In an important ruling early this year, the Delhi High Court tackled a contentious problem in copyright regulation in India: using certified songs for wedding-associated activities. This case, Canvas Communication vs. Phonographic Performance Limited, highlights copyright law’s complexities and its utility in cultural events, where the music is an important ingredient. The plaintiff is a public relations firm seeking clarity as to whether or not playing music at wedding festivities, which include Sangeet and cocktail parties, could require licensing from PPL or if those events may be exempt from India’s copyright regulation.
The court’s intervention requiring a provisional deposit of one lakh rupees to PPL is widely known now. It suggests a nuanced method that balances copyright holders’ interests with cultural practices, while the legal interpretation of copyright exemptions for weddings is being adjudicated.
Case Background
Canvas Communication is an occasion control corporation regarded for organizing large-scale occasions, such as weddings. In getting ready for an upcoming wedding ceremony, Canvas confronted the difficulty of licensing necessities from PPL, which is liable for administering sound recording licenses on behalf of numerous music labels in India. The dispute arose over whether the copyright exemption under Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, which allows the use of copyrighted works in “spiritual ceremonies,” extends to wedding functions, together with ancillary activities like Sangeet and cocktail parties.
Canvas Communication argued that wedding activities need to fall under the statutory exemptions for “religious ceremonies,” as clarified via the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) in a 2023 observation. The DPIIT’s guidance had labelled weddings and related social festivities as exempt from licensing necessities, thereby protecting traditional celebrations from copyright claims. PPL, however, contested this interpretation, preserving that the exemption has to be observed in the real bridal ceremony and now not different associated events.
Legal Findings & Arguments
At the centre of the legal debate in this situation, is the interpretation of Section 52(1) (za) of the Copyright Act, which exempts “spiritual ceremonies” from copyright infringement claims. Canvas Communication argued that the DPIIT observation bolstered this interpretation by explicitly citing marriage features as exempt. According to Canvas, this exemption must logically extend to pre-wedding ceremony and post-wedding ceremony activities, which are intrinsic parts of traditional Indian weddings. They contended that imposing licensing necessities on such cultural activities would put an undue monetary burden on the organizers and violate the spirit of the law.
In its defense, PPL referred to beyond rulings, which include a tremendous judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had formerly wondered about the broad interpretation of copyright exemptions. PPL argued that the exemption should be narrowly construed to cover best the marriage ceremony itself, as different occasions, specifically cocktail parties, regularly involve commercial elements. PPL contended that the Sangeet and cocktail activities, at the same time as part of the marriage festivities, are not “religious” and, consequently, should now not be exempt from licensing requirements.
Additionally, the PPL expressed concerns regarding the possible abuse of the exemption. They claimed that providing an unconditional waiver would result in infringement at various commercial events that have been feigned to be wedding events. They contended that such licenses are a necessary evil to ensure equity of payment to artists and copyright owners of works, including music, used in such events, which preserves the health of the music business.
Court’s Decision
After examining the submissions by both parties, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order. However, it does not answer the question of whether pre-wedding and post-wedding activities require a license or not. But there was a temporary solution. The court ordered Canvas Communications to deposit Rs. 100,000 as a license fee for the use of PPL’s drama at music and cocktail parties. The decision is intended to protect the rights of copyright holders until the case is finally decided.
The court order also required PPL to issue a license for Canvas Communications. so that planned events can proceed by framing the said order as a temporary measure. Courts attempt to balance the rights of the parties without setting binding precedents. This temporary injunction allows wedding organizers to play copyrighted music. This is to ensure that the copyright owner will receive compensation. And that leaves the larger question of exemptions for judicial interpretation.
In its decision, the court recognized the cultural importance of music at weddings. and the need to avoid undue burden on organizers. The court’s emphasis on “Temporary protection measures” reflects a cautious approach. This is because the court did not attempt to create strict rules. Rather, it aims to facilitate the immediate needs of the case. At the same time, it leaves room for wider legal interpretation in the future…
Conclusion
In this particular lawsuit, we can see that the how laws governing copyright in India are evolving with the contemporary times. These are the realities particularly apparent in the case of cultural practices and traditional phenomena. The interim judgment of the Delhi High Court has stressed upon the fact that due to the worrying history between copyright and cultural traditional way of life, there is a need to have a nuanced understanding of both factors.
The case also brings about profound implications for copyright law in India. The copyrighted songs usually feature in other traditional weddings as well. If the court holds that section 52(1) (za) also includes further marriages, It could open up the field for an even wider interpretation of cultural exemptions. Or, by a more restricted interpretation, it might even demand that wedding planners and venues take a license on all of the activities related to music. Remapping licensing music for India’s cultural festivals.
In summary, this case is a perfect example of the nature of complications the judiciary encounters in modernizing intellectual property law. It is widely recognized, that dual importance is to be given in protecting both, the rights of copyright holders and cultural traditions.
Authors: Raisha Bansal & Yukta Bhatia