Calcutta High Court Holds Hotels Need Separate Copyright Licence for Music Played Through In-Room TVs; Cable Subscription Does Not Authorise Commercial Exploitation of Works
Calcutta High Court Allows IPRS Copyright Appeal; Holds Hotels Cannot Rely on Cable Operator’s Licence to Play Protected Music for Paying Guests
Facts
The Calcutta High Court decided an appeal filed by The Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) against Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited. The appeal challenged an order dated 20 September 2024 of the District Judge, Darjeeling, refusing IPRS’s application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
IPRS is a copyright society whose members had assigned to it their rights of communication to the public, public performance and mechanical rights in their literary and musical works. The respondent operated Appolo Hotel.
IPRS alleged that the hotel installed television sets in individual guest rooms and provided cable connections through which literary and musical works belonging to IPRS members were made available to hotel guests. According to IPRS, this amounted to communication to the public and commercial exploitation without obtaining the necessary licence or paying royalties.
The hotel’s defence was that it had already paid cable subscription charges to its cable operator and was therefore not required to separately obtain a copyright licence from IPRS.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether providing copyrighted literary and musical works through cable-connected television sets in hotel rooms constitutes “communication to the public” under Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
- Whether payment of cable subscription charges permits a hotel to commercially make copyrighted content available to its guests.
- Whether the cable operator’s licence also protects the hotel against copyright infringement.
- Whether hotel guests can be treated as “subscribers” under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act.
- Whether copyright in underlying literary and musical works remains distinct from broadcast reproduction rights.
- Whether IPRS had established the three requirements for temporary injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
Appellant’s Arguments
IPRS argued that a separate copyright licence was mandatory because the hotel was commercially exploiting literary and musical works belonging to its members.
It relied upon Section 2(ff), which expressly treats communication through satellite or cable to more than one household or place of residence, including residential rooms of hotels and hostels, as communication to the public.
IPRS argued that paying cable subscription charges was fundamentally different from paying royalties to copyright owners.
It further contended that the Trial Court had wrongly conflated copyright under Section 14 with broadcast reproduction rights under Section 37. The two rights were distinct, and the existence of broadcasting rights did not extinguish copyright in underlying literary and musical works.
Respondent’s Arguments
Hotel Appolo contended that it had obtained cable connections for its rooms and had already paid the cable operator.
Since the cable operator possessed the necessary broadcast reproduction rights, the hotel argued that requiring another royalty payment to IPRS would effectively amount to double payment for the same content.
The hotel also argued that content viewed privately by guests inside their rooms was not a public performance or communication to the public.
It further relied upon the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and Rules to contend that responsibility for obtaining necessary copyright permissions rested with the cable operator rather than the end-user hotel.
Analysis of the Law
Hotel Rooms Fall Within “Communication to the Public”
The statutory definition became central to the decision.
Section 2(ff) defines communication to the public broadly as making a work available for being seen, heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public through display or diffusion, irrespective of whether anyone actually views or listens to it.
More importantly, the Explanation expressly states that simultaneous communication through satellite or cable to more than one household or place of residence, including residential rooms of hotels or hostels, shall be deemed communication to the public.
This directly undermined the hotel’s contention that individual guest rooms constituted purely private viewing.
Hotel Guests Are Not “Subscribers”
The Court then examined the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act.
A “subscriber” is a person receiving cable television signals at a place indicated to the cable operator without further transmitting them to another person.
The hotel itself had subscribed to cable services.
However, those services were then made available to persons other than the subscriber — namely, paying hotel guests.
The Court therefore rejected the proposition that hotel guests themselves could be regarded as subscribers within the statutory definition.
Cable Operator’s Licence Does Not Extend to Hotel’s Commercial Use
The Court drew a critical distinction between what the cable operator was authorised to do and what the hotel subsequently did with the cable service.
The cable operator’s licence permitted it to broadcast the protected works through its cable television network to its subscriber.
It did not authorise the hotel, as subscriber, to further use those works as a commercial amenity for paying guests.
