This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues surrounding the quashing of a circular that restricted copyright owners' rights, offering valuable insights into the interpretation of statutory exceptions under the Copyright Act, 1957. The recent case involving Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) and the quashing of a state-issued circular restricting copyright owners' rights underscores this tension. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, focusing on copyright ownership, licensing rights, and the implications of statutory exceptions.

Background: Copyright Ownership and Licensing:
Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) is a prominent copyright owner and licensing organization, managing public performance rights for over 40 lakh domestic and international sound recordings. Under Section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957, PPL has the authority to issue licenses for the communication or public performance of these recordings. As a key player in the music industry, PPL’s operations are integral to ensuring that artists, producers, and other rights holders receive proper compensation for the use of their work.

However, PPL’s ability to enforce its rights was challenged by a circular issued by a state government. The circular purportedly limited the scope of PPL’s rights, particularly concerning the public performance of sound recordings during certain events, which led PPL to file a petition seeking the quashing of the circular.

The Impugned Circular: Overview and Grounds for Challenge:
The circular in question was issued by the state government, ostensibly to clarify the application of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, 1957. This section provides an exception to copyright infringement for the performance or communication of a work during bona fide religious ceremonies, including marriage processions and related social festivities.

PPL challenged the circular on several grounds:
Lack of Statutory Authority:
PPL argued that the circular was issued without any statutory authority and overstepped the provisions of the Copyright Act. Specifically, the circular attempted to expand the scope of the exception under Section 52(1)(za) beyond its intended meaning.

Interference with Enforcement Rights:
The circular was seen as interfering with PPL’s right to initiate civil or criminal proceedings for copyright infringement under Sections 55, 63, and 64 of the Copyright Act. By broadening the exception, the circular effectively restricted PPL’s ability to enforce its rights.

Overreach of Executive Power:
PPL contended that the circular, issued under the state’s executive powers as per Article 162 of the Constitution, was an overreach that impinged on the legislative framework established by the Copyright Act.

Respondents' Arguments and Key Copyright Act Provisions:
In defense of the circular, the state government argued that it was issued to prevent the abuse of police powers and to create awareness about the statutory exception under Section 52(1)(za). The respondents claimed that the circular did not remove the civil or criminal remedies available to copyright owners but rather served as guidance for law enforcement.

The key provisions of the Copyright Act relevant to this case include:

• Section 51: Defines when copyright is infringed, setting the stage for potential civil or criminal action.
• Section 52(1)(za): Provides an exception for the performance or communication of a work during bona fide religious ceremonies, including marriage processions and related social festivities.
• Sections 55, 63, 64: Outline the civil and criminal remedies available for copyright infringement, empowering copyright owners to protect their rights.
• Court's Analysis and Findings

The court’s analysis focused on the legality and scope of the impugned circular, particularly in relation to Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act. The key findings were:

Expansion of Section 52(1)(za) Beyond Its Intent:
The court found that the circular went beyond merely informing the public about the exception and instead attempted to expand the scope of Section 52(1)(za) in an impermissible manner. The court noted that determining what constitutes a “bona fide religious ceremony” or “social festivities associated with marriage” is a question of fact that must be decided on a case-by-case basis, rather than through a blanket government directive.

Interference with Copyright Enforcement:
The circular was deemed to interfere with the enforcement mechanisms provided under the Copyright Act by imposing unnecessary restrictions on copyright owners, particularly copyright societies like PPL. The court held that the circular put unjustifiable fetters on PPL’s rights to initiate proceedings for copyright infringement.

Marriage Ceremony Definition:
The court also clarified that the term "marriage ceremony" as defined under Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act does not extend to all events associated with a wedding. This distinction was crucial in limiting the scope of the exception and protecting the copyright owner’s rights.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the court quashed the impugned circular, holding it to be illegal and beyond the authority granted under the Copyright Act, 1957. This decision reaffirms the importance of respecting the legislative framework governing copyright and underscores the limits of executive power in altering or expanding statutory exceptions. For copyright owners and licensing organizations like PPL, the judgment serves as a significant victory, ensuring that their rights to enforce copyright protections remain intact and unimpeded by governmental overreach.

The case also highlights the delicate balance between protecting copyright owners’ rights and accommodating certain public interests through statutory exceptions. Moving forward, it is crucial for state authorities to ensure that any directives or circulars they issue are in strict conformity with the law, particularly when they intersect with complex areas like copyright and intellectual property rights.

Case Citation: Phonographic Performance Limited Vs State of Goa :13.08.2024 : WP 253 of 2024:2024:BHC-GOA:1357-DB:High Court of Bombay at Goa: M. S. Karnik & Valmiki Menezes, JJ. H.J

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539