Neighboring Rights Protection.
1. Understanding Neighboring Rights
Neighboring rights, also called related rights, are distinct from copyright but are closely related. While copyright protects the author or creator of an original work (like a songwriter or novelist), neighboring rights protect the performers, producers, and broadcasters who contribute to bringing that work to the public.
The key beneficiaries of neighboring rights are:
Performers – actors, musicians, singers, dancers, etc., who perform a work.
Phonogram producers – entities that record or produce sound recordings.
Broadcasting organizations – radio, TV, or online streaming broadcasters that transmit programs.
Rights granted include:
Right to reproduce the performance or recording.
Right to distribute or sell recordings.
Right to communicate the performance to the public.
Moral rights in some jurisdictions (e.g., attribution, integrity of performance).
Neighboring rights are generally shorter in duration than copyright. For example, in India, performers have protection for 50 years from the date of performance or recording.
2. Legal Framework
Neighboring rights are recognized internationally under:
Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms, and Broadcasting Organizations, 1961
TRIPS Agreement (1994)
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), 1996
In India, neighboring rights are addressed under the Copyright Act, 1957, especially sections:
Section 38A–38C: Rights of performers.
Section 39: Rights of producers of sound recordings.
Section 40: Rights of broadcasting organizations.
3. Key Case Laws on Neighboring Rights
Here are five detailed case studies:
Case 1: Phonographic Performance (India) Ltd. v. Delhi Record Dealers Association (AIR 1984 Delhi 269)
Facts:
Phonographic Performance (India) Ltd. (PPL), which licenses the public performance of sound recordings, filed a case against Delhi record dealers for playing recorded music in public without paying royalties.
Issue:
Whether public performance of sound recordings without authorization infringes the neighboring rights of producers.
Decision:
The Delhi High Court held that producers of sound recordings have exclusive rights to authorize the performance of their recordings, and unlicensed public performance constitutes infringement.
Significance:
This case established the enforceability of performers' and producers’ rights in India and clarified the commercial value of neighboring rights.
Case 2: Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (AIR 1984 Delhi 365)
Facts:
Gramophone Company claimed infringement when Super Cassette Industries reproduced sound recordings without permission.
Issue:
Does reproducing sound recordings without authorization violate the rights of producers under Section 14 and Section 39 of the Copyright Act?
Decision:
The Court ruled in favor of Gramophone, emphasizing that the rights of phonogram producers are distinct from the rights of the original composer, meaning producers have independent rights to exploit the recording.
Significance:
Confirmed that neighboring rights are enforceable independently of the author’s copyright.
Case 3: Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia & Anr. (2001 (23) PTC 1 (Del))
Facts:
The Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) sued a commercial establishment for playing music without a license.
Issue:
Can a licensing society enforce neighboring rights for public performance of musical works?
Decision:
The Court held that performing rights societies are entitled to collect royalties on behalf of performers and producers, reinforcing collective management as a legitimate mechanism for protecting neighboring rights.
Significance:
Affirmed the role of societies like IPRS and PPL in safeguarding performers' and producers' rights.
Case 4: TV Today Network Ltd. v. Rajeev Ratan (Delhi High Court, 2010)
Facts:
TV Today Network sued for unauthorized rebroadcast of its television programs on another channel.
Issue:
Whether rebroadcast without permission violates neighboring rights of broadcasting organizations under Section 40.
Decision:
The Court held that broadcasting organizations have the exclusive right to rebroadcast their signals, and unauthorized rebroadcast constitutes infringement of neighboring rights.
Significance:
This case clarified broadcasters’ rights, emphasizing that rights over original content extend beyond copyright and cover signal transmission.
Case 5: EMI Records Ltd. v. Pandit (Delhi High Court, 1998)
Facts:
A musician recorded a performance for EMI Records and later allowed others to use the same recording commercially. EMI claimed infringement.
Issue:
Whether performers’ and producers’ rights overlap and who can authorize the use of sound recordings.
Decision:
The Court ruled that both the performer and the producer have rights, but contractual terms determine who can authorize use. EMI had exclusive rights as the producer.
Significance:
This case emphasized the interaction between performers’ rights and producers’ rights, and the importance of contracts in defining neighboring rights.
Case 6: Turner Broadcasting System Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. (US, 2001)
Facts:
Turner Broadcasting claimed that Comcast retransmitted its cable channels without permission.
Issue:
Does unauthorized retransmission of broadcast content violate neighboring rights of broadcasters?
Decision:
US Court held that broadcasters’ rights include exclusive control over retransmission, and Comcast had to pay damages.
Significance:
Globally illustrates how neighboring rights protect broadcasting organizations beyond local jurisdictions.
4. Key Principles Derived from Case Laws
Performers’ Rights Are Independent: A performer can prevent unauthorized use of their performance even if copyright belongs to the composer.
Producers Have Exclusive Exploitation Rights: Phonogram producers can license and enforce use of recordings.
Broadcasters’ Rights Include Rebroadcast Control: Unauthorized retransmission violates neighboring rights.
Collective Licensing Is Legal: Societies like PPL/IPRS can enforce neighboring rights on behalf of performers/producers.
Contracts Define the Scope of Rights: Performer-producer agreements are critical in defining who can authorize commercial use.
RELATED Blog
comments