You switch on the TV in a hotel room, and you have entered into a licensing quagmire! Does a hotel need to pay royalties to copyright societies for the content in the television sets of their guest rooms? The recent dispute between IPRS and Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited deals with this question.
The dispute began in the District Court of Darjeeling, which refused to grant IPRS an interim injunction against Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited. In an order passed on August 4, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, set aside the District Court’s order and held that a cable operator’s license was only limited to its “subscribers”, and that guests staying in hotel rooms were not “subscribers” within the definition of the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act 1995. On that basis, IPRS had a strong prima facie case, and the balance of convenience and an effect of irreparable injury also titled in their favour, since the hotel was commercially utilizing the literary and musical works of the members of IPRS. Therefore, the Calcutta High Court restrained Hotel Appolo from communicating literary and musical works owned by members of Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) to guests through television sets in its hotel rooms without a valid license.
But on August 20th 2026, in response to Hotel Appolo’s Special Leave Petition(SLP), 28489/2026, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the Calcutta High Court, and issued a notice, putting a pause on this saga.
In this post, I unpack what the Calcutta High Court clarified and could have done better, what the Supreme Court’s stay changes, and finally some important notes for small hotel businesses!
Before we get to the different issues here is a quick recap: IPRS is a registered copyright society which issues licenses for the usage of musical works and literary works in India. Owners and authors of music, that is composers, lyricists and publishers of music are members of IPRS who assign their public performance rights as well as mechanical rights in favour of IPRS.
Check-in 1: “Communication to public”
The Calcutta High Court held that the hotel’s dissemination of cable connections to guest rooms was communication to public and constituted commercial exploitation. Looking at the Copyright Act, one can see that as per Explanation to Section 2(ff), communication of works via satellite or cable to “residential rooms of hotels” is regarded as communication to public – something which was argued by IPRS as well.
In fact on a quick look at the IPRS website, I found two licenses relevant to our understanding- one IHL-CL: Hotels, Guest Houses, a type of public performance license and the other SB: Television Satellite Broadcast license, under Television/Radio license. The IHL-CL includes licenses to be paid by the hotel for music through television in the guest rooms.
Now, the final decision of the Supreme Court could bring a new perspective, and could change the business models of copyright societies like IPRS with respect to licenses.
Check-in 2: Who is a Subscriber?
It was clarified by the High Court that the hotel “subscribed” to cable services from the cable operator. This means that by the definition of “subscriber” under the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act 1995, the end user of the subscription should have been the respondent i.e. the hotel, and not the guests staying in the rooms. In the above mentioned legislation, a “subscriber” is the one who receives the signals of cable television network at a place indicated by him or it to the cable operator, and there is no further transmission to any other person. This is relevant here because the scope of “subscriber” gives the statutory position of who could be covered under the scope of the cable operator’s license, which in turn becomes essential to map out who is responsible for paying royalties to IPRS. However, along with statutory position, it is also important to determine what the actual cable operator license covered.
In the SLP at the Supreme Court, Hotel Appolo relied on a 2006 Supreme Court judgement Hotel and Restaurant Association v Star India, which analysed “subscriber” to say that a hotel doesn’t “retransmit” signals to any other person. It merely makes services available to its own guests, which means to itself.
This is where I would like to bring notice to the Calcutta High Court’s reliance on “question of proportions” as applied in Supercassette Industries v Nirulas Corner House (P) Ltd, a 2008 Delhi High Court order, but insufficiently applied to the facts of the present case. Question of proportion is a test for the court to determine how integrally connected the copyrighted content’s use is to the nature of activity of the establishment. In the above mentioned case, a mere incidental presence like single TV in a lobby was differentiated from a use central to the paid service like TV in each room.
To apply this test factually here, I think it’s important to examine the agreement between Hotel Appolo and its cable operator (which was never looked at by the High Court). The Court’s purely statutory reading of scope of “subscriber” assumes that the cable operator license mirrors the statutory definition of “subscriber”, as well as leaves out gaps that only facts on record can fill . The actual scope of the cable operator’s license can only be determined by examining what the agreement covered.
Another striking silence was that the cable operator was not impleaded, despite the hotel raising this, which would have set more context to the facts on record. Looking at the agreement would have also made clear the “place indicated” by the hotel to receive signals of cable television network. It was very well possible that the “place indicated” includes guest rooms.
