Facts/Background

The plaintiff, T-Series, a well-known music brand, claims ownership of a large repertoire of musical works. The respondents, Hamar TV, a channel primarily broadcasting Bhojpuri content, allegedly began airing these copyrighted works in 2009 without T-Series permission. T-Series reportedly offered Hamar TV the opportunity to obtain a license for the works in question and pay for their use of the plaintiff works. However, Hamar TV continued to broadcast several songs, movies, and shows featuring the copyrighted material.

Therefore, the plaintiff has sought an injunction pending trial of the suit, against infringement of its copyright in musical works, by the respondents and filed this lawsuit citing violation of their exclusive rights under Sections 14(e)(iii), 14(d)(iii), and 14(a)(iv) of the Copyright Act. Hamar TV counters that their actions fall under the exceptions outlined in Sections 52 and 39, and therefore do not constitute copyright infringement.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent had used substantial extract from the plaintiff works?
2. Whether the respondent use of the extract of copyrighted work comes under fair dealing?

Arguments advanced by:

1. Plaintiff

1. The plaintiffs contended in the lawsuit, that they are the rightful copyright owner since they produce and control the musical works in question. This ownership extends to the sound recordings themselves (Section 14(e)(iii)), any accompanying audio-visual elements (Section 14(d)(iii)), and the exclusive right to broadcast the music publicly (Section 14(a)(i)). By airing the material without permission, Respondent have allegedly violated these copyright protections.
2. Respondent’s claim to “fair dealing” as a defence seems unlikely to hold as their actions were not bona fide. Firstly, they falsely claimed the broadcasts happened before their official launch, which raises questions about their intent. Secondly, despite being notified of the copyright infringement, they continued to air the protected material. This pattern suggests a deliberate disregard for plaintiff’s rights.
3. The provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, when read in conjunction with the TRIPS Agreement (Article 13)and Berne Convention (Article 9.2) provides no reasonable basis to hold the Respondent’s acts as fair dealing.
4. While respondent’s broadcasts might not directly compete with established avenues for enjoying the music, such as theatrical releases, DVD rentals, or sales, plaintiff argues that these unauthorized broadcasts limit their ability to exploit the works commercially through licensing. 
5. Respondent

1. The respondents argues that their broadcasts were brief, typically under 40 seconds each. They believe this short length shouldn’t be consider as indiscriminate use of copyright for commercial exploitation or ‘substantial taking’. 
2. The respondents cites Sections 52(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Copyright Act. They claim their broadcasts fall under categories like “review,” “preview,” “news,” “special programs,” or “interviews.” Additionally, they argue that by reporting “current events” under Sections 52(b) and 39(b), their actions are protected.

Rationale

Aspect	Court’s Ruling
Substantiality	Quality of material is just as important as quantity. Short excerpts can be substantial if they capture the essence of the original work. The court rejected the respondent’s argument that a mere 40-second broadcast couldn’t be considered substantial.
Fair Dealing	Fair dealing is a legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder, for purposes such as criticism, review, or reporting current events. Respondent’s use was not fair dealing. Motives were not legitimate, and the broadcast was not necessary to report current events.

The court also noted that repeated instances of infringement by the respondent could result in aggravated damages at trial. This means that the respondent could be ordered to pay more than the actual harm caused by the infringement.

Ratio

The court laid out principles of law on fair dealing as follows: 

1. It’s not possible to define fair dealing. It depends on the facts, degree, and interpretation of the court.
2. The point of taking the extract from copyrighted work. Short extract and long critique or comment will be fair but short critique or comment on long extract will be unfair. 
3. The court should follow a liberal approach in ascertaining the fact where news events or reports fall within the ambit of fair dealing. 
4. The person should be of a fair mind and honest person where he has used it for fair purpose. The motive of the user shall play an important role in assessing.

Key judgments used

The court reviewed past cases to understand how courts assess “reporting current events.” They then consolidated key principles on “fair dealing” established in previous judgments. The main takeaways are:

1. Fair dealing is subjective: It depends on the specific situation, the amount used, and the overall impression. (Hubbard V Vosper)
2. Length matters, but not everything: Short quotes following long excerpts might be unfair, while long commentary with short clips could be fair. Even small amounts used regularly can be unfair. (Fraser-Woodward Ltd. v. British Broadcasting Corporation)
3. Criticism is allowed: You can criticize a work’s style or core ideas. This doesn’t automatically disqualify “fair dealing.” (Fraser-Woodward Ltd. v. British Broadcasting Corporation)
4. Approach with a liberal mindset: Courts should be open-minded when evaluating “current events” reporting or criticism/reviews. (Pro Sieben Media AG v. Carlton UK Television Ltd.)
5. The “fair-minded person” test: Imagine a reasonable and honest person judging if the use was fair. For music, a “lay hearer” perspective applies. (Hyde Park Residence Ltd. v. Yelland)
6. Quality over quantity: The amount of copyrighted material used is important, but not the only factor. Consider how essential it is to the original work. In music, a few notes can be crucial. (Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd.)
7. Public interest can trump injunctions: Even if copyrighted work contains confidential information, courts may allow its use if it serves the public good. (Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd.)

Held

The court rejected the respondent’s argument that 40 seconds wasn’t substantial, recognizing the importance of quality alongside quantity. Applying the “lay hearer” test, they found the excerpts substantial and not used for a purpose protected by the Copyright Act exceptions. The music had no connection to the Respondent’s programs and wasn’t used for criticism, review, or covering current events.

Conclusion/ Author’s Insight

This case clarifies the boundaries of fair dealing in the Indian copyright context. It discourages unauthorized use of copyrighted material under the guise of news or review, protecting the rights of content creators. This case sets a precedent for music creators in India. It reinforces that short unauthorized clips can still infringe copyright, especially if they capture the essence of the work. This is becoming important for current times when short video platforms are on rise where user’s accountability standard are still needed to be determined. This discourages exploitation by TV channels or other platforms hoping to piggyback on popular music without proper licensing. While the case strengthens copyright protection, it doesn’t necessarily restrict legitimate uses protected under fair dealing. The court acknowledged the importance of a liberal approach in fair dealing for news reporting or reviews. This ensures a balance between protecting creator’s rights and allowing for public discourse and critique.