The Cut, Copy, Paste movies in Malayalam Cinema is now a TV program

M.V Nikesh Kumar Reporter Malayalam News channel
Pix Credit :

I couldn’t resist a chuckle as I stumbled upon this news bit at The Hindu by Suneetha B. The latest entrant in the TV Media War Zone in Kerala, REPORTER TV has started a new program called “CUT COPY” at 8.30 pm every Friday which features the ‘deliberate and blatant’ inspirational tales wrought out of DVDs and old VHS tapes :).

Reporter Channel seems to be  the brainchild of  MV Nikesh Kumar, one of the most popular TV personalities in Malayalam news television. And with also claims of it being the first High Definition News Channel in Kerala, this ought to really interesting (!), to  watch inspirations with a greater degree of clarity.

A Related Movement on Facebook.

While on this, someone sent across this page on Facebook which seems to have taken to the Masters of the Microwave with a vengeance, and appropriately named Cut Copy Paste, are on a mission to surgically dismember every  representation of inspiration in popular media, and they are NOT restricted to Malayalam from what I could see. I hope they don’t lose the momentum, and keep at it, chipping away at every single Maestro of the Microwave who thinks of taking the elevator to fame, riding on someone else’s creativity.

You could read the entire article at The Hindu here.

The latest instance of Ctrl C + Ctrl V raging in Malayalam media.

17 thoughts on “The Cut, Copy, Paste movies in Malayalam Cinema is now a TV program

  1. Mr.Narayan’s detailing was nice. Well, it takes me to the verdict of the Apex court in the case R.G Anand vs Deluxe films pvt ltd(1976). The Plaintiff was a calcutta based architect turned drama director. He was telegrammed by a film producer in Bombay to meet him to discuss the story of his then successfully running play. RGA met the producer in Bombay and discussed the story. The producer gave a final no and made it a movie after some time. A frustrated RGA took the matter to the court. After years of legal battle the Apex court decided the case against RGA stating inspiration alone cannot suffice. It added if the plaintiff was successful in proving THE SUPER ADDITION AND EMBELLISHMENT of the disputed work, he can be successful. In this case RGA cannot prove the super addition and embellishment in his story. So he lost the case. The golden rule of the Law that “an innocent should not be punished though 1000 criminals escapes scot-free” gives a good degree of immunity to the the gang of thieves and corrupt. RGA could prove he had a discussion with the producer-still he lost his case. That is the sad fact. In my case the judge made an open court statement that he is sure there is a strong element of inspiration but copyright Act demands more than that to win the case. The video clip proves Murali-rasiya part is ripped off from FRIENDS and added to the main story of Sukumaran-Thara. And D1 and D2 had done that after the discussion with the producer and distributor of FRIENDS-LAL. I had proved that the story had undergone corrections with the interviewer’s declaration-D2 had stated he and D1 had corrected the story in 48 restless hours. The court had not touched that interview and had stated it cannot make two stories out of the film. Another interesting part is the wedging of two stories. Sukumaran and pious enters the principal’s office to get the love letter of Thara from the ballot box. And they gets the key of the office from the pocket of the low ranked police constable. How come? Principal’s office key ought to be with him. If Sukumaran and pious could enter the office, then only the chase by policeman will happen-then only Sukumaran can enter the generator room-then only he can sedate Murali. It is a Ctach-22 situation-the occurrence of one event is dependent upon the occurrence of another event. Here if they cannot enter the principal’s office the murder could not happen. I had tried that angle also in the court. But the court did not lend its ears to my argument. D1 had given a statement he had gathered the dying method of Murali from a news which appeared some time ago. So he converted murder in the cellar to murder in the generator room with that idea. The interviewer was summoned before the court and crossed. Still, it could not change the court’s attitude. The Defendants had not appeared in the court throughout the trial. I was not given an opportunity to cross-examine them asthey did with me for some 2 full days-3 legal counsels mauling me left and right with their questions. Still I had a golden memory with that case. The Hon’ble judge during the cross examination told me he loved a character (Thampi Annan)from my novel Kalaalayavarshangal. It made me emotional coming from a judge. In return to the volley of questions from the legal counsels I had asked them in the court if they can point out a single story from the entire Indian literature where a male and female gets estranged in their college days and resolves their old scores in an alumni meet years later. He said no. Then I had asked if if there is any such instance from the world literature. Again a no. I had nearly sobbed from the box at that. Now the case is before the High court. I have a couple of red herrings with me to fight my stand. What else could I do? Fight it to the end. I am a tax practitioner having good practice and can’t spare any time for the tinsel world. But with my little time I have managed to complete a script for a leading producer. Subsequent to the case I have won two literary awards. The manorama yuva award for THE GAME (english novella) and the manorama online award for THRESHOLD (English short story) in 2010. This month the shoot of a telefilm under my script(PERAKKA) will hopefully begin. It was published in Mangalam weekly as novella. Some other offers are coming-all telefilms proposals on my novellas published in Manorama and mangalam weeklies. I am doing my part and the rest is with the Omnipotent. It was nice being part of the worthy discussion. Thank you guys.

