Facts of the Case
A renowned classical singer graced the auditorium of a reputed university with a live performance organized to raise funds for a noble cause—charity. The event attracted hundreds of attendees, including students, professors, and music enthusiasts. The singer’s soulful renditions mesmerized the audience and elevated the cultural prestige of the university. The performance, although conducted in a public venue, was never intended for public broadcast beyond the live audience.
However, a television channel, without seeking prior permission or entering into any agreement with the singer or event organizers, telecasted the entire performance live. The channel aired it as exclusive content, complete with promotional teasers and advertisements, generating substantial viewership and revenue. This act of broadcasting the singer’s performance without consent sparked outrage and raised crucial questions about artistic rights, privacy, and legal protection of performers.
Issues of the Case
The key issue centers around the violation of the performer’s rights, especially concerning unauthorized commercial exploitation of a live artistic expression. Several questions arise:
- Did the singer hold exclusive rights to the performance?
- Was the act of broadcasting without consent a legal infringement?
- What legal remedies are available for such violations of performers’ rights?
- Does the setting of the performance (a university auditorium) reduce the singer’s control over the content?
These questions aim to identify the legal boundaries that govern live performances and the responsibilities of broadcasters when dealing with copyrighted or performance-protected content.
Principles Related to the Case
Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, particularly after the 1994 amendment, performers gained statutory recognition and protection. According to Section 38, performers enjoy what is known as “Performers’ Rights.” These rights give them the authority to control any recording or broadcast of their live performances. No one may record or broadcast such a performance without their consent.
The law clearly identifies the performer as the rightful holder of exclusive rights to their live act. This includes the right to:
- Prevent unauthorized broadcasting of the performance.
- Control fixation (recording) and reproduction of the live act.
- Claim damages or injunctions against unlawful usage.
Additionally, Section 39A provides for moral rights of the performer, ensuring that their performance is not distorted, mutilated, or modified in any way that could harm their reputation. This principle also emphasizes that even charitable or educational settings do not dilute the legal protection granted to performers.
A key case that strengthens the performer’s position is Phonographic Performance Ltd. vs. Hotel Gold Regency, where the court held that playing or broadcasting content without acquiring proper licenses or permission from rights holders amounts to infringement. Though this case focused on sound recordings, it set a precedent on how rights over performance and broadcast must be handled legally.
Judgement
Had this matter gone before a court, it is highly likely the court would rule in favor of the classical singer. The broadcaster, by airing the live performance without obtaining consent, clearly violated Section 38 of the Copyright Act. The court would recognize that the singer retained exclusive control over the live rendition, regardless of the venue or the charitable purpose of the event.
The judge would likely issue an injunction restraining the television channel from further broadcasting or distributing the recorded performance. In addition, the court could impose monetary damages for unauthorized commercial gains made from the performance. A public apology and withdrawal of all promotional content could also be ordered as part of moral rights restoration.
The verdict would emphasize the key message that performers hold intrinsic rights to their art and any commercial or non-commercial entity must respect those rights through proper legal channels. It would reaffirm the legal and moral obligation to seek consent before using artistic content for broadcast or distribution.
