilt” unless you want to open the door to a slew of unnescesary attention. (from amanda jumping to conclusions to entretainment attorneys sueing the filmmakers for copywright violations.

50. Mithun Gangopadhyay on March 23rd, 2008 7:21 pm

    Disclaimer - I am a self confessed Navdeep Singh groupie for a myriad of reasons primarily so coz we belong to the same alma mater DPS Mathura Road.

    Now that we have got that out of the way surely you cannot compare Manorama with Zinda. There is a huge diff between being inspired by something and running with it and doing cut copy paste. Even so I do wish that the rights had been properly acquired.

    As much as I would have liked the proper channels to have been followed with Manorama, Navdeep has been very open about it being a homage to the extent of having a clip of Chinatown play in the film. Films like Sholay are not copies but transcend in some cases to be better than the original. Masoom which was Shekhar Kapoor’s version of Man,woman and child is light years ahead of the authorized English version. However if you see the films both raise different thematic issues and hence are completely independent of each other.

    It has long been said that there are only 7 truly original dramatic plots ever devised and everything you see is a riff on that. I agree with that whole heartedly but that doesn’t give anybody carte blanche to copy a film right down to camera movement and costumes.

    This is not about sticking it to the man and doing films guerrila style. This is not about a revolution and rebellion. This is about protecting the work of individuals who spend years of their lives coming up with something innovative and then having someone else get a free ride on the gravy train.

    Reverse engineering is all well and good but we are not talking bout meds which will save people’s lives but something which is basically entertainment no matter what you call it. There is no substitute for a pill that will fight HIV and everyone is entitled to it at a negligible cost or for free despite the Billions sunk into R&D.

    But you cannot make the same argument for a film. If all a filmmaker is required to do is repackage a concept for a desi audience then why do people spend years in film schools and working honing their crafts.

    If the camera and lights don’t come free, the locations don’t come free and watching the film itself is def not free, why should the story of the film which is it’s soul come free ?

51. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 7:48 pm

    “Im not saying that people SHOULD rip films blatantly. Im saying that, having done so, it is better never to acknowledge

52. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 7:57 pm

    cdrakenc-48
    “that is not nescesarily an acknowledgement that the plagarizer is wrong, as much as an acknowledgement that the plagarizer lives in an unqual world where he is a the mercy of powerful ruthless people…”

    In my comment-47, my point is not to prove plagiarizer is wrong. I am trying to better understand your point in 45.
    I think I have made my stance is pretty clear in 39 and 44: the practice of plagiarizing is corrosive and need to be discouraged.
    Now I don’t see where the uneqaual world and being at the mercy of others comes in to it.

53. Anand G on March 23rd, 2008 7:57 pm

    Plagiarism in any form is unethical, leave alone it being criminal. So the onus rests on the people who do this shameful act without going through the proper (legal) channels. As Vikrant says, like in the case of ‘The Departed’ if the rights are bought and the film is ‘remade’, both films stand to gain from it. But that is not the case with our industry.

    It is disheartening that there are thousands like Dabba who are probably armed with brilliant movie ideas and yet get no chance to exhibit these! We will never know how many possible masterpieces we have missed just because an original idea was sent packing and instead there was a demand for an ‘adaptation’ of an existing movie.

    The fact is that even though plagiarism in different degrees are found all over the world in every form of art, it is the constant, repeat and blatant offenders who should be dealt with. I think that was Vikrant’s point. The Bhatt’s, Pritam, etc. come up with entertaining stuff every now and then which allows people to forgive and forget. But again and again, every single time, every movie, every tune to be lifted or to have an inspiration? I am amazed at how much research the above mentioned people do to maintain a library of scripts/songs which are readily available for use in their next assignment! I am sure it would take less time listening to an original idea and think about how to present the same than to go through the chore of copy+paste/find+replace.

    What is ironic though is that at the end of the day, all these plagiarised movies, tunes are short-lived in public memory. It is the original songs that people continue to hum and original movies that people remember. And all our ‘better’ film-makers are original. Our best music-directors are original too. So it shows that there is only little you can do with a stolen idea. The South Indian film industry is also predominantly original. This does show that it is only the original ideas that eventually work.

