The Calcutta High Court has issued a pivotal ruling that mandates hotels to acquire copyright licenses for playing musical and literary works through cable television in guest rooms, even if the cable operator already holds a license. This decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi. They clarified that such an offering by hotels constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ under the Copyright Act, 1957, and thus requires a separate license.
Background of the Case
The case was initiated by the Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS), which appealed against Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited. IPRS contended that the hotel was unlawfully transmitting copyrighted works through television sets in hotel rooms without obtaining the requisite license or paying royalties. The initial plea by IPRS was presented before the District Judge at Darjeeling in 2023, which was denied interim relief in September 2024, prompting IPRS to appeal to the High Court.
Hotel’s Defense and Court’s Rejection
In its defense, the hotel argued that it had already paid subscription charges to the cable operator, who possessed the broadcasting rights. Therefore, it should not be obligated to pay additional royalties to IPRS. However, the High Court dismissed this argument. Referring to Section 2(i) of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, the court pointed out that a subscriber is defined as someone who receives cable TV signals at a designated location ‘without further transmitting it to any other person.’
Legal Interpretation and Judgment
The court elaborated that hotel guests do not qualify as subscribers under this definition. The judgment highlighted that transmission as a commercial amenity directed at ‘any other person’ than the subscriber is not permissible. Therefore, hotel guests cannot be considered subscribers, reinforcing that the hotel’s actions amounted to commercial exploitation.
Further, the court referenced Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, which classifies communication through cable or satellite to multiple households or residential places, including hotel rooms, as communication to the public. Significantly, the court noted that the hotel’s failure to charge guests separately for these services does not exempt it from obtaining a license.
More Read
Conclusion and Implications
The High Court overturned the District Judge’s September 2024 order denying a temporary injunction to IPRS. It recognized IPRS’s strong prima facie case and acknowledged the potential for irreparable loss due to unauthorized use. Consequently, the court prohibited the hotel from communicating or publicly performing works from the IPRS repertoire without a license and the statutory royalty payment. IPRS was legally represented by Advocates Soumya Roychowdhury, Samina Khanum, Gauti Khanna, and Riddhima Sharma, while Senior Advocate Probal Kumar Mukherjee, along with Advocates Suhrid Sur and S Roy, represented the hotel.
