Any music played in a public space needs to be licensed, says Phonographic Performances Ltd (PPL) authorities.
Any music played in a public space needs to be licensed, says Phonographic Performances Ltd (PPL) authorities.
PPL, the apex licensing arm of the Indian music industry (authorised to issue licences to any hotel/ pub/ event organiser involved in the commercial playing of copyrighted music), has moved court and emerged winners in three prominent cases of music copyright violation/infringement against Event and Entertainment Management Association (EEMA), The Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) and Bangalore Fashion Week (BFW).
Commenting on the successive wins, Sowmya Chowdhry, country head-events, PPL says, “Music is an integral part of our lives and we can’t imagine a special occasion without music. However, organisers charge a considerable component of the sum from the consumers for music, which is an essential element of entertainment. Yet, when it comes to paying for the commercial use of music, they chose to invade the licence fee,” he said.
“The big win against the three cases reinforces PPL’s position as the rightful authority on music licensing and yet again prove the need for taking lawful licences for commercial playing of copyrighted music,” he added.
One of the major challenges the music industry faces is the violation of music copyrights which, over a period of time, has impacted the music industry with loss of several crores due to non-payment of licence fees.
Towards this end, PPL has undertaken a national campaign spread over several cities where it obtains injunctions from various courts against all defaulting venues, if the licence is not paid.
“The licence is not just for events, but even for hotels, malls, pubs or any public place where music is played. Fifteen percent of the licence fee will be taken by us and 10.3% will go to the government, while the rest of the money will be given to the music company.
Anyone who plays other people’s music to earn money is asked to take the licence beforehand. This even includes pubs and discotheques,” explains Chowdhry.
He added that several event organisers, such as DNA Networks, Wizcraft International Entertainment Pvt Ltd, and hotels pay the licence regularly.
PPL vs EEMA
The high court on May 25 dismissed a petition by EEMA, seeking directions for framing of ‘appropriate and objective standards towards the determination and levying of royalties of various copyrighted works administered’ by PPL. The petitioners also wanted directions on the ‘mode of enforcing and administering such royalties’.
The high court order negated the contention of EEMA and was of the opinion that PPL has the right to formulate their own tariffs and that if there was a grievance against the tariff schemes, the petitioners were free to approach the Copyright Board for fixing a reasonable royalty rate.
PPL vs FHRAI
The FHRAI had approached the high court claiming that PPL should not charge them an additional exorbitant fee for special events licence, for events organised by hotels on occasions like New Year’s Eve, Valentine’s Day, etc, since the licensee would have covered the demanded fee stretching over the entire year.
The court dissolved the appeal against PPL because it is an amalgamation of conglomeration of individuals/owners who are fully entitled to claim a suitable premium on copyrighted music.
The court rejected FHRAI’s argument, where it had contended that exorbitant rates charged by the PPL without any regulation, are violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners.
PPL vs BFW
The PPL had sent out a notice to organisers of Bangalore Fashion Week, seeking fee for the music to be played at the show. They ignored the notice and went ahead with the event. PPL then filed a case in a trial court, which dismissed the case in favour of the BFW.
The PPL then appealed to the high court, which stated that the provisions of the Copyright Act specifies it is mandatory to obtain licence to use, enjoy, and exploit the sound records owned by the PPL.
The trial court had committed an illegality in holding that playing of music is ancillary to the main event, the high court said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}