Novex Communications
a leading satellite channel distribution company filed a case[1]
against Leopold Café, one of the
oldest and most famous café of Bombay for exploitation of copyrighted work principally
owned by Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. and Shemaroo Entertainment Limited.
The
main question for determination in this case was whether Novex Communication is
entitled to grant licence on the behalf of owners of copyright in various
works.
Section
30 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that owner of copyright and his duly
authorized agent may grant any interest by licence in writing. It further
prohibits any person or association of persons from carrying on business of
granting or issuing licences in respect of any work in which copyright subsists
only exception is Copyright Societies Registered under Chapter VII of the Act.
The
court held that for a valid licence by an agent under Copyright Act factum of
agency must be disclosed so that licensee knows that it has valid licence from
the owner. The minute principle is undisclosed and licence is granted in the
agent’s name, the prohibition in Section 33 comes into play.
Honourable
High Court observed that licences issued by Novex did not indicate that it is
acting as agent for the right holders. Further the manner in which Novex is conducting
its operation does not indicate that it is acting as agent for owners of
copyright, thus is in direct contravention of Section 33(1).
The court in this case
harmoniously interpreted Section 30 & 33 and clarified that the prohibition
under Section 33 does not apply to a case where an individual acts in his
individual capacity, which includes acting through an agent but only
requirement is to disclose the fact of agency.
__ Gajendra Khichi
[1] M/s.
Leopold Café & Stores & Anr v/s Novex Communications Private Ltd.
Suit (603of 2014) Bombay HC, decided on 17/7/2014