    1. Hi Shuhaib,
      Imitation seems to have been established as an acceptable form of film making 🙂 Might as well grin and bear it. Thank you for writing in..regards..cinematters

      1. Cinematters,
        I can’t just grin, bear and forget the thing. I am fighting a case the movie Classmates. In 2002 I had authored a book named Vaalmeekam of 28 stories. PINAKKAM was one of the stories of that anthology. Classmates Sudhakaran and Meera get estranged in the campus and they meet each other in an alumni meet after some years. They resolve their old scores in the meet. In 2004 I had expanded the story to a novel Kalaalayavarshangal”. Classmates crew added the murali-rasiya part from FRIENDS giving it a midas touch of super addition and embellishment. The case was rejected by the District court though the court observed “there is an element of inspiration but it alone can’t win the case according to the copyright Act. It was reported in Manorama daily in the interview between Lal jose
        that after the discussion with Lal(producer, distributor of friends) he and writer James Albert corrected the story in two sleepless nights. It was stated in the interview, after hearing the story Lal had remarked the opening and ending parts were superb but something was lacking in the middle.(It is evident he was the one who gave the middle part idea based on the story of Friends)The reporter Unni K Warrier was summoned before the court and he had confirmed the interview. Shame on the defendants, they did not appeared the court to justify themselves. They did some shadow boxing with their powerful advocates bullying me with their questions. The newspaper was produced by Malayala Manorama editor in the court. But the court did not touch the interview of Lal Jose in its judgment. Now the High Court has admitted the case. I am fighting the case as the main story is my brainchild.

        1. Dear Shuhaib,
          My sincere apologies for my passing reference that seems to have hurt you. And rightfully so, if the case that you are so diligently pursuing involves the fruit of your creativity. My response was more of the tired, weary, indifferent reaction to the shortcuts that film-makers employ that are being passed off as real and then vehemently go on defense when caught with their pants down. I sincerely hope the truth triumphs in your case. While on that, is there anyway I can possibly buy a legal copy of you Anthology and the extended Novella online? Apologies once again…cinematters

        2. hello
          whats the update with regard to you case against CLASSMATES. i have often found that plaintiffs are in a losing position in copyright infringement cases in Kerala. Sunil parameswaran lost the case against Viji Thampi regarding MANTHRIKA KUTHIRA; the drama company Kalanilayam lost the case concernign RAKTHARAKSHASSU to Soorya TV and there are many more such instances….the latest beignt he case field against HAPPY HUSBANDS. hope to read your book one day

          1. That is sad to hear, Narayan. As a learned one who is both an art aficionado and a practicing law professional, where exactly do you think the problem lies? Is it the inability of the ‘original’ creators to substantially back up the ‘origins’ of their claims that makes the court see red? or, are we still catching up with the world in terms of intellectual property rights in movies ( I am speaking Malayalam films here). Would love to hear your

          2. I can answer to the above more on a factual angle (based on movie) rather than a legal angle
            the case against MANTHRIKA KUTHIRA was that it was based on a drama called CRIME PAGE No. 37 written by Sunil P. Nair (this was before Sunil gained fame as Sunil Parameswaran). The author alleged that Kummanam Sayyed the writer and Viji Thampi had used the key plot of the drama (a page of the drama which is part of the story- taken out of context and purported to be a suicide note) and made the movie. However, the case failed because the defendants could prove that the initial inspiration for the movie came from a Hollywood (i think a movie directed by Hitchcock- not sure) movie- and they also claimed that this drama is an inspiration from another original work. there exist no copyright protection for pastiches. Incidentally director Sasi Paravoor- (aka Advocate Sasidharan Pillai) appeared for Viji Thampi. But Sunil Parameswaran really had the last laugh. We all know the respect he now commands in literary circles- but Kummannam Sayyed- ever heard of this man??????????
            regarding RAKTHARAKSHASSU- the main claim of the plaintiffs was regarding the use of the title rather than the content of the tv serial which they admitted had no relation with the kalanilayam drama. The defendants successfully proved that the title Raktharakshassu cannot be claimed as a unique one and that it just means a bloodsucking vampire- the stories of which are part of our Eitheehyamala and also of the horror stories of Dracula.
            regarding HAPPY HUSBANDS and its relation to NO ENTRY- this is not a copyright case- but a criminal case which is pending consideration. the defacto complainants have no relation with the makers of NO ENTRY. SInce the same is sub judice (and because the parties appearing on either side are close friends of mine), I reserve my comments on the same.
            I am not exactly aware of Shuhaib Hameed’s case- and hence i cannot comment on the same.
            there was also a case concerning ORU NAAL VARUM which i believe was settled out of court (subject to correction).
            Frankly what happens is that the central thread might be one and the same- but the same is covered with another story, packaged in another manner that it is difficult to prove that there has been clean cut, copy paste. that might be the difficulty for the plaintiffs to succeed in these type of cases.
            to my knowledge only some hindi producers have burnt their hands going for remakes without getting proper permission. A govinda movie (somethign titled BINDASS) was an unauthrorised remake of the movie MY COUSIN VINNY and the producers faced the wrath of their American counterparts. Autyhro Barbara Cartland, Sidney Sheldon and Jeffrey Archer have in the pasty warned prodcuers in India not to make movies without getting proper permission.,..but have not gone for any case. If that had happened- RAJAVINTE MAKAN would have faced quite a trouble (it was based on Sidney SHeldon’s RAGE OF ANGELS). Hope this helps.

      1. Dear Shuhaib,
        I was checking on any copies available through leading online bookstores like Indulekha, Maebag, MyIndia shopping, DC Books et al. Will wait for your translation. :)..You could use the Contact Form for any inputs.Lands straight in my inbox..cinematters

    1. Dear Noufal,
      Thanks for that headsup.It is also interesting that the Fugitive was originally a TV series that was aired on ABC in the 60’s. There was also a Telugu and a Hindi ‘version’ of the movie, called ‘Criminal.’ 🙂 Also US Marshals was said to be a sequel to Fugitive.Regards..cinematters

    1. Dear Rajesh,
      Guess it’ll take a while for the Channel to appear in the mainstream Channel Bouquets. Yes, I am aware of itwofs and even maintain a log of my own 🙂 Also intend to cover it more here ( have a category called Fair Copies & Inspirations that broadly covers the various aspects of this malady ) and your inputs are looked forward to..Regards..cinematters

What do you think ?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.