The Karnataka high court this week extended its interim order restraining makers of the documentary Wild Karnataka from engaging with the film in any manner. The order issued on Monday reiterates that the makers cannot use, publish, reproduce, broadcast, telecast, market, sell, distribute, exhibit or in any way deal with the film or part of it including the raw footage.
What is Wild Karnataka?
Wild Karnataka is a 52-minute long natural history documentary film recording the rich biodiversity of Karnataka, released on March 3, 2019, in Bengaluru. The film was screened at palace grounds in the city for an audience of 3,000 people and later theatrically released in January 2020. The film was made by Amoghavarsha JS and Kalyan Verma and voiced by Sir David Attenborough. The film was also voiced in multiple Indian languages. It won two prizes at the 67th National Film Awards – for best narration and best exploration film.
What is the controversy?
A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the Karnataka high court by conservationists Ravindra N Redkar and Ullash Kumar RK against the state government and makers of the film for “violation of terms? in the memorandum of understanding entered between the two. The petitioners have submitted that the makers of the film with the active connivance and tacit support of the forest department officials “have intelligently and cleverly conspired to defraud the Public Exchequer of Crores of Rupees which became evident to the petitioners only after a careful perusal and analysis of the documents accessed under RTI”. The petition claims that the makers of the film were given free accommodation and all charges to access the forest department premises were waived off for them to make a film that would be screened for awareness.
The film had to be a purely non-commercial documentary film and book project on behalf of the Karnataka forest department and any incidental income would be donated to Tiger Conservation Fund/PADF without there being any financial implications for the KFD, the petition submits. It further adds that no tender or competitive bid was called before approving the request of the filmmakers.
The petitioner further claims that the filmmakers were to photograph, videograph and film the forests, protected areas and biodiversity of Karnataka using modern and advanced camera equipment at their own cost or through sponsors by strictly complying with all the applicable conditions, rules, regulations and Acts. From the raw footage produced, they were to make a 60- minute cinematograph documentary film showcasing the biodiversity including the flora, fauna and forests of Karnataka and deliver it along with the raw footage to the KFD at the end of two years from the date of the MoU or such extended term. The makers were also to produce a coffee-table book based on the film and deliver 500 copies to the KFD along with the film.
The sole obligation of the KFD was to issue permits, clearances and approvals under applicable law to them for making the film and allowing access to them, their assistants and vehicles to protected areas in the state of Karnataka for filming and related matters and communicating the said permissions to all field officers and staff of the KFD across all locations. It was specifically agreed that the KFD would not be incurring any costs and the copyrights of the film solely vested with the KFD whereas the copyright of the remaining raw footage would be co-owned by the makers and KFD. Any surpluses generated from the film and the raw footage after recovering all the costs incurred towards the production of the film, including the remuneration of the team members, etc, were to be donated to Tiger Foundations/PADFs for the purpose of conservation.
The petitioner argues that this was violated by outsourcing the making of the film to a different company, entering into agreements with different companies going forward, without the acknowledgement or agreement of the KFD.
They have got the film removed from the KFD’s YouTube channel several times by raising copyright claims and the KFD has not taken any steps to exercise its rights as the lawful copyright holder. ?The Petitioners submit that after the release of the film, once the KFD started becoming aware of the scale of the scam and the illegalities being perpetrated by the 5th to 7th Respondents (makers of the film) along with their accomplices, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Publicity and ICT) prepared a scathing Report dated 15.04.2020 categorically setting out the illegalities perpetrated by the 5th to 7th Respondents along with their accomplices and he suggested several measures to be taken in the matter. Despite the KFD itself arriving at a conclusion that police complaints must be filed in the matter, that audits must be conducted by the Principal Accountant General (Economic & Revenue Sector Audit), Bangalore and the 5th to 7th Respondents must be blacklisted with other Forest Departments being warned amongst other punitive measures, no action has been taken in the matter deliberately right from 2019 since the 2nd to 4th Respondents (forest department officials) and their officers were/are intricately involved in perpetuating the said illegalities and in exchange for postretirement benefits, the petitioner has submitted before the high court,? said the plea.
Where does the case stand now?
The makers of the film have argued that the case does not merit a PIL and that the said allegations were more of a contractual violation if any, and it was a case between the state government and the makers of the film, which the state government has not raised. The preliminary hearing of the case is scheduled for November 17 until when the makers cannot use the film in any manner. However, the petitioners have claimed that the makers continue to use the film on different platforms and earn revenue in violation of rules and contempt of the court.
Read all the Latest News , Breaking News and IPL 2022 Live Updates here.
Comments
0 comment