An acclaimed photographer and filmmaker has filed a copyright infringement suit against Zee Media Corporation Ltd, alleging that it broadcast his exclusive footage of the cheetah translocation project in September 2022 without permission, credit or compensation.At the centre of Ronny Sen’s suit is a 12-second clip — for which he has sought damages of more than Rs 18 crore. But the suit is noteworthy for more than the eye-popping amount he has sought. It could be the beginning of a potentially significant legal battle that spotlights the precarious relationship between independent creators and major media networks.The Commercial Court at Rajarhat in West Bengal’s North 24 Parganas district admitted the suit on November 27 and issued notice to Zee. It has listed the matter for January 16.The footage in questionSeptember 2022 saw the historic reintroduction of cheetahs to India, 70 years after they were declared extinct in the country. The big cats were translocated from Namibia and South Africa to Madhya Pradesh’s Kuno National Park.Sen, known for his work with National Geographic, as well as his critically acclaimed documentary and feature films and photo series, was reportedly the only photographer inside the aircraft transporting cheetahs from South Africa to India.According to the suit, Sen filmed from close range a 12-second video clip of a cheetah purring and growling inside its transport crate. This footage was captured as part of a contract with National Geographic, as per which Sen retained the copyright and the right to license the footage to third parties. National Geographic published the video on its website on September 13, 2022.Allegation against ZeeThe suit contends that on September 16 and 17, 2022 — coinciding with the release of the cheetahs into Kuno — Zee News broadcast this specific video clip and streamed it on YouTube. Sen claims he never granted Zee Media any licence or permission to use the work.Story continues below this adThe suit alleges that the channel branded the content as “super exclusive”, using watermarks and tickers to suggest exclusive access to the visuals inside the aircraft. Sen alleges the channel’s claim misrepresents the origin of the work and denies him credit and compensation.Copyright and moral rightsThe suit is grounded in the Copyright Act, 1957. Under the Act, the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce the work and communicate it to the public. Any unauthorised use constitutes an infringement.A significant portion of Sen’s argument, however, rests on Section 57 of the Act, which deals with what are known as the “moral rights” of the creator of a work. Under the Act, moral rights are independent of economic rights. They include the right to be identified as the author of the work — or attribution — and the right to prevent distortion or modification of the work in a way prejudicial to the creator’s reputation.Sen contends that Zee violated his moral rights and professional integrity by stripping his name from the work and falsely claiming it as an “exclusive”.Story continues below this adWhy is the claim worth over Rs 18 crore?Under the Act, the penalty for copyright infringement is a fine ranging between Rs 50,000 and Rs 2 lakh. Sen, however, is seeking Rs 18.11 crore. He has calculated the figure based on several distinct categories of loss he claims to have incurred:Loss of licensing revenue: The suit argues that news networks worldwide, including major international broadcasters, would have paid a premium to license his rare footage. However, once Zee News claimed it was “super exclusive” to it, other networks purportedly backed off, assuming Zee held the rights.Loss of artistic value: Sen’s work is collected by museums and sold as limited-edition art prints. The suit argues that the mass broadcasting of the clip in a sensationalised news format degraded its value as a piece of fine art or high-end documentary footage.Loss of future OTT partnerships: Sen claims he was developing a documentary project on the cheetah translocation which he would have pitched to global OTT platforms. But the “super exclusive” claim, the suit alleges, raised questions over Sen’s ownership of the footage.Story continues below this adPunitive damages: A substantial portion of the claim is directed at “punitive damages”. Sen argues the infringement was wilful and done for commercial gain. The suit suggests large media corporations often use the work of independent artists without payment, banking on the fact that individual creators lack the resources to sue. Sen seeks damages high enough to act as a deterrent for the entire industry.‘Fair dealing’ defenceMedia houses in such cases typically rely on Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act, which covers “fair dealing”. This allows for the use of copyrighted work for the purpose of reporting current events.However, the legal test for fair dealing is strict. It generally requires acknowledging the source, which Zee did not do, according to the suit.Broader implications for creatorsSen told The Indian Express that this legal battle is not merely about personal grievance but about setting a precedent.Story continues below this ad“Major corporations cannot be allowed to systematically plunder an individual artist’s work, misappropriate it, rebrand it as their own so-called ‘super exclusive’ content, and commercially exploit it with impunity,” he said. “A clear judgment in this matter will protect other visual artists across the country and serve as a strong deterrent against any future infringement of this kind.”