Navigating International Conventions and Agreements on Broadcasting Rights

When a broadcaster airs a live cricket match or a prime-time news programme, there is far more at stake than just the content on screen. The broadcast signal itself – the technical act of transmitting that content – is a product of significant investment, infrastructure, and editorial effort. Protecting that signal from unauthorized retransmission, piracy, and reproduction is what international broadcasting rights conventions are fundamentally about. Over the past six decades, countries have come together through a series of multilateral agreements to build a legal architecture that shields broadcasting organizations from exploitation. Understanding these frameworks is essential for anyone studying copyright law, particularly in the context of India’s engagement with global intellectual property norms.

Why broadcasting rights need a separate framework 🔗

Traditional copyright law, including landmark instruments like the Berne Convention of 1886, was designed primarily to protect authors of literary and artistic works. It did not contemplate the rights of those who invest in transmitting those works to the public. A broadcaster does not always create the underlying content – but it assembles, schedules, and transmits programmes at considerable expense. When a third party intercepts that signal and retransmits it without permission, the broadcaster suffers direct economic harm.

This gap in the law gave rise to what are now called related rights (also known as neighbouring rights) – rights that exist alongside copyright but belong to intermediaries like performers, phonogram producers, and broadcasting organizations. A succession of international conventions has progressively defined and strengthened these related rights for broadcasters specifically.

The Rome Convention, 1961: the foundational text 🔗

The International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, adopted in Rome on 26 October 1961, is the cornerstone of international protection for broadcasting rights. Administered jointly by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), and UNESCO, the Convention entered into force on 18 May 1964 and currently has 97 contracting parties.

Crucially, the Rome Convention introduced a dedicated set of rights for broadcasting organizations. Under its provisions, broadcasting organizations are granted the authority to authorize or prohibit four specific categories of acts: the rebroadcasting of their broadcasts; the fixation (recording) of their broadcasts; the reproduction of such fixations; and the communication to the public of their television broadcasts in places accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee.

What the Rome Convention protects – and what it does not 🔗

A critical distinction to grasp is that the Rome Convention protects the broadcast signal, not the underlying programme content. Article 1 explicitly states that protection under the Convention does not prejudice copyright in literary and artistic works. So, if an unauthorized party rebroadcasts a cricket match, the Rome Convention protects the broadcaster’s signal – but the rights in the underlying broadcast content remain governed by ordinary copyright law.

The minimum term of protection under the Rome Convention is 20 years from the end of the year in which the broadcast took place. India, while not formally a party to the Rome Convention, grants protection under its domestic framework through the Copyright Act, 1957, as amended – and has been noted by WIPO as providing a term of protection of more than 20 but less than 50 years for broadcasting organizations.

The principle of national treatment 🔗

The Rome Convention operates on the principle of national treatment: each contracting state must give broadcasting organizations from other contracting states the same level of protection it gives to its own domestic broadcasters. This creates reciprocity across borders and prevents discriminatory treatment of foreign broadcasters.

The Geneva Convention (Phonograms Convention), 1971 🔗

Though not directly targeted at broadcasting organizations, the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms, adopted in Geneva on 29 October 1971, plays an important supporting role in the international broadcasting rights ecosystem.

The Geneva Convention was prompted largely by the rise of analogue cassette technology in the 1960s and the resulting widespread piracy of music recordings. It obligates each contracting state to protect phonogram producers – nationals of other contracting states – against unauthorized duplication and importation of their recordings for public distribution. The protection must last at least 20 years from the date of first fixation or publication.

For broadcasting organizations, the significance of the Geneva Convention lies in the fact that broadcasts frequently incorporate phonograms. When a radio station plays a commercially released song or a TV channel uses recorded music as background, the phonogram producer’s rights are engaged. The Geneva Convention ensures that the underlying sound recordings embedded in broadcasts enjoy their own layer of international protection, reinforcing the overall rights framework.

Unlike the Berne Convention, the Geneva Convention does require one formality: copies of the sound recording must carry the phonogram copyright symbol ℗, the year of publication, and the copyright owner’s name to secure protection. This keeps producers on notice of their rights and simplifies cross-border enforcement.

The Brussels Convention (Satellite Convention), 1974 🔗

By the early 1970s, satellite technology had introduced a new and pressing threat to broadcasting rights. Signals transmitted from satellites could be intercepted by parties in multiple countries simultaneously – parties who were never the intended recipients. Existing conventions offered no direct remedy for this.

The Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite, signed in Brussels on 21 May 1974 and entering into force on 25 August 1979, addressed this gap directly. Each contracting state undertakes to take adequate measures to prevent the unauthorized distribution, on or from its territory, of any programme-carrying signal transmitted by satellite that was not intended for that distributor.

What the Brussels Convention covers 🔗

The Brussels Convention focuses squarely on signal security. It is concerned not with the content of the signal but with the signal itself as a carrier of programming. The Convention recognizes that satellite distribution involves at least two distinct acts: the uplink from the originating organization to the satellite, and the downlink from the satellite to a receiving distributor. The unauthorized distribution obligation applies at the distribution stage – when an unintended party takes the signal and passes it on to others.