Accordingly, payment of cable charges did not confer upon the hotel an independent right to commercially exploit IPRS members’ copyrighted works.
Providing TVs to Paying Guests Is Commercial Exploitation
The Court relied significantly on Section 52(1)(k) of the Copyright Act.
The provision exempts certain uses of recordings in residential premises but expressly excludes a “hotel or similar commercial establishment.”
The Court found that the television service provided to hotel guests was an additional facility or amenity.
It was immaterial that the hotel did not separately charge guests for television access.
The amenity added commercial value to the hotel’s business, bringing the activity within commercial exploitation of the protected literary and musical works.
Copyright and Broadcast Rights Are Distinct
The Court rejected the Trial Court’s approach of treating broadcasting rights as determinative of the copyright claim.
Relying upon Vodafone Idea Limited v. Indian Performing Right Society Limited, the Court recognised that copyright in underlying literary and musical works continues independently even when those works form part of a sound recording.
Authors remain entitled to royalties when their underlying works are commercially exploited, subject to the statutory exceptions.
Thus, the fact that a cable operator had rights relating to broadcasting did not extinguish the underlying rights administered by IPRS.
Copyright Infringement Under Section 51
Section 51 provides that copyright is infringed where a person, without the copyright owner’s licence, performs an act exclusively reserved to the copyright owner or permits for profit a place to be used for communication of the work to the public in circumstances amounting to infringement.
Applying that provision, the Court held that Hotel Appolo’s conduct amounted to infringement.
The hotel commercially made IPRS members’ works available to paying guests without obtaining a licence from IPRS.
Precedent Analysis
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Nirulas Corner House (P) Ltd.
This Delhi High Court decision was important to the Court’s analysis of hotels and commercial establishments.
It recognised that hotels and similar commercial establishments are deliberately excluded from certain statutory copyright exemptions and that the nature and commercial context of the use are relevant in determining infringement.
The Calcutta High Court applied that reasoning to the installation of televisions in individual hotel rooms.
Vodafone Idea Limited v. Indian Performing Right Society Limited
The Court relied upon its earlier decision in Vodafone Idea to distinguish rights in a sound recording from copyright in the underlying literary and musical works.
The copyright in underlying works survives independently, and authors remain entitled to royalties when those works are commercially exploited outside the statutory exceptions.
Temporary Injunction Test
The High Court found that the Trial Court had wrongly concluded that IPRS lacked a prima facie case.
Instead, the Division Bench held that IPRS had established a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement.
The balance of convenience also favoured IPRS because the hotel continued commercially using its members’ literary and musical works without paying royalty.
Such continued exploitation would cause irreparable loss and injury to the copyright society and its members.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning can be reduced to a clear chain:
Cable operator obtains licence → hotel subscribes to cable service → hotel provides the content as an amenity to paying guests → hotel guests are not the cable operator’s subscribers → hotel’s commercial exploitation therefore requires separate copyright authorisation.
The Court rejected the hotel’s double-payment argument because cable subscription charges and copyright royalties represent different legal entitlements.
The cable payment permits receipt of the television service. It does not automatically purchase the right to commercially communicate protected literary and musical works to hotel guests.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court held that Hotel Appolo was infringing copyright in literary and musical works belonging to IPRS members by commercially making those works available to hotel guests without the requisite licence.
The Court set aside the District Judge’s order refusing temporary injunction and allowed IPRS’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.
An injunction was granted restraining the hotel from publicly performing or communicating IPRS’s repertoire of literary and musical works without obtaining the necessary licence and paying the applicable statutory royalty.
Case Details
Case: The Indian Performing Right Society Limited v. Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited
Court: High Court at Calcutta, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Side, Commercial Division
Case Number: FMA 322 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025
Judges: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
Hearing Concluded: 1 July 2026
Date of Judgment: 4 August 2026
Result: Appeal allowed; refusal of temporary injunction set aside; hotel restrained from commercially communicating IPRS members’ literary and musical works without the requisite licence and royalties
