Delhi High Court: Unreasonable Music Licence Fees May Count as Refusal Under Copyright Act

The Delhi High Court has ruled that demanding excessive licence fees for playing copyrighted music may amount to a refusal to grant a licence under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957. This can entitle the affected party to seek a compulsory licence.

Justice Mini Pushkarna made this observation while hearing a case filed by Al Hamd Tradenation, an event organiser, against Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL). The petitioner alleged that PPL had quoted an unreasonably high flat licence fee of ₹55,440 to play music at a small corporate event with only 50 guests. The organiser instead offered ₹16,500, but PPL refused.

The Court held that a rigid and arbitrary licensing structure — such as a flat fee regardless of audience size, event length, or number of songs — can be seen as a constructive refusal to grant a licence. This refusal, the Court noted, violates the principle that creative works made public should be available on fair terms, and can trigger a compulsory licensing mechanism to prevent monopoly abuse.

Justice Pushkarna pointed out that PPL’s pricing model failed to reflect market realities, especially in contrast to Recorded Music Performance Ltd (RMPL) — the only registered copyright society for sound recordings in India — which offers more tailored and reasonable rates.

While PPL argued that Section 31(a) doesn’t apply to sound recordings and that no outright denial was made, the Court clarified that:

• Sound recordings are included under the Copyright Act’s definition of “work.”
• A refusal under the Act includes unreasonable or arbitrary licensing terms, not just an outright denial.

The Court referenced a past ruling (Azure Hospitality v. PPL) which held that PPL could not grant public performance licences, as it is not a registered copyright society. Although that judgment is under appeal in the Supreme Court, the present directions are subject to the top court’s final order.

Ultimately, the Delhi High Court accepted the petitioner’s plea for a compulsory licence and directed both parties to submit affidavits of evidence within eight weeks. The next hearing is scheduled for May 29, 2025, to determine the terms of the licence and the compensation owed to PPL.

Delhi High Court: Unreasonable Music Licence Fees May Count as Refusal Under Copyright Act

The Delhi High Court has ruled that demanding excessive licence fees for playing copyrighted music may amount to a refusal to grant a licence under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957. This can entitle the affected party to seek a compulsory licence.

Justice Mini Pushkarna made this observation while hearing a case filed by Al Hamd Tradenation, an event organiser, against Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL). The petitioner alleged that PPL had quoted an unreasonably high flat licence fee of ₹55,440 to play music at a small corporate event with only 50 guests. The organiser instead offered ₹16,500, but PPL refused.

The Court held that a rigid and arbitrary licensing structure — such as a flat fee regardless of audience size, event length, or number of songs — can be seen as a constructive refusal to grant a licence. This refusal, the Court noted, violates the principle that creative works made public should be available on fair terms, and can trigger a compulsory licensing mechanism to prevent monopoly abuse.

Justice Pushkarna pointed out that PPL’s pricing model failed to reflect market realities, especially in contrast to Recorded Music Performance Ltd (RMPL) — the only registered copyright society for sound recordings in India — which offers more tailored and reasonable rates.

While PPL argued that Section 31(a) doesn’t apply to sound recordings and that no outright denial was made, the Court clarified that:

• Sound recordings are included under the Copyright Act’s definition of “work.”
• A refusal under the Act includes unreasonable or arbitrary licensing terms, not just an outright denial.

The Court referenced a past ruling (Azure Hospitality v. PPL) which held that PPL could not grant public performance licences, as it is not a registered copyright society. Although that judgment is under appeal in the Supreme Court, the present directions are subject to the top court’s final order.

Ultimately, the Delhi High Court accepted the petitioner’s plea for a compulsory licence and directed both parties to submit affidavits of evidence within eight weeks. The next hearing is scheduled for May 29, 2025, to determine the terms of the licence and the compensation owed to PPL.