The case of Phonographic Performance Limited v. State of Goa involves the typical fight between intellectual property rights and cultural freedoms - a kind of Sisyphean warfare. In this legal fantasy, the petitioner, Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), seeks to capitalise on its copyright over public performance rights, while the State of Goa, via the contested circular, seems to offer another stage uphill challenge in this ongoing war.
This case is basically over a disputed circular issued by the State purportedly to enlighten law enforcement agencies about the exemptions from copyright infringement under Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, 1957. This exemption exempts public performances of sound recordings during "bona fide religious ceremonies," including marriage processions and other celebrations connected with it, from being considered copyright infringement.
But PPL, holding public performance rights for an expansive portfolio of over 40 lakh sound recordings, argues that the circular goes too far. In its opinion, the circular has a perverting effect on the statutory exceptions because the interpretations given go beyond what could be construed against its rights.
Phonographic Performance Limited v. State of Goa and Others is a fight against an impermeable terrain similar to Sisyphus' unending labour. The State of Goa released a circular on January 30, 2024, attempting to reinterpret the scope of copyright legislation in the light of public and social events, which has sparked this legal dispute. Quoting inspiration from a Central government public notice issued in July 2023, this circular prohibited, in entirety, the acquiring of permissions and No Objections Clearances (NOCs) pertaining to the performing and playing rights during weddings or even religious ceremony occasions and festivals. Thus, hotels along with copyright societies were forewarned not to attempt to gain royalties for the same.
Although the Goa Entertainment Association praised the circular as an essential first step to combat allegations of abuse by unscrupulous copyright authorities, PPL strongly opposed it. This order presented an existential threat to PPL's status as the repository of the common performance entitlements for more than 40 lakh musical recordings.
The circular was framed as response to allegations levelled by Goa Entertainment Association saying that some of the hotels take undue advantage under copyright laws over charging extra of the clients organising events. "The State Of Goa justified such directive as alleviating undue burden on event organizer and promoting friendly tourism environment."
PPL strongly contended that the circular violated its statutory privileges. The Copyright Act's Section 30 gives copyright holders the only authority to issue licenses for the public performance of sound recordings, while Section 18 acknowledges that music companies may delegate these rights to organisations that include PPL. PPL emphasised the fact that the circular's expansive interpretation of Section 52(1)(za) infringed against its privileges as the custodian of more than 40 lakh sound recordings. Sound recordings used in legitimate religious ceremonies, such as weddings, are exempt from this clause. However, PPL argued that the circular expanded this exception to include various wedding-related celebrations, including those with commercial components. They emphasised that judicial bodies have already made it clear that the aforementioned exclusions must be rigorously interpreted and cannot encompass all wedding festivities, citing Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. State of Punjab (2011).
Furthermore, claiming that the administration cannot deduce or amplify legislative terms, PPL challenged the circular on constitutional grounds. It noted that an analogous executive decree was overturned in Novex Communications Pvt Ltd v. Union of India (2022) for exceeding legislative bounds.
The circular's instruction to the police to take action against copyright organisations that demand royalties also caused the petitioner to voice concerns. It claimed that this directly violated its legal entitlements under the Copyright Act's Sections 63 to 70, which provide procedures for both civil and criminal enforcement of infringement. it was emphasised that the delicate balance between upholding intellectual property rights and serving the public good is upset by such meddling.
The State used KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University (1996), which acknowledged the broader social and significance of marriage, to support its claim that marriages should be shielded from excessive involvement since they are private affairs. The circular also cited the Berne Convention on Intellectual Property and the TRIPS Agreement as precedent, contending that exemptions for cultural customs correspond with internationally accepted standards. Despite their persuasiveness, these allusions did not answer the petitioner's main contention, which was that the administration did not possess the power to expand legislative exclusions.
The Goa government's circular was harshly criticised by the High Court for going against the doctrine of separation of powers premise. The Court noted that the government cannot use bureaucratic instructions to decipher or extend statute requirements, citing Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2022). Referencing the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Naresh Kumar Garg (2013) case, which emphasised the dangers of capricious implementation, it was also decided that the mandate for police action against copyright groups demanding royalties was unconstitutional. M/s Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022) provided further help by elucidating the significance of prudent enforcement actions in infringement of copyright instances.
The Court followed the logic in Devendrakumar Ramchandra Dwivedi v. State of Gujarat (2009), which maintained exclusions for customs such as Garba and Dandiya on the grounds that they were deemed not-for-profit and carried out in compliance with the law.
It is also quintessential to look at how event planners including DJs may help make exemptions from copyright possible. According to the Court's ruling in Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Service (2016), third-party facilitating is not grounds for invalidating property rights of users as long as it complies with legislative exclusions. The USA Supreme Court's ruling in Williams & Wilkins Co v. United States (1975), which highlighted that allowing not-for-profit usage is consistent with the fair use principles, supported this approach. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court stressed the fact that commercial usage seldom constitutes as fair use, citing Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985) to warn contrary to excessive implications.
The High Court's thinking was significantly shaped by India's international commitments to the WIPO Copyright Treaty, the TRIPS Agreement, the Berne Convention, and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (UNTS Vol 2186, p 203.) The Berne Convention's Article 11 allows "minor reservations" in religious circumstances, although it also stipulates that any exclusions are not allowed to impair the financial liberties of copyright holders. Additionally, it may cite Douglas v. Hello! Ltd (2005) to emphasise that copyright safeguards and privacy privileges must be compatible at public occurrences, and Duck v. Bates (1884) to emphasise that material that is in the public realm may not be utilised for unauthorised profits. Citing Sheo Ratan Upadhya v. Gopal Chandra Nepali (1965) and Amarnath Vyas v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006), which highlighted the function of the judiciary in examining executive orders that impact legal entitlements, the ruling emphasised the necessity of judicial supervision in carrying out copyright laws. The High Court's position that judicial interpretation must be consistent with statutory meaning to avoid executive intrusion has been strengthened by cases like Bunny Reuben v. BJ Panchal (1999), Zahir Ahmed v. Azam Khan (1995), and Dr AK Mukherjee v. State (1994).
The harvesting of information and creativity shouldn't be hindered by copyright, as seen in the DU Photocopy Case. Rather, it ought to serve as a stimulant for the advancement of society. The significance of fair dealing was also emphasised by the Canadian Supreme Court in the York University Case, which framed the copyright statute as an equitable relationship involving artists' rights and the larger societal interest.
This viewpoint supports the finding in Berlin v. EC Publications that, in order to preserve the advancement of culture and artistic expression, courts are occasionally required to put the wider community's welfare ahead of copyright proprietors' maximal financial advantage.
Himanshu Mishra is a second year law student at the Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia.