Addressing Infringement: Legal Remedies for Broadcasting Organisations

Broadcasting organisations in India invest enormous resources – financial, technical, and human – to produce and transmit content to the public. When someone rebroadcasts a live match, sells unauthorised recordings of a show, or streams copyrighted content without permission, they are not just cutting corners: they are infringing a legally protected right. The Copyright Act, 1957 provides a clear framework for what counts as infringement of broadcast reproduction rights and, more importantly, what remedies a broadcasting organisation can pursue when those rights are violated.

What is the broadcast reproduction right? 🔗

Under Section 37(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957, every broadcasting organisation holds a special right called the broadcast reproduction right. This right protects the broadcast itself – the signal and its fixation – and is distinct from any copyright that may exist in the underlying content being broadcast. The protection lasts for 25 years, calculated from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the broadcast was made. So a broadcast made in 2024 would be protected until December 31, 2049.

It is also worth noting that this right is classified as a neighbouring right or related right under copyright law – meaning it sits alongside traditional copyright rather than within it. A broadcaster is not the author of a song or a film; they are the intermediary that brings content to the public, and the law recognises the investment that role requires.

What acts constitute infringement? 🔗

Section 37(3) of the Act defines infringement clearly. Any person who, without the licence of the broadcasting organisation, does any of the following in relation to a broadcast or a substantial part of it, is deemed to have infringed the broadcast reproduction right:

• Rebroadcasting the broadcast – retransmitting the signal on another platform or channel without authorisation.
• Causing the broadcast to be heard or seen by the public on payment of charges – for example, screening a pay-per-view match in a hotel lobby or a bar without the required licence.
• Making a sound recording or visual recording of the broadcast without permission.
• Reproducing an already-made recording – duplicating unauthorised recordings of the broadcast.
• Selling, hiring, or offering for sale or hire any such sound or visual recording to the public.

The Bombay High Court’s decision in Garware Plastics and Polyester Ltd. v. Telelink (AIR 1989 Bom 331) is an early example of these principles in action: the court held that broadcasting a video film over cable TV for charges, without the appropriate authorisation, squarely amounted to infringement under Section 37.

Exceptions to infringement 🔗

Not every use of a broadcast without permission amounts to infringement. Section 39A of the Copyright Act carves out specific exceptions – acts that, while they involve use of broadcast content, do not constitute infringement. These include reproducing any sound or visual recording for private use, or solely for bona fide teaching or research; reproduction for the purposes of judicial proceedings; and use that falls within fair dealing, such as short excerpts used in news reporting, review, or commentary on current events. These exceptions ensure that the law does not overreach and stifle legitimate public interest uses of broadcast content.

Civil remedies available to broadcasting organisations 🔗

When infringement does occur, broadcasting organisations are entitled to the same civil remedies available to copyright owners generally. Section 55(1) of the Copyright Act is the key provision here: it entitles the rights holder to all such remedies by way of injunction, damages, and accounts of profits as may be conferred by law. The section applies to broadcast reproduction rights by virtue of Section 37 read with Section 55.

Injunctions 🔗

An injunction is typically the first remedy a broadcasting organisation seeks. It is a court order directing the infringing party to stop the offending act. Injunctions can be temporary (interlocutory), granted urgently during the pendency of proceedings to prevent ongoing harm, or permanent, issued as part of a final decree. Courts will grant an interlocutory injunction if the applicant can show a prima facie case of infringement, the likelihood of irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favours restraint.

In the digital era, Indian courts have evolved beyond the standard injunction. In Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Piyush Agarwal, the Delhi High Court granted a dynamic injunction that allowed the broadcaster to notify internet service providers directly to block newly discovered mirror and redirect websites carrying infringing content – without having to return to court each time a new infringing domain emerged. This was a significant development for broadcasters dealing with online piracy, where rogue websites routinely change domain names to evade blocking orders.

Similarly, courts have issued John Doe orders (also called Ashok Kumar orders) – injunctions against unknown persons whose identities have not yet been established. In ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tudu Enterprise, the Delhi High Court restrained unnamed cable operators from retransmitting ICC Cricket World Cup matches without authorisation, providing broadcasters with a powerful pre-emptive tool against signal piracy when the infringers cannot be individually identified in advance.

Damages 🔗

Compensatory damages are designed to restore the broadcasting organisation to the position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred. The court assesses the actual financial loss caused – lost licensing revenue, reduced viewership, diminished commercial value of the content, and similar harm. Beyond compensatory damages, courts have the discretion to award punitive or exemplary damages where the infringement is deliberate or blatant, as the Delhi High Court demonstrated in Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava (2005), where punitive damages were added to deter flagrant violations.