Importantly, the Brussels Convention expressly states that it cannot be interpreted to limit or prejudice the protection already secured to authors, performers, producers of phonograms, or broadcasting organizations under any domestic law or international agreement. It is thus complementary to, not in conflict with, the Rome Convention.

Limitations of the Brussels Convention 🔗

The Convention’s scope has been criticized for being too narrow. As noted in academic commentary, its obligation does not apply to the distribution of derived signals taken from signals that have already been distributed by an intended distributor. This means that once a signal has legitimately reached its intended distributor, downstream unauthorized copying or redistribution may not fall squarely within the Convention’s ambit – a lacuna that has become more significant with the rise of digital and internet-based retransmission.

TRIPS Agreement, 1994: bringing broadcasting into trade law 🔗

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), administered by the World Trade Organization and applicable to all WTO members including India, carried the core protections of the Rome Convention into the global trade framework. Under Article 14.3 of TRIPS, broadcasting organizations have the right to prohibit the fixation, reproduction of fixations, and rebroadcasting by wireless means of their broadcasts, as well as the communication to the public of their television broadcasts.

TRIPS also introduced the most-favoured-nation (MFN) principle for related rights – meaning any advantage granted by a WTO member to nationals of another country must be extended to all other WTO members. This goes beyond the Rome Convention’s national treatment standard and represents a significant broadening of broadcasting organizations’ protections globally.

India’s position on TRIPS and broadcasting is notable: India has historically argued at WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) that Article 14.3 of TRIPS already provides sufficient protection for broadcasting organizations, and that a new dedicated broadcasting treaty is not necessary. This position reflects a broader concern among developing countries about extending intellectual property protections beyond what is demonstrably needed.

The ongoing push for a WIPO Broadcasting Treaty 🔗

The digital revolution has rendered the 1961 Rome Convention – designed for analog, over-the-air broadcasting – increasingly inadequate. WIPO has been negotiating a new Broadcasting Organizations Treaty for over two decades through its SCCR. The main points of contention include whether to take a “rights-based” approach (granting new exclusive rights to broadcasters over their signals) or a narrower “signal-theft” approach (focused only on preventing piracy without creating new IP rights), how long the term of protection should last (proposals range from 20 to 50 years), and whether online simulcasting – where broadcasts are streamed live on the internet – should be covered.

In 2007, WIPO’s General Assembly agreed to pursue a signal-based approach to avoid the risk of giving broadcasters rights over the programme content itself, which could conflict with the rights of underlying authors and performers. As of 2024, a revised draft treaty text (SCCR/45/3) continues to be discussed, but no diplomatic conference has been formally convened. The negotiations remain unresolved, with significant disagreement between developed and developing country delegations.

How these conventions work together 🔗

It helps to see these instruments as layers of an overlapping protective framework rather than separate, self-contained regimes. The Rome Convention provides the foundational related rights for broadcasters against rebroadcasting, fixation, and reproduction. The Geneva Phonograms Convention protects the sound recordings frequently embedded in those broadcasts. The Brussels Convention addresses the specific threat of unauthorized satellite signal distribution. TRIPS integrates these protections into enforceable international trade obligations applicable to all WTO members. Together, they create a layered web of protection across different technologies and across national borders.

For India, which is a WTO member and thus bound by TRIPS, these conventions shape the framework within which domestic copyright law – particularly the Copyright Act, 1957 – operates. Indian broadcasters benefit from these international standards both when seeking protection abroad and when enforcing rights domestically against foreign infringers who target Indian signals.

Gaps and the road ahead 🔗

Despite the multilateral framework in place, significant gaps remain. None of the existing conventions adequately address unauthorized retransmission over the internet, streaming piracy, or the rights of webcasting organizations – entities that transmit content exclusively online without using traditional broadcast infrastructure. The proposed WIPO Broadcasting Treaty seeks to fill some of these gaps, but the lack of consensus means broadcasters in many countries, including India, must rely on a patchwork of domestic law and imperfect international instruments to protect their signals in the digital environment.

The balance these conventions try to strike is inherently delicate: protecting broadcasters’ investment without creating rights so broad that they curtail access to information, education, or the underlying creative works of authors and performers. That tension is at the heart of every ongoing negotiation in Geneva, and it is why the final shape of an updated broadcasting treaty remains so difficult to achieve.

What do you think? Given that India is a major broadcasting market but not a party to the Rome Convention, does the protection offered by TRIPS alone adequately safeguard Indian broadcasters against signal piracy in the digital age? And as streaming platforms increasingly blur the line between traditional broadcasting and online distribution, should an updated international treaty treat webcasting organizations on par with conventional broadcasters?

References

1. https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/
2. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/289757
3. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/treaties/ip/rome
4. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-328-en-international-convention-for-the-protection-of-performers-producers-of-phonograms-and-broadcasting-organisations-rome-convention.pdf
5. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/treaties/ip/phonograms/summary_phonograms
6. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/convention-relating-distribution-programme-carrying-signals-transmitted-satellite
7. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/tripfq_e.htm
8. https://jolt.richmond.edu/trips-technological-developments-and-the-rights-of-broadcasting-organizations-political-stalemate-or-deliberate-ignorance/
9. https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/briefs/broadcasting.html
10. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_45/sccr_45_3.pdf