Originally posted by: Riddhi2Saini006
Even though Colors TV and Star Plus are both part of the JioStar umbrella following the Viacom18–Disney Star merger, that does NOT mean Star Plus can legally copy or remake shows originally created for Colors TV.
TV shows like Bepannah are protected under intellectual property rights. The rights to the story, characters, script, and other creative elements belong either to the original producers (in this case, Cinevistaas) or are bound by specific contracts made when the show was created.
Ownership under the same parent company (JioStar) does not nullify or override these rights. Unless the original producers agree and proper legal permissions are obtained, no other channel—even under the same corporate group—can copy or remake the show.
So no, Star Plus cannot simply “copy” Bepannah just because it’s part of JioStar. The merger doesn’t dissolve existing legal and creative boundaries.
Secondly, in the entertainment industry if you will watch any show/movie/webseries all of them somewhere or the other are loosely inspired from each other. There's no entertainment project that is solely unique.
Thirdly, I've been seeing your posts since last two weeks criticising the writers, and you have the full freedom to do so. Similarly having family members who write these shows and knowing how stressful the schedule is makes me want to put it out for you guys that how television provides so little scope for creativity that people have no option but to copy other premises.
Television Industry is a business just like any other industry and decisions are made only on financial basis, that's why I listed out the financial reason for copying premises.
Television Industry has time and again tried different storylines and formulae but they haven't worked for trp audiences. You, me or anyone who watches these shows online don't even make a fraction of what trps would come. Producers/writers/actors are making shows whether they're illogical/supernatural/don't make sense to you- for the audience that watches TV.
TV has never been the area where people are putting out shows for expanding creativity. It's like a government job where if your show clicks, it can work for years.
If you want to actually watch creative/unique stuff that's for OTT because you can put anything out there as there is an audience for everything.
Tl;dr- You cannot blame tv or people in the tv industry for trying to rehash already used plots if you cannot give them trps when they've tried new storylines.
About the legalities, you might be right. However, you must also note that copyright laws in India are one of the weakest and most exploited in our country's legal sphere. So even if the laws of "asking permissions" exist, it's a theory. In practice, most deals are done behind closed doors. It's highly likely that coming under the same media conglomerate would have some positive implications for the participating parties.
@Red: That's such a sweeping generalisation with absolutely no concrete evidence. While many creative works build upon existing tropes, themes, or even specific stories, it's highly improbable that every single entertainment project throughout history lacks any unique elements whatsoever. There are certainly works that are considered highly original and groundbreaking. Your term "loosely inspired" is vague and subjective. What constitutes "loose inspiration"? Copying complete taglines and scenes are also "loosely inspired"? How easy it is to discredit a person and multiple achievements, isn't it?
@Violet: I reiterate, my family is as connected to mass media as yours is. So I do know the financial pathways that force them to take such steps. I also repeat, your argument here is an appeal to pity and a pragmatic fallacy. By emphasizing the stressful schedules and lack of creative scope faced by writers due to the demands of television production, your argument attempts to evoke sympathy and understanding for the unethical practice of copying and plagiarism. While the industry's pressures are true, it doesn't logically justify or negate the act of copying itself. It tries to sway opinion through emotional appeal rather than logical reasoning about the act of copying.
@Green: You are also presenting a situation where the television industry must copy because new storylines don't get TRPs. This is a clear case of false dilemma: either copy and get TRPs, or be original and fail. You completely negating the possibility of finding genuinely new and engaging storylines that could be successful with a broader audience or different marketing strategies. There have been good shows in the past. Even right now, UKA is topping the charts. It's predictable and has conservative elements, but the audience is watching it. It's a remake too, but it's much better than the current shows. This shows that if written and marketed properly, better stories than what we have right now still have a chance. Your statements also overlook the potential innovative ways for online viewership to contribute value even if it doesn't directly translate to traditional TRPs.
Sorry to inform you, but you've probably missed out my edit part completely. If the TRP audience is left with no other choice than the stuff television churns out nowadays, they'll definitely not give ratings to the new storylines.
For example in a leaking water pipeline, unless there is a complete fixing of the pipeline system, the water will keep leaking somewhere or the other. Similarly on ITV, if we have regressive alternatives along with new stories (which has been the case always since TV became a mass media in India), people have the regressive option too. They'll naturally gravitate towards it since the audience is painfully orthodox in our country that's already plagued with societal biases, no matter how much progressively and pragmatically many of us might want to think.
What I am trying to imply is that if there are no such copied and backward options for the ITV audience, they'll simply switch to watching different stories. I call it "forced exposure" to newer content. You have completely missed my actual point and started covertly calling me out on my incapability to contribute to the TRPs, just because I criticised the existing system. Typical ad hominem fallacy.
So if you're critiquing me and other people for pointing out the obvious and most importantly, the ethics of professions, you should also probably know that television isn't repairing any of its current mechanisms. It's not even taking an active step towards any kind of betterment because it believes in band-aid solutions like almost all industries and institutions in our country.
It's clear that in a money-world, ethics take a back seat. It's clear that in neo-capitalist industries, there's no focus on the larger, more serious issues and the vision of future growth in the industry is severely hindered because of the continuous money minting processes.
Money is important, I agree. The problem lies in the fact that no one bothers to disturb the status-quo. Television producers and writers are getting what they want by these regressive shows. I am upset at the fact that rather than using an opportunity to gradually evolve the TV landscape, these money-minded vultures are exacerbating the situation to make more profits. And this is for all institutions right now in this land. But when we see public platforms, they are seen through an ethical lens, with a lot of accountability to the public because of whom they're printing notes. Just because you want money and ratings, doesn't mean you spread negativity, unscientific temperaments, irrationality on general entertainment channels and fake, sensational news on national media.
Riddhi, I understand your perspective but I find your arguments deeply flawed. I don't wish to bring this up, but putting down people because they rightfully criticise something is just, for the lack of a better word, unwarranted.
Edited by ThaneOfElsinore - 4 months ago
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
1.7k