Providing television entertainment in hotel rooms may appear to be a routine hospitality service, but it can carry separate copyright obligations. In The Indian Performing Right Society Limited v. Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited, the Calcutta High Court held that making copyrighted literary and musical works available to hotel guests through cable television can constitute “communication to the public.”
The Court clarified that merely paying cable subscription charges does not dispense with the requirement of copyright licensing. Where television services are provided to paying guests as part of hotel amenities, the copyrighted works are being commercially utilised. Thus, a valid cable connection does not by itself authorise the hotel to commercially exploit the copyrighted content transmitted through it.
Television Is in a Private Room, So Where Is the “Public”?
This is the central puzzle behind the dispute. Hotel Appolo had obtained cable connections and made television services available in its rooms. The programmes accessible through those connections contained literary and musical works in which members of the Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) claimed copyright interests.
IPRS alleged that these works were being communicated to hotel guests without the requisite licence and royalty payment.
The hotel responded that it was merely a subscriber to cable television services. The cable operator had already obtained the necessary rights, and the hotel had paid the cable connection charges. The content was not being publicly screened in a hall or other common area; it was simply available to individual guests inside their rooms.
How the Matter Reached the High Court
IPRS had instituted O.C. Suit No. 9 of 2023 and sought, among other remedies, a permanent injunction against unauthorised public performance or communication of its repertoire, rendition of accounts and damages of ₹9 lakh. Along with the suit, it moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking interim protection.
The District Judge, Darjeeling, rejected the temporary injunction application on 20 September 2024. The Trial Court essentially accepted the distinction between broadcasting rights and the copyright claimed by IPRS and concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish the necessary grounds for interim relief.
IPRS challenged that decision before the Calcutta High Court.
The appellate proceedings therefore required the High Court to answer a commercially important question: does a hotel merely receive a cable television service for itself, or does it further communicate copyrighted content when that service is made available through televisions installed in rooms occupied by paying guests?
“Communication to the Public” Is the Key
The controversy substantially turned upon Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The provision defines “communication to the public” broadly as making a work or performance available for being seen, heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public, directly or through means of display or diffusion, irrespective of whether a member of the public actually sees, hears or enjoys it.
More importantly for hotels, the Explanation expressly addresses communication through satellite or cable. It provides that communication through satellite, cable or any other means of simultaneous communication to more than one household or place of residence, including residential rooms of a hotel or hostel, is deemed to be communication to the public.
That statutory language considerably weakens the argument that an individual hotel room is purely private for copyright purposes.
A guest may undoubtedly enjoy privacy while occupying a hotel room. But copyright law asks a different question: how was the protected work made available to that guest, and by whom?
The fact that the work is ultimately watched or heard behind the closed door of a hotel room does not necessarily convert the hotel’s commercial provision of that facility into private or domestic use.
Cable Operator and Hotel Perform Different Functions
The hotel argued that its cable operator had already obtained the necessary rights and that requiring the hotel to pay separately would effectively amount to charging twice for the same copyrighted material.
At first glance, the argument appears commercially attractive. But it overlooks the statutory position of a “subscriber” under cable television law.
The High Court referred to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1955 and examined the concepts of “cable operator,” “cable service,” “cable television network” and, crucially, “subscriber.”
Under the statutory definition considered by the Court, a subscriber is a person receiving signals of a cable television network at the place indicated to the cable operator without further transmitting them to any other person.
That final qualification became important. The hotel was the subscriber. But the cable services were ultimately being made available for use by its guests.
As the High Court explained:
“the services were meant to be utilized by persons other than the subscriber i.e. the guests staying in the rooms of the hotel.”
The Court therefore rejected the proposition that hotel guests themselves could simply be treated as the cable operator’s subscribers. This distinction lies at the heart of the judgment.
A cable operator may possess authority to transmit a programme through its network to its subscriber. But that does not necessarily authorise the subscriber to employ the same service as a commercial facility made available to third persons.
Hotel Television Is Not Merely a Domestic Facility
One of the most important aspects of the judgment is the Court’s treatment of television as part of a hotel’s commercial package.
Hotels do not ordinarily provide televisions as an act of private hospitality detached from their business. Television access forms part of the facilities available to guests in consideration of their commercial relationship with the hotel.
The fact that a hotel does not impose a separately identifiable “television charge” was not decisive.
The Court observed that cable services were being provided to paid guests for amusement. Even though the hotel might not separately charge for television services, those services constituted additional facilities that added commercial value to the hotel business.
This is an important commercial-exploitation principle. A facility does not cease to have economic value merely because its price has been bundled into the overall room tariff.
Wi-Fi, television, air-conditioning, breakfast or access to recreational facilities may be included within a single room price. Their commercial character does not depend entirely upon whether each amenity appears as an independent item on the guest’s bill.
The Court consequently viewed the provision of cable television carrying protected literary and musical works as part of the hotel’s commercial offering.
Section 30 and the Requirement of a Copyright Licence
Section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957 deals with the grant of licences by copyright owners. The High Court noted that the hotel had admittedly obtained no licence under Section 30 from IPRS.
The hotel’s defence was instead that because the cable operator had obtained the relevant licence, there was no requirement for the hotel to obtain a separate licence. It maintained that it was simply using the literary and musical works under the authorisation already granted to the cable operator.
The Court did not accept this proposition in the circumstances of the case. The cable operator’s authority to broadcast through its network and the hotel’s commercial use of the resulting service for its guests could not automatically be treated as the exercise of the same right by the same person.
