Hotels Providing Guests Access To Literary & Musical Works Through Cable TV Without A Separate Licence Is Copyright Infringement: Calcutta High Court
The High Court held that a hotel cannot rely on a cable operator’s licence to make copyrighted literary and musical works available as an amenity to guests staying in its rooms.
Justice Debangsu Basak, Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi, Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that making literary and musical works available to hotel guests through cable television amounts to commercial exploitation by the hotel and constitutes infringement of copyright under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, where such works are owned by members of a copyright society and are used without the requisite licence.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Indian Performing Right Society Limited against an order of the District Judge, Darjeeling, which had refused a temporary injunction in its copyright infringement suit against Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited.
A Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi, upon hearing the matter, observed: “In the present case, cable services were provided to the paid guests in the hotel for amusement. May be the respondent was not charging for such services separately but such services were surely additional facilities to the guests which had the effect of adding commercial value to the business of the respondent. In such way, the actions on the part of the respondent surely fell within the meaning of ‘commercial exploitation’ of the literary and musical works owned by the members of the appellant”.
The Bench accordingly held that “the respondent was guilty of infringement of copyright of literary and musical works owned by the members of the appellant society in view of the provisions contained in Section 51 of the Copyrights Act, 1957”.
Advocate Soumya Roychowdhury appeared for the appellant, while Senior Advocate Probal Kumar Mukherjee appeared for the respondent.
Background
The appellant, a copyright society, claimed that its members had assigned to it their communication to the public, public performance and mechanical rights in their literary and musical works. It alleged that the respondent hotel was communicating those works to the public through TV sets installed in hotel rooms without obtaining a licence from the appellant or paying royalty.
The hotel opposed the claim, contending that it had subscribed to cable connections for its rooms and paid the cable operator. According to the hotel, the cable operator had the necessary broadcasting rights and the hotel was not separately liable to obtain a licence or pay royalty to the appellant.
The District Judge rejected the appellant’s injunction application, holding that broadcasting rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957 were different and that the appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case for temporary injunction. The appellant challenged that order before the High Court.
Court’s Observations
The Court examined Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which defines “communication to the public”. It noted that the explanation to the provision specifically includes communication through satellite or cable to more than one household or place of residence, including residential rooms of any hotel or hostel.
The Court recorded: “Apparently, the respondent has been running a hotel business. The respondent provided cable connections obtained from the cable operator in each room of the hotel. It is alleged that the literary and musical works obtained by the members of the appellant company were displayed in the rooms through such cable connections over the TV sets installed in the rooms of the hotel.”
The Court rejected the trial court’s approach of treating the issue as merely one of broadcasting rights, noting that the appellant’s case was founded on copyright in the underlying literary and musical works.
The Court then turned to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and examined the meaning of “subscriber”. It held that a cable subscriber receives signals at a place indicated to the cable operator without further transmitting them to any other person.
The Court observed: “In view of such definition assigned to the term ‘subscriber’, the respondent subscribed the ‘cable services’ from the ‘cable operator’, its user ought to have been confined to the respondent without it being transmitted to any other person. In the case at hand admittedly, the services were meant to be utilized by persons other than the subscriber i.e. the guests staying in the rooms of the hotel.”
The Bench therefore refused to accept the hotel’s argument that guests staying in hotel rooms were
The Court held that the hotel’s facility of making cable services available to guests was part of its commercial offering. It noted that separate billing was not decisive.
The Court stated: “Section 52(1)(k) differentiates between residential premises and hotel. It also draws a distinction between activities carried on for profit from that being not for profit, in order to determine the act of infringement.”
On that basis, the Court concluded that the hotel’s conduct amounted to commercial exploitation of works owned by members of the appellant society.
The Court clarified that a cable operator, after obtaining licence, could broadcast the works through cable television network to its subscriber. However, that did not authorise the hotel to transmit the same as a commercial amenity for guests.
The Court observed: “The cable operator, by obtaining licence, was within his right to broadcast such work, owned by members of appellant society, through the cable television network which was limited to its subscriber. The same could not have been transmitted as a commercial amenity directed to be used by ‘any other person’ other than the subscriber.”
The Court also relied on Vodafone Idea Limited v. Indian Performing Right Society Limited (2026) to reiterate that authors of underlying literary and musical works in sound recordings are entitled to royalties when such works are commercially exploited.
Relying on Supercassette Industries v. Nirula Corner House (P) Ltd. (2008), the Court noted that hotels and similar commercial establishments are excluded from the non-infringement protection available under Section 52(1)(k) for certain residential or non-profit uses.
Quoting the Delhi High Court ruling, the Bench noted: “While on the subject, it may not be out of place to observe that the two categories ‘hotels’ and ‘similar commercial establishment’ gives a clue to Parliamentary intention to exclude the operation of such categories of establishments from the benefit of what are obviously deemed not infringements!”
The Court held that the appellant had made out a strong prima facie case. It further found that the balance of convenience was in the appellant’s favour and that continued commercial use without royalty would cause irreparable loss and injury.
Conclusion
The High Court set aside the District Judge’s order refusing a temporary injunction and allowed the appellant’s application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 CPC.
The Court restrained the hotel, in terms of the injunction prayers, from publicly performing or communicating to the public the appellant’s repertoire of literary and musical works without licence and from using works created by the appellant’s author-members without paying statutory royalty.
Cause Title: The Indian Performing Right Society Limited v. Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited
Appearances
Appellant: Soumya Roychowdhury, Samina Khanum, Gauti Khanna and Riddhima Sharma, Advocates
Respondent: Senior Advocate Probal Kumar Mukherjee, with Advocates Suhrid Sur and S. Roy