PPL Can't Issue Licenses For Sound Recordings In Its Repertoire Without Registering Itself As Copyright Society: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Phonographic Performance Limited cannot be permitted to issue or grant licences for the sound recordings in its repertoire without registering itself as a copyright society or becoming a member of any registered copyright society.

“We, therefore, are unable to accept the principle that PPL was entitled, without either registering itself as a copyright society or becoming a member of any registered copyright society, to issue licenses in respect of the sound recordings assigned to it under Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act,” a division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul said.

PPL is an Indian collective rights management organization which licenses its copyrighted sound recordings to consumers to publicly perform the songs and for radio broadcast.

The Bench was dealing with an appeal filed by Azure Hospitality Private Limited challenging a single judge order restraining it from using PPL's copyrighted works in any of its outlets.

PPL owns the public performance rights of 400+ music labels, with more than 4 million international and domestic sound recordings. The list of sound recordings in which PPL has copyright is available on its website www.pplindia.org/songs, which provides express notice of PPL's rights in the sound recordings to any user.

Azure Hospitality Private Limited (defendant no.1) runs around 86 restaurants including 'Mamagoto', 'Dhaba' and 'Sly Granny' which have several outlets throughout India.

Before the single judge, it was stated that when PPL's representatives visited the restaurants being run by Azure Hospitality, they found that the restaurants were exploiting its sound recording without taking any license. PPL has then sent a cease and desist notice to Azure, but received no reply.

PPL thus filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining Azure from infringing its copyright and other ancillary reliefs.

In appeal, the division bench ruled that issuance or grant of licenses for exploiting of works in respect of which a person claims copyright can only be done if such person is a registered copyright society or a member of a registered copyright society.

“PPL is admittedly not a registered copyright society, though it was one at an earlier point of time. It could, however, still licence the subject sound recordings for playing in the public, but in accordance with the terms of the copyright society registration which, presently, vests only with RMPL,” the Court said.

It added that pending disposal of the civil suit, Azure would be required to make payment to PPL for playing the recordings on the basis of the Tariff Rate applicable to Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL), as if PPL were a member of RMPL.

“We deem this to be an equitable arrangement as, following on our prima facie findings above, if PPL were to permit the sound recordings in its repertoire to be licensed to others for being communicated to the public, that can only be in terms of the registration granted to RMPL, of which PPL would have to be a member,” the Court said.

The bench did not agree to the suggestion of Azure that a deposit should be directed at an interim stage, when the rival claims of the parties were yet to be finally adjudicated, to allow Azure to exploit the sound recordings from PPL's repertoire without paying anything to the latter.

The Court thus directed Azure to make payment to PPL as per the Tariff of RMPL, as displayed on its website, if it intends to play any of the sound recordings forming part of PPL's repertoire in any of its outlets.

“Azure and PPL would both place on record before the learned Single Judge, a three-monthly statement of the payments, if any, so made and received. The payment would be strictly subject to the outcome of CS (Comm) 714/2022,” the Court said.

Case Title: AZURE HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED v. PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Advs. with Mr. S. Santanam Swaminathan, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. Anindit Mandal, Mr. Rishabh Agarwal and Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Advs

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Ms. Sucheta Roy, Mr. Shaurya Pandey, Ms. Jahnavi Sindhu and Ms. Sugandh Shahi, Advs

Click here to read order