This article tells about the significance of the legal battle happened between Azure Hospitality Private Limited and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) over copyright infringement and licensing rights. The High Court of Delhi’s ruling in this case is that the complexities of the Copyright Act, and the importance of copyright society registration is used in protecting intellectual property rights in the music industry.
Link to the complete judgement: https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/azure-hospitality-private-limited-v-phonographic-performance-limitedwatermark-1704467.pdf
INTRODUCTION
In a landmark ruling on April 15, 2025, the High Court of Delhi addressed a very critical issue surrounding the copyright law in the case of Azure Hospitality Private Limited vs. Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL). This case highlights the complexities of copyright ownership, licensing rights, and the legal framework governing copyright societies in India. As the music industry struggles with the issue of control and fair access to copyrighted works, this case serves as a important point for understanding the balance between protecting intellectual property rights and ensures equal access for users.
The court’s decision not only impacts the parties involved but also sets an example for future copyright disputes and cases. This article will explain the whole background of the case, the legal arguments, the court’s analysis, interpretation of the laws in the case and implications of law for copyright law in India.
Background of the Case
- Appellant: Azure Hospitality Private Limited
- Respondent: Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL)
Azure Hospitality, a well-known company in the restaurant industry, found itself surrounded in a legal battle with PPL, a copyright society that claims to hold public performance rights for various skilful works of sound recordings. The dispute arose when PPL accused Azure for exploiting its copyright work without obtaining the necessary licenses for the copyright work.
The legal framework of the case primarily revolves around the Copyright Act, 1957, particularly on sections like Section 3(A), 17, 18, 30, 33, 34, 35 and 55 which govern copyright ownership, assignment, licensing, and the working of copyright societies. PPL submits that they have the right to grant licenses for public performance of sound recordings. Hence, there is a claim that Azure makes based on PPL’s lack of registration as a copyright society that when after the Amendment Act in 2012, PPL has surrendered its old registration and then applied for the new registration which was then rejected the respected court.
KEY LEGAL ISSUES
- Ownership and Assignment of Copyright
PPL claims ownership of sound recordings through assignment deeds from original copyright owners, as per Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act;
“The owner of the copyright in an existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in a future work may assign to any person the copyright either wholly or partially and either generally or subject to limitations and either for the whole of the copyright or any part thereof:
Provided that in the case of the assignment of copyright in any future work, the assignment shall take effect only when the work comes into existence:
Provided further that no such assignment shall be applied to any medium or mode of exploitation of the work which did not exist or was not in commercial use at the time when the assignment was made, unless the assignment specifically referred to such medium or mode of exploitation of the work:
Provided also that the author of the literary or musical work included in a cinematograph film shall not assign or waive the right to receive royalties to be shared on an equal basis with the assignee of copyright for the utilization of such work in any form other than for the communication to the public of the work along with the cinematograph film in a cinema hall, except to the legal heirs of the authors or to a copyright society for collection and distribution and any agreement to contrary shall be void:
Provided also that the author of the literary or musical work included in the sound recording but not forming part of any cinematograph film shall not assign or waive the right to receive royalties to be shared on an equal basis with the assignee of copyright for any utilization of such work except to the legal heirs of the authors or to a collecting society for collection and distribution and any assignment to the contrary shall be void.”
Section 18(2) further states that the assignee (PPL) is treated as the owner of the copyright for the purposes of the Act;
“Where the assignee of a copyright becomes entitled to any right comprised in the copyright, the assignee as respects the rights so assigned, and the assignor as respects the rights not assigned, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as the owner of copyright and the provisions of this Act shall have effect accordingly.”
This legal framework is crucial in determining whether PPL has the authority to issue licenses for the sound recordings in question.
- Public Performance Rights
PPL’s declare its right to grant licenses for public performance is central to the case. The court must decide whether PPL can enforce its copyright claims against Azure or not, given its status as a non-registered copyright society.
- Copyright Society Registration
Section 33(1) of the Copyright Act prohibits any person from issuing licenses for copyrighted works unless they are registered as a copyright society. PPL was previously registered but lost its status and has not been re-registered, raising questions about its legal standing to issue licenses.
In Section 33(1) of the Copyright Act;
“No person or association of persons shall, after coming into force of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 commence or, carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of any work in which copyright subsists or in respect of any other rights conferred by this Act except under or in accordance with the registration granted under sub-section (3):
Provided that an owner of copyright shall, in his individual capacity, continue to have the right to grant licences in respect of his own works consistent with his obligations as a member of the registered copyright society:
Provided further that the business of issuing or granting license in respect of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works incorporated in a cinematograph films or sound recordings shall be carried out only through a copyright society duly registered under this Act;
Provided also that a performing rights society functioning in accordance with the provisions of section 33 on the date immediately before the coming into force of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 shall be deemed to be a copyright society for the purposes of this Chapter and every such society shall get itself registered within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994.”
