Back
Calcutta High Court rules hotels need copyright licence for in-room cable TV music
In a ruling with significant implications for India's hospitality industry, the has held that hotels cannot rely on a cable operator's licence to escape copyright liability for literary and musical works played through television sets in guest rooms.
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi set aside an order of the District Judge, Darjeeling, which had refused a in favour of in a copyright suit against .
The Cable Connection Defence
IPRS, a registered copyright society operating as a non-profit body, holds '' rights, public performing rights, and mechanical rights over literary and musical works through assignment deeds executed by its author members. The society alleged that Hotel Appolo, operating under the name "Appolo Hotel" in Darjeeling, was and communicating these works to guests through TV sets installed in each room, without obtaining a valid licence or paying royalties.
The hotel's defence rested on a simple proposition: it had subscribed to cable connections from a licensed cable operator and paid the subscription fees. Since the cable operator held and had presumably settled royalties with IPRS, the respondent argued, no separate payment was due from the hotel.
The District Judge accepted this logic, holding that broadcasting rights under , were distinct from the rights asserted by IPRS, and dismissed the injunction application.
Why Hotel Guests Are Not 'Subscribers'
The High Court found this reasoning fundamentally flawed. The pivotal question was whether the hotel's conduct constituted "" under Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, which expressly provides that:
"communication through satellite or cable or any other means of simultaneous communication to more than one household or place of residence including residential rooms of any hotel or hostel shall be deemed to be ."
The Bench also examined Section 52(1)(k) of the Act, which exempts from
the playing of recordings
"in an enclosed room or hall meant for the common use of residents in any residential premises (not being a hotel or similar commercial establishment)."
The court observed that Parliament deliberately excluded hotels from this exemption, drawing a clear line between residential premises and profit-oriented commercial establishments.
Equally decisive was the definition of "
" under
— a person who receives signals
"without further transmitting it to any other person."
The court held that hotel guests, who are free to watch the channels as an amenity, cannot be shoehorned into this definition.
"We are not in a position to accept that the guests staying in hotel rooms of the respondent are 'subscribers' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act of 1995,"the Bench declared.
The court further noted that even where no separate charge is levied for television viewing, providing such entertainment enhances the commercial value of the hotel's business, bringing the activity squarely within the ambit of .
Precedents That Guided the Court
The Division Bench drew on two key authorities. In Supercassette Industries v. Nirula Corner House (P) Ltd. (2008 SCC OnLine Del 360), the had distinguished between a common television in a motel reception and sets installed in individual rooms, observing that the "proportion" of the activity and its integral connection with the commercial establishment determine whether occurs. That reasoning supported the conclusion that in-room television for paying guests is a , not a .
The court also relied on Vodafone Idea Limited v. Indian Performing Right Society Limited (2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5736), which recognised that copyright in underlying literary and musical works persists independently of sound recordings, and that authors retain the right to royalties when such works are commercially exploited.
Key Observations
The court's reasoning was anchored in several pointed observations:
"The actions on the part of the respondent surely fell within the meaning of ' ' of the literary and musical works owned by the members of the appellant."
"The cable operator, by obtaining licence, was within his right to broadcast such work, owned by members of appellant society, through the cable television network which was limited to its . The same could not have been transmitted as a directed to be used by 'any other person' other than the ."
The Verdict
Holding that IPRS had established a strong case and that the lay in its favour, the Division Bench set aside the impugned order and allowed the injunction application under . The hotel stands restrained from or communicating the copyrighted works without obtaining a valid licence and paying statutory royalties until the disposal of the suit.
The ruling clarifies that hotels and similar commercial establishments must secure separate licences from copyright societies like IPRS, even after paying cable subscription charges. For the hospitality sector, this marks a critical compliance benchmark — one that cannot be outsourced to intermediaries.
