Goa, with its stunning beaches and lively festivities, has always been a popular destination for weddings and social events. However, a recent circular from the Goa government has stirred up a legal battle regarding copyright laws. This circular aimed to exempt wedding ceremonies and related festivities from the need to secure copyright permissions for musical works, citing the need to support local economic and tourism activities. But, as expected, this move has faced strong backlash from several entities which has resulted in a legal battle that raises crucial questions about how copyright laws should be interpreted and enforced.

Goa’s Circular: A Double-Edged Sword

On January 30, 2024, the Goa government issued a circular that stated:

  1. No permission or No Objection Certificate (NOC) was required for the use of sound recordings in religious ceremonies, including weddings.
  2. Demands for permissions or NOCs from copyright societies contravened Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act of 1957.
  3. Police to take action against any copyright societies or hotels attempting to collect royalties for such uses.

This circular cited a July 2023 public notice from the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), which directed copyright societies to refrain from demanding royalties for music played at wedding events, as per Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

While the intention behind the circular was to bolster tourism and economic activities, its legal implications are far from straightforward. The circular appeared to misinterpret Section 52(1)(za), which allows the performance of musical works during bona fide religious ceremonies but does not broadly permit unauthorized use in all contexts, including weddings and other social events.

Impact on Tourism and the Economy?

One of the main claims of the circular is that the insistence on copyright permissions for music adversely affects tourism and economic activities in Goa. The logic behind this seems to be that potential tourists may be hesitant to choose as a destination for Goa for their weddings or other festivities, if they must navigate a complicated process of obtaining permissions from copyright holders. However, the circular does not refer to any specific economic data that supports this claim. So, the question of how many prospective weddings or events have been deterred, resulting in the alleged adverse impact on tourism and the economy due to these perceived legal obstacles, remains a mystery.

Police Action Without Established Guidelines?

Interestingly, the circular instructed the police to take action against copyright societies demanding royalties from those involved in the unauthorized use of musical works in weddings and other social events. However, the implementation of this initiative raises several important concerns. How will the police ascertain whether a copyright infringement is taking place without clear legal guidelines? What authority do police have to intervene, and how can they effectively mediate between copyright owners and those involved in the unauthorized use of musical works in weddings and other social events? The ambiguity surrounding these issues is particularly troubling, as it leaves a wide berth for arbitrary enforcement by the police.

Legal Pushback: The Challenge from PPL & Sonotek Cassettes Company

As expected, the circular faced immediate legal challenges. Entities such as Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) and Sonotek Cassettes Company filed writ petitions against the Goa government (Phonographic Performance Limited v. State of Goa and Ors. (WP No. 253 of 2024) & Sonotek Cassettes Company v. State of Goa and Ors. (WP No. 254 of 2024)), arguing that the government, as an executive body, lacks the authority to interpret the law through a circular. Since the executive cannot interpret legal provisions, it should not be allowed to expand the scope of Section 52(1)(za) to allow unauthorized use of sound recordings during weddings and similar events, especially given that the courts themselves have not permitted such use in the past. Moreover, the petitioners argued that allowing the police to act against copyright societies and copyright owners for requesting royalties undermines their statutory rights and creates obstacles for these owners in exercising their legal rights to take action against infringers.

Following this, on August 13, 2024, the Bombay High Court ruled in favour of the petitioners, striking down the circular for being ultra vires. The Court emphasized that the circular could not alter the legal definitions and interpretations established by the courts, particularly regarding what constitutes “bona fide religious ceremonies.”

The Court’s Rationale

The Court reasoned that the circular attempted to extend the interpretation of Section 52(1)(za) beyond its intended scope, thus infringing on the statutory rights of copyright owners. The Court pointed out that the respondents have expanded the law’s interpretation by adding terms to the circular that aren’t found in Section 52(1)(za). For example, the Section mentions “marriage,” while the circular uses “wedding,” raising questions about whether these terms are interchangeable. Section 52(1)(za) appears to require that claims of non-infringement strictly relate to “bona fide religious ceremonies.” The Court also clarified that it is not interpreting Section 52(1)(za) itself but evaluating whether the circular wrongly broadens its scope while claiming to inform the public. The court also opined that the question of what is a “bona fide religious ceremony” or “other social festivities associated with marriage” will pertain to the facts and circumstances of each case and that any determination of copyright infringement should be made by the courts. Additionally, the Court noted that the directive for the police to take action against copyright societies that demand royalties or fees undermines the established enforcement mechanisms of the Copyright Act.

Conclusion: The Need for Clarity and Balance

The legal tussle over Goa’s circular is not an isolated incident; it is part of a broader and ongoing debate surrounding copyright laws in India. Previous notifications issued by different state governments have also faced similar challenges, leading to confusion and uncertainty in the wedding and event planning industries. For those planning weddings or other religious/social events, the situation remains ambiguous. While Section 52(1)(za) offers some protection, the interpretation of what constitutes a bona fide religious ceremony continues to be a contentious issue. Moreover, instances of refusal of copyright societies to grant NOCs for events they deem outside the scope of this exemption only complicates matters further.

Moving forward, there is a pressing need for clearer guidelines that can help figure out the boundaries of copyrights in celebratory contexts. Ultimately, a well-defined approach to copyright in social festivities will not only protect creators but will also support the vibrant culture of celebration that defines India. As we await further clarifications and interpretations from the judiciary, one can only hope for a resolution that balances both the artistic integrity of musical works and the joy of communal celebrations in India.

Written by Adlin Mini M