COURT’S ANALYSIS
- Findings of the Single Judge
The Single Judge ruled in favor of PPL, allowing it’s to have an injunction against Azure and rejecting Azure’s request to cancel the injunction. The judgment relied on previous cases, including Novex Communication v. Lemon Tree Hotels, to support the interpretation of copyright laws.
- Azure’s Arguments in case
Azure argued that PPL’s interpretation of the law would allow it to dominant the market and charge extra fees for licenses. Azure claim that PPL should not be allowed to issue licenses without being a registered copyright society, emphasizing the need for oversight the issue to prevent monopoly practices.
- PPL’s Defense
PPL maintained that it is the real owner of the sound recordings who has the right to issue licenses. PPL argued that the injunction against Azure was necessary to protect its copyright interests and that its previous registration as a copyright society as they claim.
INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS IN THE CASE:
- Interpretation of Section 30 & 33
The court analysed the implications of Section 33(1) and its relationship with Section 30, which allows copyright owners to grant licenses. The court emphasized that the requirement for registration as a copyright society is crucial to prevent domination and ensure fair licensing practices.
In Section 30 of the Copyright Act;
“Licences by owners of copyright—The owner of the copyright in any existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in any future work may grant any interest in the right by licence in writing by him or by his duly authorised agent:
Provided that in the case of a licence relating to copyright in any future work, the licence shall take effect only when the work comes into existence.”
- Proviso to Section 33(1)
The court noted that the proviso allows copyright owners to grant licenses on their won to any of the individual but as a member of a registered copyright society it’s there right too, to grant licenses. This interpretation supports the need for transparency in the licensing process.
Hence, it recognized the need to balance the interests of both parties, the court directed Azure to pay PPL for the use of sound recordings based on the rates applicable to PPL, the registered copyright society for sound recordings. This decision explains the importance of fair compensation for copyright owners while ensuring that users have access to copyrighted works.
IMPLICATIONS OF LAW
- Impact on Copyright Law
The Azure vs. PPL case serves as a critical point for future copyright disputes, particularly in the land or scope of sound recordings. It highlights the complexities of copyright ownership and the legal framework governing copyright societies, emphasizing the need for transparency and fairness in licensing practices.
- Regulatory Oversight
The case explains the importance of oversighting the music industry to prevent dominated practice and ensure equal access to copyrighted works. The court’s ruling reinforces the need for copyright societies to operate transparently with the law.
- Future of Copyright Societies
As the music industry continues to evolve and grow, the role of copyright societies will remain vital in managing licensing rights and protecting the interests of copyright owners. The Azure vs. PPL case may caused a legal action to clarify the provisions of the Copyright Act and address the challenges faced by copyright societies in the digital age.
CURRENT SITUATION
PPL has now approached Hon’ble Supreme Court with an appeal in this case. However, the Apex Court granted further interim relief to Azure Hospitality by staying the High Court’s directions to Azure to pay PPL as per the tariffs of RMPL.
Hon’ble Court stated that “Issue notice. The impugned directions in terms of paragraph 27 of the impugned order shall remain stayed. We, however, clarify that notwithstanding this order of stay, the order dated 3rd March, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge will not operate,”
It will now be interesting to see how the Hon’ble Apex court deals with this matter and resolves this dispute once and for all in a conclusive manner.
CONCLUSION
The Azure Hospitality vs. Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) case is a landmark ruling that navigates the complexities of copyright law in India. It highlights the importance of copyright registration, the need for regulatory oversight, and the balance between protecting intellectual property rights and ensuring equal access for every user. As the music industry struggles with issues of control and fair access to copyrighted works, this case serves as a pivotal role in understanding the evolving of the copyright law in India.
Keywords
Azure Hospitality, Phonographic Performance Limited, Copyright Law, Copyright Act 1957, Sound Recordings, Copyright Society, Public Performance Rights, Legal Precedent, Intellectual Property Rights and Delhi High Court.
References
1. Copyright Act, 1957 – Government of India.
2. High Court of Delhi Judgments – FAO(OS) (COMM) 41/2025.
3. Novex Communication v. Lemon Tree Hotels, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6568.
4. Entertainment Network India v. Super Cassette Industries, (2008) 13 SCC 30.
5. 227th Report of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development.
Author: Nimisha Singh Kushwah, 3rd Year B.A.LLB student, Institute of Law, Jiwaji University, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.
Wish to read similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/blog-industrial-designs-and-copyright/
