STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. V. PIYUSH AGARWAL AND ORS.

The author of this case analysis is Arushi Yadav, she is a First Year law student pursuing law from Hidayatullah National Law University.

Facts of the case:

Star India Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff initiated a suit against three parties, Piyush Agarwal (Cricbuzz), Idea Cellular (IDEA), and OnMobile Global Ltd (OnMobile)  whereas the Board of Cricket Council in India (BCCI) participated as a common defendant, by participating in support of STAR, claiming its exclusive rights over the information arising from the cricket matches controlled and organized by the BCCI. Despite being a common defendant, BCCI has supported the claim of the plaintiff over the wide range of media rights which include ‘mobile rights’ and ‘mobile activation rights’, which were specifically awarded to the plaintiff for a specified period of 72 hours under an agreement contracted on 10 August 2012, contracted between the plaintiff and BCCI.

Points of contention:

The plaintiff raised three major issues:

• Firstly, whether the BCCI has the right to avail monetary benefits from the information arising out of the cricketing events organized by it. 

• Secondly, whether the mentioned respondents can be considered as free-riders or if they are extracting some kind of “unjust commercial enrichment” on behalf of efforts of the BCCI. 

• Thirdly, whether the respondents have a right to freedom to disseminate contemporaneous information relating to these matches under the Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution.

At this point the court identified three major stakeholders in the mentioned case, firstly the BCCI which was a non-contesting defendant, solely responsible for the organization and development of the cricketing sport in the country, STAR, the plaintiff, who was assigned a bouquet of rights which included 'Mobile Rights' and 'Mobile Activation Rights', involving the dissemination of information such as live scorecards, match updates, and score alerts through Short Messaging Service (SMS) or Mobile Value Added Services (MVAS), through an agreement by BCCI and The defendants, who offer ball-to-ball and minute-by-minute updates, claim to be the sole entity in the SMS/MVAS market providing this type of information service.

In addition to quoting the above issues, the plaintiff had prayed for an order of injunction order under sections 55 and 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957, restraining the defendants from transmitting information related to scores, alerts, and updates via SMS technology to wireless and mobile phones for matches. Additionally, the acts/performances of the performers in the cricketing event are recorded in a visual recording, and/or the sound recording exists as mentioned under Section 38A. Hence any kind of reproduction or communication of such work without a license or permission amounts to infringement of copyright as per Sections 37 and 51. 

Arguments advanced by the respondents:

In response to the initial argument of the plaintiff, the respondents contended that the law does not recognize the right sought to be asserted by the plaintiff on the mere ownership of broadcasting rights of an event. It has been stated that the foundation of the case lies in the contract under which the BCCI has assigned the proprietary right of BCCI in favor of the plaintiff but if no such right existed in the first place then such foundation can be considered baseless and the suit filed by plaintiff shall be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In reference to the plaintiff’s claim with respect to the Copyright Act, of 1957, the respondents argued that since the Copyright Act is a specific statute governing this area and provides only certain rights for a "performer" and their assignees, no other exclusive rights, regardless of how they are described, can be “claimed or granted” to the performer and their assignees beyond what is expressly provided in the Act. It has been further stated that the information emanating from the match was not a result of the ‘originality or creativity’ of the plaintiff. 

With respect to the claim of the plaintiff under section 37 which provides for the broadcasting rights of the plaintiff, the respondent clearly mentions that there has been no violation of any condition mentioned under section 37(3), wherein the respondent has not reproduced the broadcast provided by the plaintiff in any manner. This also addresses the issue of ‘free-riding’ because the respondents do not copy or provide access to the broadcast in any way. The defendants further argue that they had only published such information after it had entered the public domain and that this information is purely factual, thus qualifying as news.

Additionally, the defendants have stated that they are protected under Article 19(1)(a), which grants them “the freedom to carry on trade by dissemination of information to the public” and such rights can only be restricted by reasonable limitations mentioned under Article 19(2). 

Key observations made by the court:

The court in the mentioned case observed the following points:

• The court found that it was unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff had an exclusive right over the information from the game of cricket. Instead, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration with regard to “the right to generate revenue by monetizing the information from an event”, which has been organized, developed and organized solely through the efforts and expenditure of the BCCI.

• Additionally, it was observed that the actions of the defendants is in direct competition with the plaintiff because it aims to generate revenue by the way of broadcasting information emanating from the matches along with the combined efforts of the BCCI, wherein the plaintiff has successfully bid for such rights. And the main contention of the plaintiff is not regarding the breach of its exclusive rights but specifically regarding ‘the right to raise revenue by disseminating match information’.In this situation, if the defendants had obtained a permit either through participating in the BCCI bid or acquiring a sub-license from the plaintiff, they would have had a legitimate right to share real-time match updates. The claim that the defendants' expenses on infrastructure and staff justify their actions doesn't hold, as these costs are for dissemination, not for organizing the sport or acquiring information legitimately. Thus, the defendants profiting from the plaintiff/BCCI's efforts amount to free-riding.

• In reference to the argument about the information already being in the public domain, the court stated that such details enter the public sphere at different times, thus the defendants' assertion that match information becomes public the moment it's broadcast by the plaintiff was dismissed. However, the defendants' claim that they have a fundamental right to disseminate such information, as demanded by the public, was deemed significant. The court recognized the need to balance the public's right to access this information with the event organizers' right to monetize their own events.

