The Screenwriters Association’s Dispute Settlement Committee has closed the copyright complaint against Sayani Gupta’s directorial debut Aasmani, finding that the short film and the unfinished documentary Prabha share only an underlying idea rather than protected expression.
The complaint was filed against Gupta and editor Paramita Ghosh while Aasmani was on its international festival circuit. The DSC reviewed submissions from both sides and independent expert comparisons before reaching its conclusion.
What the committee found
The DSC said the two works differed on storytelling, character development, conflict and overall story arc. It also noted that copyright law protects the expression of an idea rather than the idea itself, and that the complainant’s project is a documentary based on the publicly known life of a real person.
- Copyright protects expression, not the underlying idea.
- The two works differ in storytelling, character development, conflict and overall arc.
- The complainant’s work is a documentary about a publicly known real person.
- Overlapping issues with a defamation suit are sub judice, so the SWA closed its proceedings without further adjudication.
The DSC also referred to a separate defamation suit filed by Gupta against the complainant, in which a court has reportedly passed an order favourable to Gupta. Because some issues in that matter overlap with the copyright complaint, the committee said it could not proceed with further adjudication. The closure is without prejudice to the legal rights and remedies available to either side.
Why this matters for screen businesses
A rights dispute during a festival run can stall conversations with sales agents, OTT buyers and commissioning platforms. With the SWA-level complaint closed, Aasmani returns to being evaluated primarily on creative and audience fit rather than an active copyright flag.
The ruling also restates a basic IP filter for content teams: factual premises and similar themes do not trigger infringement unless there is copying of protected expression. That distinction matters when development slates are full of biopics, true-crime stories and documentary adaptations.
For acquisition and legal teams, the clause “without prejudice” is the key operational signal. It means the SWA process is over, but broader litigation rights remain open.
What to watch next
Gupta responded to the closure by saying, “As I had said earlier, truth will always prevail.” She described the experience as “the most harrowing experience of my life.”
Because a separate defamation suit remains linked to some of the same issues, rights teams should keep standard chain-of-title and litigation disclosure requests in place for any distribution or licensing conversations around the film.
Source: bollywoodHungama.com
