Granted that this may have confused no-one else but I've never really understood why the definition of a dramatic work in §2(h) of the Indian Copyright Act includes: "the scenic arrangement or acting form of which is fixed in writing or otherwise but does not include a cinematograph film".
Having (obviously) only watched contemporary stage performances (as opposed to historical performances), I'm used to scenic arrangements usually being fairly minimalist artistic works. However, I've recently been learning about Renaissance theatre, and have come to realise that historical scenic arrangements for staged performances were anything but simple or straightforward: they seem to have been analogous to full-fledged sets with special effects in contemporary blockbuster films, often requiring a multitude of trained professionals to put them in place and get them to work. It wasn't just someone hanging a pretty picture in the background.
I imagine it's unlikely that matters had changed all much by the time scenic arrangements came to be protected as dramatic works (in the UK Literary Copyright Act of 1842, as far as I can tell) — there wasn't at the time much, if anything, to be said of cinematography — and I'm beginning to suspect it's possible that having scenic arrangements be considered dramatic works is one of the vestiges of a time when they might as well have been just that.
The later development of cinematography may simply have led to cinematograph films being excluded from the scope of dramatic works (as the current definition of "dramatic work" in the Indian Copyright Act demonstrates) — the theatre has never been quite as corporatised as film, and I'm guessing that no-one ever lobbied hard to comprehensively change the definition of dramatic works to reflect changed practices. Which would explain why scenic arrangements are somehow still considered to be dramatic works.