    So yea, plagiarism is a problem only with certain people. Am sure all of us know the severity of the consequences of being caught plagiarising in our research work, assignments at university, articles on PfC, etc. Why should the Maliks, Pritams and Bhatt’s have it easy?

54. dabba on March 23rd, 2008 8:09 pm

    the examples i used were deliberate, to point out that it is difficult to define what is plagiarised and what is inspired. It may be “clear” to you and I, that Manorama is inspired while Zinda is blatant, but is it? As a character says in Miller’s Crossing “Clear as Mud.”

    Let’s muddy the water some more.

    Gupta used a blue filter throughout the movie, thereby confusing everyone as to what time of the day or night anything was taking place. That was not in the original. And, he also had a more “believeable” reason than the original.

    Now, let’s look at technology or technique that is used. Think of all the story telling innovations that have been used from flashback, to multiple perspectives of the same incident (Rashomon was the first i think), to actual technology, the matrix’s bullet time effect, or the effect from Terminator 2, or even Hitchcock’s Zolly shot.

    Do you think Kukunoor for Iqbal, and Khosla KG owe Hitchcock’s estate for the Zolly shot?

    Does Gaspar’s Irreversible owe Christopher Nolan for telling the whole story in reverse chronology? What is the story of Memento without the chronology? A guy with short term memory loss trying to avenge his wife’s death. How many revenge stories have we had so far in the history of mankind. Did Nolan invent Short term memory loss?

    It’s a slippery slope of ambiguity, and legislation will not fix it. I think it does affect the environment in which fresh or new stories are accepted or bought.

    While the means of production have become considerably accessible to all with very low cost of entry, the means of distribution that actually determine the ability to generate revenues are still out of reach.

    Even the DIY film needs $20MM to market. That’s a huge barrier, as witnessed in the other post by Jaideep.

    Don’t get me wrong. I, as a writer of original stories am being hurt by what is happening, in Hollywood and Bollywood. In Hollywood, because every year each studio only develops about 10 new films. Everything else is a remake, adaptation, sequel etc etc that they have been able to buy. The reason that they do this is again the high cost of distribution, and the need to hedge their risk. In Bollywood, it is for the same reason, but they do it through blatant rip offs.

    So it is in my selfish interest to find a solution to this.

    And it has to happen by reducing barriers on the means of distribution. A consequence of this maybe that individual creations may no longer fetch a return as high as they do today, and perhaps the starving artist will continue to starve.

55. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 8:14 pm

    @Vivek-35,
    “…That no law can cover all these varioous instances, and hence we must take a more nuanced approach to what is inspiration to forge a new work of art.

56. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 8:28 pm

    @K J -28
    “i think starting to write e-mails about these instances to the original movie

57. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 8:36 pm

    @ Anand G -53
    thank you for clarifying my stance. You wrote it much better then I did.

    @ Dabba -54
    “And it has to happen by reducing barriers on the means of distribution. A consequence of this maybe that individual creations may no longer fetch a return as high as they do today, and perhaps the starving artist will continue to starve.”
    thats a scary situation…really muddy…

    do you know how the Indie movie makers in US and Europe survive? I have no idea…

    Also, in terms of distribution, how about efforts like Jaman. I think it is a step in positive direction for Indie movies.

58. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 8:46 pm

    @Mithun-50
    “This is not about sticking it to the man and doing films guerrila style. This is not about a revolution and rebellion. This is about protecting the work of individuals who spend years of their lives coming up with something innovative and then having someone else get a free ride on the gravy train.”

    I hear you man. I know how it feels when someone just take your idea and pass it as their own and you don’t get any credits. Those were ideas only and I felt so bad. So, I can imagine how worse it would be to have worked so hard for somehting and not being credited for it.

59. Vikrant on March 23rd, 2008 9:03 pm

    @ Dabba 45,
    Yes, I agree that distribution will be(probably it already is) a bottleneck. It would be interesting to see an article (from someone like you) discussing this and also some of the avenues that can be explored as a solution. Just a thought…

60. Evelyn Tu on March 23rd, 2008 9:39 pm

    For the viewer, in theory and often in practice, watching an inspired movie should be a better experience than watching a plagiarized movie.

