Indian Performing Right Societybest payday loans v/s AD Venture Communication India P. Limited dt. 9/25/2012
Citation: 2012 (52) PTC 621
HEADNOTE:
Copyright Act, 1957 Section 14(a)(iii), 17 - Obligatory to ensure that no copyright infringed - Case of the plaintiff was that defendant infringed its copyright by communicating the above referred works to the public - The plaintiff has accordingly sought an injunction restraining the defendant from organizing the events including communicating plaintiff's repertoire of musical works administered to the public without obtaining license from it or doing any other act infringing its copyright - The rights granted to the plaintiff-society expressly include a right to bring an action for infringement of PRS's copyright in respect of doing or authorizing the doing of any act restricted by the performing rights in the repertoire for which IPRS has granted licence to PRS under the agreement - Held : Defendant restrained from organizing any event involving live performance in respect of the lyrics(s), musical score(s) copyright in which are held by the plaintiff-company - It shall be obligatory for the defendant to ensure that no copyright of the plaintiff-company is infringed in any event organized by it - The defendant also directed to pay Rs 5 lakh by way of punitive damages to the plaintiff - Petition allowed. [Paras 4, 12, 16] A perusal of clause 1.1 would show that subject to exceptions and reservations set out in clauses 2 and 2A and to the provisions of clauses 8 and 8A, PRS and IPRS each granted to the other non-exclusive licence and authority to exercise and enforce the performing rights in the repertoire within the territory in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. The rights, so granted, to each other include the right to grant licence in respect of other's performing rights to persons requiring such licences. These rights include the right to collect royalties from licencees in consideration of the grants of such licences and to institute and prosecute proceedings against persons infringing the performing rights and to collect damages or compensation for the unauthorized doing of any part of the performing right. The rights granted to the plaintiff-society expressly include a right to bring an action in accordance with chapter XII and XIII of Copyright Act, 1957 for infringement of PRS's copyright in respect of doing or authorizing the doing of any act restricted by the performing rights in the repertoire for which IPRS has granted licence to PRS under the agreement. This power expressly includes the power to institute legal proceedings, sign and verify pleadings and appoint legal counsels before the Indian Courts. The exceptions and reservations mentioned in Clause 2 and 2A are not relevant for the purpose of this suit and, therefore, need not be discussed. The copyright of Dunbar Sly, Everton Bonner, Oliver Willis in the song Angel Eyes and the rights of Duane Michael Dyer in the song Can't Get Enough stood transferred to PRS and by virtue of the agreement between PRS and IPRS, the plaintiff has the legal right to grant licence for live performance, involving the aforesaid works. Therefore, the defendant infringed the copyright which the plaintiff holds and is entitled to enforce in respect of the work Angel Eyes and Can't Get Enough. As regards the rights of Onkar Prasad Nayar in the song Can't Get Enough, the same stands assigned directly to the plaintiff-society vide Assignment Deeds Ex.PW-1/10 (Colly) and the plaintiff-society, therefore, is competent to grant licence in respect of live performance of the aforesaid work and is also competent to execute legal proceedings in case of infringement of the aforesaid work by the defendant. In the case before this Court, the defendant has sold ticket of the event in which Raghav performed for Rs 500 each. Thus, they exploited the work in which copyright is held by the plaintiff, for their commercial advantage and to the detriment of the authors and composers of the works. As far as grant of damages is concerned, the live performance in an event organized on a commercial basis by selling tickets needs to be treated differently from the live performance say in a family function. A soft view, while awarding damages against a person infringing copyrights of the others to earn unlawful profits, by organizing live events, would be wholly misplaced and uncalled for. If the damages awarded against such persons are token in nature and do not pinch the infringer that would only encourage the infringer to repeat such acts in future at the cost of some other copyright holder. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the defendant is restrained from organizing any event involving live performance in respect of the lyrics(s), musical score(s) copyright in which are held by the plaintiff-company. It shall be obligatory for the defendant to ensure that no copyright of the plaintiff-company is infringed in any event organized by it. The defendant is also directed to pay Rs 5 lakh by way of punitive damages to the plaintiff. If the damages are not paid within four weeks, interest on the amount of damages would be payable at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization of the amount.
Courtesy: Patent and Trademark Cases