Judgment:

In the light of the above-stated facts, the court allowed the application submitted by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, whereas dismissed the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 and passed the following judgment:

• An order of Interim Injunction was passed, imposing a restraint on the defendant from distributing contemporaneous information arising from cricket matches in the form of ball-to-ball or minute-to-minute updates or alerts, without obtaining permission or license from the plaintiff.

• Other than the above mentioned circumstances, the defendant shall not be restricted from reporting noteworthy information emanating from cricket matches and after such information has already been reported, then stale news is no news.

• Additionally, the defendants are not required to obtain any license or permission if they do it gratuitously or if the information is reported after a time lag of fifteen minutes.

Analysis of the judgment:

In the mentioned case, the court aimed to strike a balance between the event organizer's right to monetize their event and the right of the general public to access information about it, along with the media's right to provide such information. It was acknowledged that the defendant's actions directly competed with the plaintiff's rights as the broadcaster of such information. Both parties sought to generate profits by disseminating information about cricketing events controlled and organized by the BCCI.

The court observed that there are different varieties of consumers of the information emanating from the cricketing events, few of them can afford to purchase match tickets and watch live matches in a stadium as opposed to those who choose to watch matches by sitting in the comfort of their own houses. There also exists a class of consumers who opt to do neither of the above, but still wish to keep track of all such consumers. The judges held that it is imperative to treat all of the consumers at the same level. The defendants shall be allowed to provide such services in order to maintain their right to receive match information at par with the other consumers.

The reasoning behind the fifteen-minute rule was that with a time gap of 2/3 minutes, the information would be fairly contemporaneous with the live broadcast or match updates. A delay of thirty minutes or more would render the information irrelevant, thus depriving the right of the public to access timely information. By setting a fifteen-minute delay, it ensured that the defendants weren't offering ball-to-ball or minute-to-minute score updates in real-time alongside the live broadcast. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the information, after this fifteen-minute window, the parties are no longer in direct competition to provide customers with immediate match updates.

The case also finds mention of the Hot-News Doctrine. The court, considering the proximity of the sports news aired and the impact of copyright exploitation on competition, ruled that there would be no violation on the part of the defendant because outdated news holds no relevance. In this case, the doctrine of "Hot News" was dismissed, and attention was redirected to “principles of fair use and unjust enrichment”.

Concluding Remarks:

In the light of the in-depth analysis of the case, we can conclude that the case revolves around the delicate balance between the rights of event organizers to monetize their efforts and the general public’s right. The court's judgment underscores the necessity of upholding this equilibrium, ensuring fair competition while safeguarding the interests of both parties. An important aspect emphasized is the distinction made between immediate distribution and postponed reporting. Through the implementation of a 15-minute delay for specific updates, the court successfully reduces direct rivalry while still ensuring the public can access information promptly. This subtle strategy recognizes the ever-changing landscape of information sharing in the modern era while also honoring the broadcasters' rights. Additionally, the court also rejected the application of the “Hot-News doctrine” and rather adopted the “doctrine of unjust commercial enrichment”.The court also observed that the defendants were generating revenue by providing such match updates and alerts to a large section of the audience.

In essence, the examination of this case highlights the significance of clear legal principles, fair methods, and flexibility in addressing intricate conflicts at the convergence of media rights, technology, and public information access. Looking ahead, stakeholders can utilize these lessons to shape their approaches, stimulate creativity, and establish an equitable environment that accommodates all stakeholders.

Sources:-

1. ‘Cold Water over Hot News’ (docshare.tips) <https://docshare.tips/cold-water-over-hot-news_57504406b6d87f4da28b48cd.html> accessed 20 May 2024

2. A non-profit organization registered in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act of 1975

3. A similar issue was brought up in the court in the case of “Marksman Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharti Tele-Ventures Ltd. & Ors.”, wherein the exclusive rights were transferred from the Pakistan Cricket Board to VECTRACOM Pvt. Ltd. with respect to the India Tour of Pakistan.

4. Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides for “civil remedies in case of infringement of the copyright”.

5. Section 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957 states that “In every civil suit or other proceeding regarding infringement of copyright instituted by an exclusive licensee, the owner of the copyright shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be made a defendant and where such owner is made a defendant, he shall have the right to dispute the claim of the exclusive licensee.”

6. Section 38A provides for the “exclusive rights of the performer which can be in reference to any sound recording or a visual recording of the performance or to broadcast or communicate the performance to the public except where the performance is already broadcast.”

7. Section 37 lays down “the broadcast production rights which states that every broadcasting organization has some special rights with respect to its broadcasts which shall subsist for 25 years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the broadcast is made.”

8. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. & Ors. v. R.P.G. Netcom & etc. [2007]Del 226

9. Article 19(2) states that “nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense.”

10. “Star India Pvt. Ltd. v Piyush Agarwal and Others on 13 March 2013 - Judgement -  LexTechSuite” (March 13, 2013) <https://lextechsuite.com/Star-India-Pvt-Ltd-Versus-Piyush-Agarwal-and-Others-2013-03-13>