    Usually, there is some relevance or fresh twist that the maker adds to an inspired movie. The maker has a philosophy or other good reason to take this material and make it new. Example: Manorama SFU.

    A plagiarized movie, on the other hand, shows a deficit of creativity, at least in the storytelling. Example: Paap, a line-by-line copy of Witness in many scenes.

    Worse than disappointing the more worldly audience members, these duplicates give the entire Indian movie industry a black eye to the rest of the world. Marketplace, a daily radio show on America’s National Public Radio, aired this piece last week:
    “Bollywood’s copycat film industry,” in which the reporter went on at length about how 60% of Hindi movies are Hollywood copies. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/17/bollywood_copycats/

    I suspect the reporter was going to do a more flattering piece on Bollywood but then noticed that Partner had the same story as Hitch and latched onto that.

61. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 11:06 pm

    “Worse than disappointing the more worldly audience members, these duplicates give the entire Indian movie industry a black eye to the rest of the world.”

    bollywood need not care.

    They own their own distribution and media channels. The war on them through public opinion in a foreign media market does need to be fought, but it is not more important than the need not to give away creative suzerinity over your industry’s product, even if it be plagarized. the npr may have give glowing reports of original live shows by ananda shankar 1n the 1960’s, but it never did bollywood any good, did it?

    npr reporters make a fraction, annually, of the money the local bpllywood movie distributor from his own city makes.

    if people need to watch bollywood stuff they are proud of they know where to find them(a few people take a ferry to paris if the need be). the other films come under their radar.

62. cdrakenc on March 23rd, 2008 11:16 pm

    I think bollywoodd take a stand and tell the media to do its worst on the issue. Remakes are a fact of life that a multi polar entretainment world must get used to.

63. cdrakenc on March 24th, 2008 12:36 am

    “surely you cannot compare Manorama with Zinda.”

    and

    “Films like Sholay are not copies but transcend in some cases to be better than the original. Masoom which was Shekhar Kapoor

64. krishn on March 24th, 2008 3:27 am

    after cing original,.. watching copy/inspired…
    den complaining abt plagiarism nd blah blah is not wise thing…;)
    who luve original songs … they dont buy remixes:d:d/
    easy….
    dont watch copy…if ve watched dont complain…
    …that doing is immoral abt which u ve 2 complain later…:d

65. anu on March 24th, 2008 9:05 am

    Vikrant,

    Maybe there is hope yet? Just read a news snippet that said that Ravi Chopra has legally bought the rights to remake ‘My Cousin Vinny’ - even though, with Govinda taking on Joe Pesci’s role, it is only going to be rather loose adaptation of the original.

66. Vikrant on March 24th, 2008 2:36 pm

    Anu 65,
    I heard. Yes, there is hope as long as those who are involved in the process recognize and value originality.

67. Navdeep Singh on March 24th, 2008 9:38 pm

    My take on this will have an obvious bias and I

68. Navdeep Singh on March 24th, 2008 10:23 pm

    To further add to this intellectual mess:

    My general sympathy lies with the ‘creator’ of the work rather than the ‘owner’. We live in an age where the the owners tend to be large entertainment corporations who hypocritically screw over artists and creators while aggressively protecting their ‘ownership’ rights.

    While buying the rights to “My cousin Vinny” is the correct thing to do for Ravi Chopra, is that only because it’s legally okay?

    Will the money paid ever reach Dale Launer (the writer) or Jonathan Lynn (the director)or will it get swallowed by Fox? While the specifics would depend on their contracts with the studio, it just serves to highlight the difference between the legal approach to an issue and the moral/ethical one.

69. Vikrant on March 25th, 2008 4:14 am

    @Navdeep Singh

    I agree with you, this issue can be and should be discussed based on ethics. Legal aspects should be discussed by lawyers and corporates. Thats why I have advocated ethical awareness over legal punishment in possible strategies.

    About the rights of ‘My cousin Vinny’, I think its both legally and ethically OK. You credit the original source and if required buy the rights. Now, whether Dale Launer or Jonathan Lynn receives the money is a totally different aspect.

