The Calcutta High Court has restrained the respondent hotel from engaging in or authorizing public performance/communication to the public of the appellant’s repertoire of literary and musical works without a licence, and from publicly performing or communicating to the public works created by the author members of the appellant without paying the statutory royalty. The Court held that the respondent hotel, by providing cable connections in each guest room for viewing by paying guests without obtaining a licence from the copyright owner, was guilty of infringement of copyright under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Court went on to explain that the Explanation to Section 2(ff) expressly deems communication through cable to residential rooms of any hotel as communication to the public. The cable operator’s licence did not extend to the hotel’s commercial use, as the definition of “subscriber” under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 prohibits further transmission to any other person, and hotel guests cannot be treated as subscribers.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi examined the definition of “communication to the public” under Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which expressly includes an Explanation stating that communication through satellite or cable or any other means of simultaneous communication to more than one household or place of residence, including residential rooms of any hotel or hostel, shall be deemed to be communication to the public. The Court noted that it was not in dispute that the appellant or its members were the first owners of the literary and musical works under Section 17 of the Act, and that the rights had been validly assigned under Sections 18 and 19.
The Court observed that no licence under Section 30 of the Copyright Act had been obtained by the respondent from the appellant. The respondent’s argument that the cable operator’s licence sufficed was examined in light of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The Court noted that under Section 2(i) of the 1995 Act, a “subscriber” is defined as a person who receives cable television signals at a place indicated by him to the cable operator, without further transmitting it to any other person. The respondent had subscribed to cable services, but the services were admittedly meant to be utilized by persons other than the subscriber, namely, the hotel guests. The Court held that hotel guests could not be treated as “subscribers” within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the 1995 Act.
The Court referred to the decision in Vodafone Idea Limited vs. IPRS [2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5736], where it was noted that the Copyright Act recognizes the right of authors of underlying literary and musical works in sound recordings to receive royalties and consideration when such sound recordings are commercially exploited, except when a sound recording forms part of a cinematograph film exhibited in a cinema hall. The Court also referred to the ruling of Supercassette Industries vs. Nirula Corner House [2008 SCC OnLine Del 360], where the Delhi High Court observed that hotels and similar commercial establishments are specifically excluded from the benefit of deemed non-infringement under Section 52(1)(k) of the Copyright Act, and that such exclusions should receive a restricted interpretation.
Also read JSERC Grants Major Tariff Relief to Damodar Valley Corporation; Revises 2024 Tariff Order
The Court examined Section 52(1)(k) of the Copyright Act, which differentiates between residential premises and hotels, and between profit and non-profit activities, to determine infringement. The Court observed that cable services were provided to paid guests in the hotel for amusement, and even if the respondent was not charging separately for such services, they were additional facilities adding commercial value to the hotel’s business. This constituted commercial exploitation of the literary and musical works owned by the members of the appellant society. The cable operator’s licence was limited to its subscriber and could not be transmitted as a commercial amenity for use by any other person.
The Court further noted that the learned Trial Court had erroneously equated the payment of cable subscription fee with the licence fee payable to the appellant under the Copyright Act, and had wrongly held that the appellant had muddled copyright with broadcasting rights under Sections 14 and 37 of the Act. The two rights are distinctly recognized under the Act, and broadcast reproduction rights under Section 39A do not alter the rights of the copyright holder. The respondent, not being a broadcasting organization, could not avail the benefits under Section 37 of the Act.
Also read NCLT Admits CIRP Against Organic World on Unsecured Loan from Related-Party Creditor
Briefly, the appellant, Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS), is a non-profit copyright society registered under the Copyright Act, 1957, whose members assigned their communication-to-public, public performance, and mechanical rights in their literary and musical works to the appellant by way of an Assignment Deed. The respondent, Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited, operates a hotel business under the name “Appolo Hotel” and provided cable connections in each hotel room, making literary and musical works belonging to IPRS members available for viewing by hotel guests on TV sets installed in those rooms, without obtaining any licence from the appellant or paying requisite royalties.
The appellant sent letters to the respondent persuading it to obtain the requisite licence upon payment of royalty, which the respondent denied. The respondent’s defence was that it had subscribed to cable connections from a cable operator on payment of cable subscription fees, and since the cable operator already held the necessary licence from the appellant, the respondent was not liable to pay royalty separately. The respondent also contended that making content available for viewing by hotel guests in their rooms did not amount to “communication to the public” under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The appellant sought permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, damages of Rs. 9 lakhs and costs. Alongside, the appellant filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking ad interim injunction. The District Judge dismissed the injunction application, holding that broadcasting rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act were distinct from copyright, that the plaintiff had no right to challenge broadcasting rights, and that the defendant had no involvement in the alleged use of copyrighted music. The Trial Court also found that other cardinal principles for grant of temporary injunction were not in favour of the plaintiff.