One important procedural point: a plaintiff must choose between claiming damages or an account of profits – not both simultaneously. The court will not allow double recovery for the same wrong.

Account of profits 🔗

Where a broadcasting organisation opts for an account of profits instead of damages, the focus shifts from the broadcaster’s loss to the infringer’s gain. The infringing party is required to disclose and surrender the net profits earned through the unauthorised use of the broadcast. This remedy is particularly useful in cases where quantifying the broadcaster’s actual loss is difficult, but the infringer’s profits from the pirated content are more readily established. The underlying principle is that no infringer should be permitted to retain the fruits of a wrongful act.

Delivery up and seizure of infringing copies 🔗

Under Section 58 of the Copyright Act, infringing copies of a work – along with the plates, equipment, or devices used to produce those copies – are treated as the property of the rightful owner. The copyright owner is therefore entitled to institute proceedings to recover infringing copies and the material used in their production. Courts can order the delivery, destruction, or erasure of unauthorised recordings to prevent their further distribution. This remedy works in tandem with Section 55 and is especially relevant where physical or digital copies of infringing recordings are being sold or circulated.

Innocent infringement – a limited exception 🔗

Section 55 provides a limited protection for innocent infringers. If the defendant can prove that at the time of infringement they had no awareness of, and no reasonable grounds for believing in, the existence of the right, the plaintiff’s remedies are restricted to an injunction and a court-determined share of the infringer’s profits from the infringing copies – damages are not available in such cases. This provision prevents disproportionately harsh outcomes where the infringement was genuinely inadvertent.

Criminal remedies 🔗

Beyond civil law, infringement of broadcast reproduction rights also attracts criminal liability. Under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, knowingly infringing or abetting infringement carries a minimum imprisonment term of six months, extendable to three years, along with a fine ranging from ₹50,000 to ₹2,00,000. A repeat conviction under Section 63A draws a stiffer minimum sentence. Additionally, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 introduced Section 65A, which penalises circumvention of technological protection measures applied to broadcasts, and Section 65B, which makes the unauthorised removal or alteration of rights management information a criminal offence – both punishable with imprisonment of up to two years and a fine.

Police and customs authorities also have administrative powers to seize infringing material. Broadcasting organisations can approach enforcement agencies to act against pirates – particularly relevant in cases involving large-scale piracy of physical recordings or signal theft.

Jurisdiction for civil suits 🔗

A broadcasting organisation filing a civil suit for infringement must approach the correct court. The District Court having jurisdiction over the area where the plaintiff resides, carries on business, or where the infringement occurred, is the appropriate forum for civil copyright cases. In practice, the High Courts of Delhi and Bombay handle a large volume of copyright and broadcast rights litigation due to the concentration of media and entertainment industry activity in those cities.

The digital challenge and evolving remedies 🔗

Online infringement has dramatically changed the enforcement landscape for broadcasting organisations. Signal piracy, illegal streaming on rogue websites, and unauthorised redistribution through IPTV services represent modern-day equivalents of the traditional infringement acts listed under Section 37(3). The expansion of dynamic injunctions and dynamic-plus injunctions by Indian courts – which can cover not just known infringing platforms but also their future mirror sites and variants – reflects the judiciary’s attempt to keep pace with the adaptive nature of digital piracy. Broadcasting organisations must now combine legal enforcement with technological measures such as watermarking, content identification systems, and encryption to build a comprehensive protection strategy.

What do you think? Given how quickly piracy tools evolve online, do you think the current remedies under the Copyright Act – injunctions, damages, and criminal penalties – are adequate to protect broadcasting organisations, or does the law need further strengthening? And should innocent infringement be treated differently in the digital age, where basic due diligence can often reveal whether a broadcast is protected?

References

1. https://copyright.gov.in/Copyright_Act_1957/chapter_viii.html
2. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/CprAct.pdf
3. https://www.quickcompany.in/articles/rights-of-broadcasting-organization-under-the-copyright-act-1957
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1520267/
5. https://www.bgrow.com/post/star-india-pvt-ltd-v-piyush-agarwal
6. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=09412946-f230-4fc1-be52-2c794a3ed8c6
7. https://thelegalschool.in/blog/section-55-of-copyright-act
8. https://www.biswajitsarkar.com/blog/remedies-for-copyright-infringement.html
9. https://www.copyright.gov.in/documents/handbook.html
10. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=55ee0cc9-a99b-425b-954b-fe548f89d068