70. Ruchi on March 27th, 2008 4:19 am

    Watching intenational movies on World Movies has made me realise that most of the movies in Hindi are lifted straight out of movies in Korean Cantonesse Mandarin and other such languages.Till date I thought only Judwa Murder Holiday etc were ripped off ‘Twin Dragons’ ‘Unfaithful’ ‘Dirty Dancing’ etc but when I saw ‘Blood Brothers’ (Korean) then I realised it was very similar to a story in Dus Kahanian.You can find a hint of Jim Carrey starrer Liar Liar in Kyunki Mai Juth Nahi Bolta…examples are many but still many rural audiences don’t see the original movies and so the ‘inspired’ works fare well!

71. HollyDude on April 7th, 2008 1:04 am

    vishrant on March 22nd, 2008 7:59 am

    “the departed of martin scorsese is from korean

72. vishrant on April 7th, 2008 1:33 am

    holly (ghost) dude

    i am indebted to you
    to make me realize the importance of facts

    ^:)^
    up till now i have following this dictum
    “history is bunk” - henry ford

    :((

73. TRS on April 14th, 2008 8:08 am

    Thank you for your informative post on the problematic issues of copying in Bollywood today, and I applaud you for attempting to start a productive discussion regarding this topic instead of merely stating past instances of such lifting. You raise an important question as to why “we don’t see many members of the film industry criticizing this practice”. With decelerations like “Yes I copy ” from Ram Gopal Varma and similar attitudes from well-known professionals, I think garnering respect for and awareness of copyright laws is the first step in generating change in the film community. Moreover, while I agree with many of your suggestions, I do feel that ultimately it is the producer who must be held responsible for copyright infringements since he or she is accountable for the film as a whole and will be the first to be indicted when such a breach occurs. Furthermore, during the 50s when auteurs like Raj Kapoor carefully controlled their films from start to finish, products like Kaagaz Ka Phool were incredibly creative and original. It was only from the 70s onwards when the unprofessional yet lucrative industry began mass producing films in the quickest and cheapest way possible that knock-offs become popular. Thus the careful supervision of a film by a single producer is integral and makes the accountable party creatively involved in the process. Increasing the recognition given to writers is also another way of tackling this problem. Although screenwriters in Hollywood too suffer from under representation and low pay, Bollywood provides almost no acknowledgment and only an extremely low, one time fee as compensation to them. In order to encourage creativity, it is crucial for industrialists to make this profession more lucrative. Lastly of course, copyright laws need to be strengthened in order to meet international standards and for Bollywood to maintain its growing global stature. With the onset of the final stages of maturation of the industry, and most importantly, with the recent threats and prosecutions as in with Partner and Krazzy 4 to name a few, I am certain that Hindi cinema will only thrive with this newfound necessity for creativity and ingenuity.

74. Vikrant on May 7th, 2008 8:56 pm

    @TRS
    thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions. Your optimism is very heartening.
    Yes, I agree with you totally on Indian Film writers not getting their dues. As it is, the creative writing is a very demanding and often lonely process. These writers need to be encouraged more. Hopefully we’ll have more Jaideep Sahnis…Anurag Kashyaps… …Kukunoors…Salim-Javeds…

    Regarding producers being held responsible: yes they are also a part of the process and product and hence accountable for the plagiarism in it. But whether they are the ultimate culprit or not I don’t know. I am not sure about that, partly because I don’t have the intricate knowledge and understanding of the process of film making and how much influence a producer can wield.

    There is a very gray area in this whole issue and that is legal aspects of it and in particular the copyright laws. More I think about it more I get uncertain about it. They can be very tricky to deal with at times. The rigidity of these laws might end up suffocating the process of creativity.

    I think ethical and moral awareness is one of the best way to deal with it. Please refer to comments 55 and 56 of this article. Bottom line is, Pritam keeps churning out one plagiarized song after another because it sells and people don’t care whether it is original or not.

    If we, the audience, start condemning and rejecting the plagiarized content then this producers, directors, music composers etc will have to change. After all we are the consumers. We need to breed the culture where in originality is respected and appreciated and plagiarism is condemned.

Leave a Reply

Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.