Check-in 3: Commercial exploitation v. Commercial Value
As I understand it, “commercial value” cannot mean “commercial exploitation”. “Commercial exploitation” is exploiting it for profit, but “commercial value” is just the potential to generate money. The distinction finds relation to Section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, which makes it infringement only when a place is permitted to be “used for profit” for communicating infringing work to public. On a browse of the hotel amenities, the room features cover cable/satellite, which means the guests don’t pay extra for this but it becomes a part of the payment received. Taking this back to the Hotel and Restaurant Association v. Star India judgement relied upon in the SLP, there is an interesting analogy to electricity. Just as a guest using an electrical appliance doesn’t mean the hotel is selling them electricity, a hotel taking TV signals from the cable operator doesn’t mean it’s making a profit by making that available to the guests. There may be commercial value, which is revealed in the business model and pricing structure of the hotel, but not commercial exploitation of the works in question!
Check-in 4: Guilty of infringement: Too Soon?
The High Court’s interim observation claiming the defendant “guilty of infringement” seems slightly over board in the sense of making it look final with no mention on further investigation, if any, at trial. The important materials on record (like the agreement between the cable operator and hotel) don’t seem to have been looked into, nor was there any establishment of the harm. Even in the Super Cassette case relied on, there were discussions on an investigator who in fact went to the venue to ascertain the extent of viewing the works. But none of that was done here to establish the infringement.
There is no strong basis to establish prima facie infringement in this interim stage. Relevant records being looked into to understand the facts on the record was a bare minimum the High Court ought to have done. This need to establish the factual position from record was rightly pointed out by the Bench during the SLP hearing.
Check-in 5: Entangling the License Chain
It is important to keep in mind that the Cable TV operator is not the only party in the transmission chain. Generally, it is a broadcasting organization that transmits signals to a subscriber (hotel in this case), which could sometimes happen through a cable operator or otherwise. The SB: Television Satellite Broadcast license of IPRS is for musical and literary work rights exploited by utilization in and as a part of TV programmes on TV/satellite channels. This is not license to the cable operator and in fact, the IPRS doesn’t have such a license separately to the cable operator mentioned in its website. Cable operator merely acts as a medium through which these services are provided to “subscribers”. Therefore, establishing factual position becomes necessary to see who the parties involved are, and to map out the flow of license. If IPRS is already collecting license for the musical and lyrical work being transmitted through cable TV operators either from the cable operator directly or from a broadcaster, then collecting it again from the hotel for the same works is double payment, and a direct exploitation of the hotel business.
It is also important to note that broadcasting rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act is different from the copyright in musical and literary works. (This has been discussed here). The broadcasting rights can only be held by a “broadcasting organisation” (who may be different from a cable operator who merely transmits the services). The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court distinguished this right from copyright in a 2008 judgement ESPN Star Sports v Global Broadcast News Ltd. & Ors. This is where the District Court of Darjeeling erred in saying that IPRS can’t challenge the broadcasting right, which it in fact never challenged. It was merely asserting copyright in underlying work it owns. Both rights can co-exist and the holder of the rights are different. This correction that the Calcutta High Court intended to make could have been engaged with further, and would be good to see in the further hearings at the Supreme Court.
Check out Notes
The Calcutta high Court clarified some takeaways for hotels, but the Supreme Court issued an interim stay of operation. So till the next date of hearing, hotels need not separately pay license fee to IPRS if they have already paid cable operators who in turn have a paid license. However, no matter what direction this goes, it’s always important for hotel business to carefull review the contracts they sign with cable operators to understand what they are paying for, and the scope of what is covered. It is also important to remember that the licenses IPRS collects is only for the underlying work, which is different from sound recording licenses collected by entities like Phonographic Performance Limited(PPL).
It is best to avoid situations where you don’t pay license for years and IPRS keeps quiet for all these years, and then one day strategically brings you to court to make you pay a hefty fine (tariffs for non- payment of royalties itself will tell you how much it could cost). Just like what happened now! It is possible that IPRS would now start suing multiple hotels for the same issue should the Supreme Court rule in their favour. This final ruling could also change the business models of the IPRS, and we would see new licenses flow. Now it’s to wait and watch where this takes us.
[Thanks to Praharsh sir and Ambika for comments on this piece]