This distinction is crucial: the existence of a licence somewhere in the distribution chain does not necessarily mean that every subsequent commercial use of the copyrighted work is covered by that licence.
Section 52 Makes the Hotel Distinction Even Clearer
The High Court also relied upon the architecture of Section 52 of the Copyright Act, which identifies certain acts that do not constitute copyright infringement.
Section 52(1)(k), as reproduced by the Court, deals with causing a recording to be heard in public in an enclosed room or hall meant for the common use of residents in residential premises.
Significantly, however, the statutory exception expressly excludes a “hotel or similar commercial establishment.” It also recognises certain activities of clubs or similar organisations not established or conducted for profit.
The Court considered this distinction deliberate. Ordinary residential use and commercial hotel use do not stand on the same footing for the purposes of this statutory exception.
Accordingly, the hotel could not transform the entertainment facility supplied to paying guests into an exempt residential use merely because guests viewed the programmes inside individual rooms.
Copyright in Underlying Works Does Not Disappear
Another important dimension of the judgment concerns the distinction between broadcasting rights and copyright in underlying literary and musical works.
The Trial Court had treated broadcasting rights as significant in rejecting IPRS’s interim application. The High Court, however, relied upon its earlier decision in Vodafone Idea Limited v. Indian Performing Right Society Limited, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5736.
The Court reiterated that copyright in a cinematograph film or sound recording does not extinguish the separate copyright existing in underlying literary and musical works. It further recognised the entitlement of authors of such works to royalties and consideration when sound recordings are commercially exploited, subject to the statutory framework.
This prevents the rights structure under copyright law from being collapsed into a single broadcasting permission.
The broadcaster’s right, the cable operator’s authority and the copyright interests associated with underlying musical or literary works have to be examined according to their respective statutory foundations.
Section 51 Brings the Commercial Use Into Focus
Section 51 of the Copyright Act addresses when copyright is infringed. The provision includes circumstances where a person, without a licence, performs an act that falls within an exclusive right conferred upon the copyright owner.
It also addresses permitting, for profit, a place to be used for communication of a work to the public where such communication constitutes infringement, subject to the statutory knowledge qualification.
When this is combined with the broad definition of “communication to the public,” the specific inclusion of hotel rooms under Section 2(ff) and the commercial nature of the amenity, the Court found sufficient grounds to intervene.
The High Court ultimately concluded that the respondent was infringing copyright in literary and musical works owned by members of IPRS.
Delhi High Court Precedent
Calcutta High Court also relied upon Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Nirulas Corner House (P) Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 360.
That decision had considered the treatment of hotels and similar commercial establishments under copyright law.
An especially useful aspect of that precedent is its recognition that context and proportionality matter. The Delhi High Court distinguished, for example, between televisions systematically provided in hotel rooms and incidental uses such as a common television in a motel reception or a television kept in a small establishment for the owner’s recreation.
The Calcutta High Court reproduced this reasoning, including the observation that the nature of the establishment and the integral connection between the complained-of use and the establishment’s activities can be relevant.
This nuance is important. The judgment should not be reduced to an overbroad proposition that every television visible at every commercial premises automatically creates identical copyright liability.
The setting, manner of use, statutory rights involved and commercial relationship remain relevant.
Here, however, television sets were installed in hotel rooms as amenities for paying guests. That factual setting placed the dispute squarely within the commercial exploitation analysis adopted by the Court.
Cable Subscription Fee Is Not Copyright Royalty
Perhaps the most practical takeaway from the ruling is that businesses should not automatically equate payment for access to a distribution service with permission for every subsequent commercial use of the content distributed through that service.
A cable subscription essentially concerns delivery of cable services. A copyright licence concerns legally protected rights in works.
The two payments therefore address different legal relationships. The hotel had admittedly not obtained a licence under Section 30 from IPRS. Its defence was that the licence obtained by the cable operator made a fresh licence unnecessary.
The High Court did not accept that reasoning in the circumstances before it. It observed that the cable operator’s licence permitted broadcasting through the cable television network within the scope available to the subscriber. That could not simply be extended into transmission as a commercial amenity for use by persons other than the subscriber.
The Court specifically declined to treat the hotel’s guests as “subscribers” within the statutory meaning.
The High Court Finds a Strong Prima Facie Case
Having analysed the Copyright Act and cable television framework, the Division Bench concluded that the respondent’s conduct amounted to infringement of copyright in literary and musical works owned by members of IPRS.
The Court held that the Trial Court had erred in finding that IPRS failed to establish a prima facie case.
Indeed, the High Court went further and held that there was a “strong prima facie case.” It also found the balance of convenience to favour IPRS. Since the hotel was commercially utilising the literary and musical works without payment of the requisite royalty, the Court considered that continued use would result in irreparable loss and injury to the appellant.
Accordingly, the order of the District Judge was set aside. The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed, and the High Court granted relief in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the interim injunction application. The appeal was consequently allowed without an order as to costs.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s ruling in The Indian Performing Right Society Limited v. Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited draws a clear distinction between subscribing to cable television and acquiring the copyright permissions necessary for commercial use of protected works.
By focusing on Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, the statutory treatment of hotel rooms, the definition of a subscriber under cable television law, the commercial value of in-room entertainment and the exclusions contained in Section 52, the Court rejected the proposition that payment of cable subscription charges automatically protects a hotel from copyright licensing requirements.
A hotel television may be watched privately by an individual guest, but the facility itself is supplied within a commercial relationship. Where copyrighted literary and musical works are made available through televisions installed in rooms as an amenity for paying guests, the use cannot necessarily be equated with ordinary private or domestic viewing.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams
