This judgment has now been challenged before the Supreme Court by Hotel Appolo and Tours Private Limited, which runs a hotel in Darjeeling.
It has subscribed to cable television connections from a licensed cable operator and has placed a television set in each of its guest rooms, as many hotels in India do.
While so, a copyright society named the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) sued it for copyright infringement in 2023.
After the district court refused to grant it interim relief in September 2024, IPRS moved the High Court in appeal.
Therefore, it contended that it could not be required to pay IPRS separately or compelled to secure a second copyright licence.
By an August 4 ruling, the Calcutta High Court had ruled that hotels providing cable TV facilities in their rooms cannot avoid paying royalties for copyrighted literary and musical works merely because the cable operator has obtained a licence from the copyright holder.
This judgment has now been challenged before the Supreme Court by Hotel Appolo and Tours Private Limited, which runs a hotel in Darjeeling.
Its plea, filed through advocate Yashwant Singh, said that the hotel plays no music, and operates no facility where music could be played like a discotheque or a banquet hall. It has subscribed to cable television connections from a licensed cable operator and has placed a television set in each of its guest rooms, as many hotels in India do.
While so, a copyright society named the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) sued it for copyright infringement in 2023. IPRS claimed that copyrighted literary and musical works belonging to its members were being communicated to guests through television sets installed in hotel rooms without a licence or payment of royalty.
IPRS first approached the District Judge at Darjeeling in 2023 seeking to restrain the hotel from using its copyrighted works in such a manner without a licence. After the district court refused to grant it interim relief in September 2024, IPRS moved the High Court in appeal.
The hotel opposed the plea, countering that it has already paid subscription charges to cable operators who held the necessary broadcast rights. Therefore, it contended that it could not be required to pay IPRS separately or compelled to secure a second copyright licence.
