Business

Delhi HC Stays Govt Order That Rejected PPL’s Re-Registration

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr

As per the reports Delhi HC stays Govt order that rejected PPL’s Re-Registartion, And further said,Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) (petitioner) is a collective rights organization licensing its members’ sound recordings for communication to public in the areas of public performance and radio broadcast. PPL owns and/or controls the Public Performance rights of some of the largest record labels including Sony Music Entertainment, Speed Records, T-Series, Universal Music, Times Music. In an order dated 25.05.2021, passed by the Government, PPL’s application for re-registration as a copyright society under Rule 47 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 was rejected. Rule 47 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 deals with Application and conditions for re-registration or renewal of existing copyright societies.

Facts of the Case:

  • Pursuant to an amendment in the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Rules thereunder, in the year 2012 and 2013, registered copyright societies such as the petitioner, were required to apply for re-registration within a stipulated time frame.
  • The petitioner applied for such re-registration on 09.05.2013. However, by a communication dated 20.05.2014, the petitioner informed the respondent that it was not desirous of carrying on business as a registered copyright society, and that it ceased to be a “copyright society” under Chapter VII of the Act. It therefore stated that its application dated 09.05.2013 stood withdrawn by it.
  • The respondent did not accept the aforesaid position and, informed the petitioner that its application for re-registration was still under consideration of the Central Government, and no final decision had been taken so far. The respondent took the position that, pending a final decision on the petitioner’s application, the petitioner was not entitled to take a unilateral decision not to continue as a copyright society, as the interests of several rights owners were involved.
  • However, by a communication dated 25.05.2021, the respondent contended that the petitioner had withdrawn its application on 20.05.2014, and that it had made a subsequent application on 11.01.2018, which was belated. The respondent therefore communicated its decision that re- registration cannot be granted to the petitioner.

 

 

 

Write A Comment