TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Government circular expanding Copyright Act Section 52(1)(za) beyond statutory limits quashed for exceeding jurisdiction</h1> <h3>Phonographic Performance Limited, Sonotek Cassettes Company Versus State of Goa, The Office of the DGP, Department of Tourism, Department of Art and Culture, Novex Communications Private Limited</h3> Phonographic Performance Limited, Sonotek Cassettes Company Versus State of Goa, The Office of the DGP, Department of Tourism, Department of Art and ... Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the State Government to issue the Circular.2. Interpretation and application of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act.3. Impact of the Circular on the petitioner's rights and remedies under the Copyright Act.4. Legality of the Circular in light of the Copyright Act and its provisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the State Government to Issue the Circular:The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the State Government, specifically the Home Ministry of Goa, in issuing the impugned Circular. It was argued that the executive arm of the Government cannot assume legislative functions and interpret the law, as the Circular purported to do. The petitioner contended that the Circular expanded the scope of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, which was beyond the permissible legal boundaries. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Circular was issued under the executive powers of the State Government as per Article 162 of the Constitution of India, aimed at guiding officers to prevent misuse of police machinery and to inform the public about statutory provisions.2. Interpretation and Application of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act:The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, which provides exceptions to what constitutes an infringement of copyright. The petitioner argued that the Circular misinterpreted this section by suggesting that all social festivities associated with marriage, including those with commercial elements, were exempt from copyright infringement. The petitioner emphasized that the exceptions should be limited to bona fide religious ceremonies with non-commercial use. The respondents maintained that the Circular was consistent with the statutory language, which does not restrict the exception to non-commercial use. The Court noted that Section 52(1)(za) does pose interpretative challenges, particularly regarding what constitutes a 'bona fide religious ceremony' and 'other social festivities associated with marriage.'3. Impact of the Circular on the Petitioner's Rights and Remedies under the Copyright Act:The petitioner argued that the Circular impinged on its right to initiate civil and criminal proceedings for copyright infringement. By instructing police to act against the collection of royalties, the Circular allegedly hampered the petitioner's statutory rights. The respondents countered that the Circular did not take away any statutory rights but aimed to prevent abuse and ensure that actions were in accordance with the law. The Court found that the Circular, by expanding the scope of Section 52(1)(za), disturbed the balance the Copyright Act seeks to achieve between the rights of copyright owners and the public.4. Legality of the Circular in Light of the Copyright Act and Its Provisions:The Court held that the Circular was beyond the scope of Section 52(1)(za) and interfered with the enforcement mechanism provided under the Copyright Act. The Circular's language suggested an interpretative exercise that added words not present in the statutory provision, such as equating 'marriage' with 'wedding' and expanding the exception to include events not contemplated by the Act. The Court emphasized that the question of what constitutes an infringement of copyright is best left to adjudication by competent forums as per the Act's mechanism. The Circular was found to be illegal and bad in law, as it overreached the provisions of the Copyright Act and interfered with the rights of copyright societies.Conclusion:The Court quashed and set aside the impugned Circular dated 30.01.2024, holding it to be in violation of the provisions of the Copyright Act. The petitions succeeded, and no costs were awarded. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the need for competent forums to resolve disputes regarding copyright infringement.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
