2008 (9) TMI 916 - HC - Companies Law

Non-compliance of Section 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957 - News Broadcasters - Held that - The broadcast reproduction right as contended by the appellant are to be treated as separate, distinct and independent rights. Therefore, unable to agree with the interpretation of the impact of Section 61 of the Act, which the learned Single Judge has preferred to adopt. We are also unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned Single Judge that non-compliance of Section 61 of the Act leads to the legal position in the present case where the suit of the appellant warranted dismissal of the suit on account of not making the original owner Cricket Academy (C.A.) a party as per the mandate of Section 61 of the Act. In our view, Section 61 of the Act having been specifically left out by the Legislature by virtue of Section 39-A of the Act specifying the applicable provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act to broadcast reproduction rights, clearly rules out the applicability of Section 61 of the Act and the learned Single Judge s view therefore does not commend itself for approval by us. D. We also hold that even if we assume that Section 61 of the Act were to apply, the dismissal of the suit was not justified in view of the independent copyright owned by the appellant in the eventual telecast comprising of vital inputs by the appellant. Appeal is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit under Section 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
2. Broadcasting reproduction rights vis-a-vis Copyright.
3. Ownership of cinematographic copyright in the cricket matches telecast.
4. Defence of fair dealing.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit under Section 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957:
The primary issue was whether the suit filed by the appellant was maintainable given the non-joinder of the original copyright owner, Cricket Australia (C.A.), as mandated by Section 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The learned Single Judge dismissed the suit for non-compliance with Section 61, which requires the owner of the copyright to be made a party to the proceedings.

However, the appellate court found that broadcasting reproduction rights are distinct from copyright and are governed by Chapter VIII of the Act, which does not include Section 61. The court emphasized the legislative intent to treat these rights separately. Consequently, the non-joinder of C.A. did not render the suit non-maintainable.

2. Broadcasting Reproduction Rights vis-a-vis Copyright:
The appellant argued that broadcasting reproduction rights, introduced by the 1994 amendment to the Copyright Act, are distinct from copyright. These rights were introduced to protect broadcasters from unauthorized use of their broadcasts. The court agreed, noting that broadcasting rights are separate and distinct from copyright, as evidenced by the legislative framework and international agreements like the TRIPS Agreement.

The court highlighted that Section 37 of the Act provides broadcasters with special rights, distinct from the copyright in the content of the broadcast. The court also noted that Sections 13 and 14 of the Act, which define copyright, do not include broadcasts, further supporting the distinction.

3. Ownership of Cinematographic Copyright in the Cricket Matches Telecast:
The appellant claimed that it had an independent copyright in the recorded telecast of the cricket matches, separate from the live feed provided by C.A. The court agreed, noting that the appellant's telecast included significant additions such as commentary, graphics, and other technical inputs, which created a distinct final product. Therefore, even if Section 61 were applicable, the appellant would be the independent copyright owner of the modified telecast.

4. Defence of Fair Dealing:
The respondents argued that their use of the appellant's broadcast footage fell under the defence of fair dealing, which allows limited use of copyrighted material for reporting current events. The court acknowledged that fair dealing must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering factors like the extent of the footage used and the purpose of its use.

The court emphasized that excessive use of the appellant's footage could amount to commercial exploitation, which would not be protected under fair dealing. The court referred to international precedents and guidelines to determine what constitutes fair dealing, noting that the aggregate length of the footage and its commercial impact are crucial factors.

Conclusion:
The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the learned Single Judge's judgment. The court held that broadcasting reproduction rights are distinct from copyright and not subject to Section 61. It also recognized the appellant's independent copyright in the modified telecast and emphasized the need to protect broadcasters' rights from excessive and unauthorized use. The case was remanded to the learned Single Judge for further proceedings consistent with these findings.

← Previous Next →