The DPIIT, recently issued a public notice regarding collection of royalties by copyright societies for playing of music in marriage functions under Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act 1957 (Provision). Citing the Provision it directed the copyright societies to refrain from acting in contravention to the Provision. But this is not the first time the executive has issued such a clarification. The Copyright Office, in 2019, issued a public notice, directed to all the stakeholders, clarifying that no licence was required to play music in wedding festivities and so did the Rajasthan Police last year, both of which I discussed in a post earlier. Such clarifications have been issued in lieu of ambiguities that arise from the wording of the Provision which includes “marriage procession and other related social festivities”. In context of India’s great cultural diversity, “other related social festivities” encompass varied events and the Provision does not clearly address whether playing of music without licence during events occurring before and after marriage require licence or not.
Two common issues across these clarifications are: a) all are mere reproductions of the Provision without having context of the current judicial interpretation when the issue has been raised and discussed in the courts multiple times with a rather narrow interpretation than the expansive language of the Provision (see here and here) and b) apart from the DPIIT, the other two have been quashed by the Courts for abuse of power (see here and here). Companies like Novex Communications, who are the watchdogs for big music label companies against unauthorised use of their music, are also responsible for challenging the powers of the government and validity of such clarifications. I highly anticipate that these enterprises will not miss this opportunity, resuming the jugalbandi between the executive and the courts where the executive issues a public notice to address the ambiguity over the issue and the court quashes the notice only for this to begin once again, in some other state and some other form! I wonder (only to amuse myself) whether this has become a great source of riyaaz for the two before they move on to more pressing matters.
But it is high time that if and when such clarifications are put forth, they not merely reproduce the Provision but provide the current interpretation of the Provision by the Court and clearly mention the executive power under which they issue such a clarification to mitigate unnecessary litigation as has previously happened (see here and here). For instance, presently the Delhi High Court has undertaken a narrow interpretation in the case of Ten Events Entertainment vs Novex Communication (see here). It is crucial, otherwise, the entire purpose of such a clarification is defeated! Since the court may have interpreted the Provision in a specific way which may not allow use of copyrighted music to be played in wedding related functions without licence, such notices give a free ticket to all such users (most likely event managers, DJ, hoteliers and likewise) who would likely be in trouble for copyright infringement.
In other words, the value of such clarification lies in the clarity they bring, especially to vague phrasing like “social festivities”, by reproducing the understanding and interpretation of the Courts. In the absence of it, the only solution left is legislative clarity!
Thanks to an anonymous reader for letting us know about the development.