Article: Cable Subscription Does Not Substitute Copyright Licence: Calcutta High Court on Music Rights in Hotel Rooms

IPRS v. Hotel Appolo & Tours Pvt. Ltd.: Calcutta High Court Clarifies the Separate Nature of Cable Charges and Copyright Royalties

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Md. Shabbar Rashidi and Debangsu Basak, JJ., recently addressed an important issue concerning the use of copyrighted music in hotel premises. In IPRS v. Hotel Appolo & Tours Pvt. Ltd., FMA 322 of 2025, decided on 4 August 2026, the Court considered whether a hotel that had already paid a cable operator for television connections in its guest rooms was nevertheless required to obtain a separate licence from a copyright society for the communication of copyrighted music.

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court answered the question in the affirmative. Payment made to a cable operator for the television service did not, by itself, authorise the hotel, which primarily defended itself by stating to communicate copyrighted musical works to its guests.

Background of the Dispute

Hotel Appolo had installed television sets in its guest rooms and provided cable television connections to its guests. The hotel had paid the applicable charges to the cable operator for receiving the television signals.

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (“IPRS”), a copyright society representing composers, lyricists and publishers in respect of rights assigned to it, alleged that the hotel's arrangement resulted in the unlicensed exploitation and communication of copyrighted musical works.

IPRS instituted proceedings seeking, inter alia, an injunction, rendition of accounts and damages of approximately Rs. 9 lakhs.

The Ld. District Court at Darjeeling, however, declined to grant an interim injunction. It took the view that the rights involved were connected with broadcasting under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957, rather than the copyright rights asserted by IPRS.

IPRS thereafter challenged the order before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.

The Hotel’s Defence: “We Have Already Paid the Cable Operator”

The principal defence raised by the hotel was that it had already paid the cable operator for the television service.

According to the hotel, the cable operator was responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions and clearing the requisite copyright dues with IPRS. The hotel contended that, as a subscriber to the cable service, it should not be required to make a second payment for the same content.

The Division Bench did not accept this contention.

The Hotel's Use of Cable Feed Is More Than Mere Subscription

The Court examined the statutory concept of a “subscriber” under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

A subscriber essentially receives cable signals without further communicating or distributing them to others. The Court found that the hotel's position was materially different because the cable feed was distributed through individual connections to television sets installed in the guest rooms.

The Court therefore treated the hotel's activity as more than the passive receipt of a cable signal.

This distinction becomes particularly significant under Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, which defines "communication to the public". The statutory definition specifically contemplates making a work available or communicating it to the public, including individuals who may receive it in hotel rooms or similar accommodation.

Accordingly, the hotel's role could not simply be characterised as that of an ordinary cable subscriber.

Section 52(1)(k): Why the Fair-Dealing Defence Was Not Available

The hotel also sought to rely upon the statutory exception contained in Section 52(1)(k) of the Copyright Act.

The provision provides protection in relation to the playing or performance of certain musical works in the common areas of residential premises. However, the statutory protection contains an express exclusion in relation to hotels and uses connected with commercial activity.

The Court therefore found that the exception could not be invoked merely because the hotel did not levy a separate charge on its guests for watching television.

The absence of a separately identified television or music charge was not decisive. The provision of television and entertainment facilities formed part of the overall commercial offering of the hotel and contributed to the value of the accommodation provided to paying guests.

Consequently, the hotel's use could not be brought within the protective scope of Section 52(1)(k).

Cable Charges and Copyright Royalties Operate in Separate Fields

The decision highlights an important distinction that is often overlooked in hospitality and commercial establishments.

Payment to a cable operator generally concerns the carriage or transmission of television signals. It does not necessarily amount to payment for the copyright permission required to communicate the underlying musical works contained in those signals.

In other words, two distinct legal relationships may arise:

Cable/Content Subscription – payment to the cable operator for receiving television channels or signals; and

Copyright Licence – payment to the relevant copyright owner or copyright society for the authorised communication or exploitation of copyrighted works.

The fact that a business has paid one does not automatically establish that it has discharged the other obligation.

Role of Copyright Societies and IPRS

The Copyright Act provides a statutory framework for the functioning of copyright societies.

Under Section 33, a copyright society must be registered with the Central Government before carrying on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of copyright.

Authors and publishers may entrust relevant rights to such a society, enabling the society to administer, license and enforce those rights on behalf of its members.

This statutory framework explains why a copyright society such as IPRS can independently seek enforcement of the rights entrusted to it, rather than requiring every composer, lyricist or publisher to institute separate proceedings.

Tariff Schemes and Licensing

Another important aspect of the copyright licensing framework is the determination of tariffs.

Under Section 33A of the Copyright Act, copyright societies are required to publish their tariff schemes. Different licensing structures may apply to various categories of commercial establishments.

Hospitality establishments may determine tariffs based on factors such as the number of rooms, room rates, or other applicable parameters.

The existence of a tariff, however, does not itself amount to a licence. A commercial establishment must obtain the appropriate permission to lawfully communicate the copyrighted works covered by that licence.

Where an establishment considers a tariff unreasonable, the statutory framework provides mechanisms for challenging it. Such a challenge, however, does not necessarily suspend the obligation to comply with the applicable licensing regime during the pendency of the dispute.

The Post-IPAB Position

The institutional framework for copyright disputes has also undergone significant changes following the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2021.

Consequently, disputes concerning copyright tariffs and related commercial issues now fall within the jurisdictional framework of the courts designated under the applicable commercial and intellectual property regime.

The present dispute therefore also illustrates the changing institutional landscape for copyright licensing disputes in India.

Statutory Obligations of Copyright Societies

The Copyright Act imposes corresponding obligations upon copyright societies.

These include the collection and distribution of royalties to the relevant authors and other right holders in accordance with the applicable scheme, maintenance of records and statutory reporting requirements, and compliance with regulatory oversight.

The statutory framework also provides consequences where a copyright society fails to comply with its obligations, including regulatory intervention in appropriate circumstances.

Thus, the copyright licensing framework is not merely a private contractual arrangement between a hotel and a collecting society; it operates within a broader statutory structure.

Implications for Hotels and Other Commercial Establishments

The Calcutta High Court's decision has practical significance beyond the hotel industry.

Hotels, restaurants, gyms, clubs, retail establishments and other commercial premises frequently provide television, music or streaming content as part of the customer experience.

The decision underscores that businesses should not automatically assume that payment for a television, cable, satellite or streaming subscription also covers the separate copyright permissions associated with the underlying musical works.

The relevant question is not merely "Have we paid for the content?" but also "Do we have the necessary copyright licence for the manner in which that content is being communicated to the public?"

Conclusion

The decision in IPRS v. Hotel Appolo & Tours Pvt. Ltd. draws a clear distinction between receiving a television signal and communicating copyrighted works to the public.

For a hotel, payment to a cable operator may secure access to television programming, but it does not necessarily confer the independent copyright permission required for communicating musical works to guests through televisions installed in hotel rooms.

The decision therefore serves as a compliance reminder for hospitality and other commercial establishments: content subscription and copyright licensing are separate legal requirements and should be treated as separate compliance obligations.

Where copyrighted music is being made available to customers or guests as part of a commercial service, businesses should identify the relevant rights, determine the applicable tariff and obtain the appropriate licence rather than assuming that payment to the intermediary providing the content automatically clears the underlying copyright.

The authors of the article are: Mr. Rahul Jain, Partner; Ms. Sonali Khanna, Senior Associate