Bombay High Court Voids Goa’s Exemption Of Wedding Music From Copyright Laws

The Bombay High Court bench in Goa recently invalidated a circular issued by the Government of Goa on January 30, 2024, which exempted music played at weddings from copyright infringement actions under the Copyright Act [PPL v. State of Goa].

This ruling was in response to a writ petition filed by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), which argued that the circular infringed upon their rights as copyright holders to take legal action when sound recordings are played at weddings without proper licensing.

Sonotek Cassettes Company supported PPL's challenge, raising similar concerns about the circular.

The bench, comprising Justice MS Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes, determined that the circular overstepped the boundaries of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act. This section allows exceptions for sound recordings played during bonafide religious ceremonies, but the circular improperly extended this to include "weddings," a term not covered by the statute.

The court stressed that determining what qualifies as a bonafide religious ceremony must be decided on a case-by-case basis. The judges stated, "What constitutes a bonafide religious ceremony is a question of fact. Similarly, what defines ‘other social festivities associated with marriage’ depends on the specifics of each case. Directing field units to take strict action against any hotel or copyright society demanding royalties or fees for musical works could interfere with the enforcement mechanisms provided in the Act."

Phonographic Performance Limited, a key organization registered under the Companies Act, 1956, manages public performance rights for sound recordings and represents over 4 million sound recordings through various music labels. PPL plays a vital role in licensing music for public performances, ensuring copyright holders receive royalties.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Nitin Sardessai, representing PPL, argued that the State's Home Ministry lacked the jurisdiction to interpret copyright law and that the circular unlawfully broadened the scope of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act. He contended that the circular hindered PPL's ability to pursue legal action for copyright infringement and could undermine legitimate royalty collection efforts. PPL cited precedents from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, asserting that public notices cannot alter statutory rights under the Copyright Act.

In defense, Additional Government Advocate Deep Shirodkar argued that the circular was issued under the State Government's executive powers to prevent misuse of police authority in copyright enforcement. He maintained that the circular aimed to inform the public and police about the statutory provisions, particularly in response to complaints regarding copyright enforcement. He emphasized that the circular did not restrict civil or criminal remedies for copyright infringement but was intended as guidance, in line with a Central government directive.

The Court sided with the petitioners, stating, "The circular places restrictions on copyright societies from exercising their rights under the Copyright Act. The directive that certain organizations and hotels must obtain permission from copyright societies for the public performance of musical works or sound recordings, in our view, interferes with the enforcement mechanisms provided by the Act."

Senior Advocate Nitin Sardessai, along with advocates Pulkit Bandodkar, Ankur Sangal, Sucheta Roy, Tarun Rebello, S Sardessai, and Ankit Arvin, represented PPL. Senior Advocate SS Kantak, with advocates Pulkit Bandodkar, Ankur Sangal, Saicha Dessai, and Simoes Kher, appeared for Sonotek Cassettes Company. Additional Government Advocate Deep Shirodkar represented the State of Goa. Advocates YV Nadkarni, Shailesh Redkar, and S Khadilkar appeared for Novex Communications Private Limited.