Calcutta HC says hotels need music licences for in-room TV content

KOLKATA: A hotel room may be private, but the TV inside it can still have a public copyright bill. The Calcutta High Court has ruled that hotels may need a separate copyright licence when copyrighted literary and musical works are made available to guests through cable television.

The ruling came in The Indian Performing Right Society Limited v. Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited, where the court examined whether a hotel could rely on its cable TV subscription to provide copyrighted music and other works to paying guests without obtaining a separate licence.

The dispute centres on a fairly common hotel amenity: television sets connected to cable services in guest rooms. Hotel Appolo had obtained cable connections and made television programming available to guests. The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS), which represents copyright interests in literary and musical works, alleged that the hotel was communicating those works to the public without the necessary licence and royalty payments.

The hotel argued that it was only a cable subscriber and that the cable operator had already secured the relevant rights. Since the hotel had paid its cable subscription charges, it contended that an additional copyright licence should not be necessary.

The High Court took a different view.

At the heart of the case was Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which defines “communication to the public”. The provision covers making a work available for being seen, heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public, whether directly or through means of display or diffusion.

Importantly for the hospitality industry, the explanation to the provision specifically refers to communication through satellite, cable or other simultaneous communication systems to more than one household or place of residence, including residential rooms of a hotel or hostel.

That wording made it difficult for the hotel to argue that the use automatically became private simply because each guest watched the content inside an individual room.

The court also drew a distinction between the cable operator and the hotel. Under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1955, a subscriber receives signals from a cable network at a specified location without further transmitting them to another person.

In this case, the hotel was the subscriber, while the ultimate users of the service were its guests. The cable connection was therefore being used as part of a facility offered to people staying at the hotel, rather than simply for the hotel’s own private consumption.

That commercial context proved important.

The television service formed part of the amenities available to paying guests. The fact that the hotel did not charge a separate line item for television did not, in the court’s reasoning, change the commercial character of the service. The cost of an amenity can be bundled into a room tariff without making the underlying use non-commercial.

The court also considered Section 30 of the Copyright Act, which deals with copyright licences. Hotel Appolo had not obtained a licence from IPRS under the provision. The existence of an authorisation granted to a cable operator did not automatically establish that the hotel was licensed to commercially provide the resulting content to its guests.

The judgment further examined Section 52 of the Copyright Act, which provides certain exceptions to copyright infringement. One of the provisions concerning recordings played in enclosed rooms or halls used by residents specifically excludes hotels and similar commercial establishments.

This distinction between residential premises and hotels reinforced the court’s view that in-room entertainment provided as part of a commercial hospitality service could not simply be treated as domestic use.

The court also considered the separate copyright interests in underlying literary and musical works. It referred to its earlier decision in Vodafone Idea Limited v. Indian Performing Right Society Limited and recognised that copyright in underlying works does not disappear merely because those works are incorporated into a sound recording or cinematograph film.

The ruling also drew on a Delhi High Court precedent, Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Nirulas Corner House (P) Ltd., which considered the use of television and other entertainment facilities in commercial establishments.

The Calcutta High Court ultimately found that IPRS had established a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement. It also held that the balance of convenience favoured IPRS and that continued unauthorised commercial use could cause irreparable harm.

The court therefore set aside the District Judge’s September 2024 order, allowed IPRS’s interim application and granted relief against the hotel.

The practical takeaway for hotels is straightforward: paying a cable TV subscription does not necessarily amount to paying for the copyright rights attached to the music and other protected works carried by that service.

For hospitality businesses, the distinction could have wider commercial implications. Television, music and other entertainment services are often bundled into room rates and treated as standard amenities. The judgment makes clear that the way a service is priced does not necessarily determine whether the underlying use of copyrighted content requires a separate licence.

In short, guests may be watching TV from the privacy of their rooms, but hotels cannot necessarily treat the copyright obligations behind that screen as private too.