[ad_1]
The Delhi High Court was recently informed by an independent expert that while interpreting the provisions of the Copyright Act with respect to the use of music in marriages, a delicate balance has to be drawn between the rights of the owners of the music and the rights of the users and the society.
A single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing a suit filed by an entity, which licences the sound recordings of its member record labels for communication to the public by public performances and broadcast. The record labels are owners of the copyright in the “sound recordings”. The entity sought an injunction against an event management company, which provided DJ services at social events, including weddings.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant, while organising its events, should have obtained the licences for playing music, but it had refused to do so despite correspondences between the parties. The defendant relied on the provisions of the Copyright Act to argue that when music is to be played for the purposes of marriage ceremonies or other social events connected with marriages, “the use of music is deemed to be fair use”, hence it does not require a licence.
To assist the court on this issue, the HC had on May 11 appointed Dr Arul George Scaria, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Centre for Innovation, IP and Competition at National Law University Delhi, as the court felt that the issue in the present case would have large-scale implications for all artists and entities involved in the organisation and management of weddings and other social events. Scaria filed his written submissions in July.
The case before the HC involved the interpretation of section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act which states that certain acts would not amount to a copyright infringement, including “the performance of a literary, dramatic or musical work or the communication to the public of such work or of a ‘sound recording’ in the course of any bona fide religious ceremony or an official ceremony held by the Central Government or the State Government or any local authority. For the purpose of this clause, a religious ceremony includes a marriage procession and other social festivities associated with marriage”.
Scaria submitted that while deciding the scope of the provision, the court must take into account that marriage is one of the most important social institutions in India and marriage ceremonies and related festivities are given the highest importance by most communities in India.
“Section 52(1)(za) needs to be interpreted in a manner that protects and promotes the important constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution to perform marriage and engage in marriage-related festivities in accordance with one’s own tradition and culture,” the order records.
The expert submitted that since the Supreme Court has interpreted copyright infringement as a cognizable and non-bailable offence under the Act, therefore, a narrow reading of the provision may lead to “potential harassment by police officers and copyright owners” during important ceremonies associated with marriage. It was also submitted that police intervention during marriage or any associated social festivities is also a “potential threat to the right to privacy” guaranteed under the Constitution.
The expert was of the view that a delicate balance needs to be drawn between the rights granted to copyright owners through “exclusive rights” and the rights provided to the society and users of copyrighted works through “limitations and exceptions”. The social, cultural, historical, and legal context of the provision warrants a balanced interpretation to ensure the protection and promotion of social benefits, he said.
When the matter came up on October 10, the court was informed that the parties had resolved their disputes amicably. In view of the settlement between the parties, the HC dismissed the suit as withdrawn. The court made it clear that the case was neither considered on its merits nor was a ruling made on the legal issue raised in the suit. The court, however, captured the summary of the expert’s submissions for the sake of the record, the order states.
[ad_2]
Source link