This article is written by Indrani Dutta, Durgapur Institute of Legal Studies, BALLB, 4th Year during her internship at LeDroit India
Scope of the Article
- Meaning and nature of broadcasting and broadcast reproduction rights
- Statutory framework under the Copyright Act, 1957
- Scope of rights under Section 37
- Term of protection and calculation of the 25-year period
- Relationship between broadcast rights and underlying copyright
- Exceptions and limitations under Sections 39, 39A and 52
- Statutory licensing and the position of broadcasters under Section 31D
- Landmark Indian judicial decisions
- Recent developments involving digital streaming and rogue websites
- International framework under the Rome Convention and TRIPS
- Practical challenges and the future of broadcaster protection
Abstract
Broadcasting has moved from traditional radio and television into a multi-platform digital environment in which live events, news, sports, entertainment and other programmers can be transmitted, recorded, clipped, streamed and redistributed almost instantly. Indian copyright law addresses this technological and commercial reality through the broadcast reproduction right under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The right is a related or neighboring right: it protects the investment and signal of a broadcasting organization without replacing the separate copyright that may exist in the underlying literary, musical, artistic or audiovisual work.
This article examines the scope of the broadcaster’s right, the acts that may amount to infringement, the relationship between broadcast rights and underlying rights, statutory exceptions, licensing, remedies and the special problems created by online piracy. It also explains the statutory term of twenty-five years in India and compares it with the minimum international standard under TRIPS. Landmark and recent Indian cases demonstrate how courts have approached sports broadcasting, news reporting and unauthorized digital streaming. The article concludes by identifying areas where enforcement and technological adaptation remain important.
Keywords: Broadcasting Rights; Broadcast Reproduction Right; Copyright; Digital Streaming; Sports Broadcasting; Related Rights
1. Introduction
Broadcasting is one of the most important ways through which information and entertainment reach the public. A television channel, radio station or digital broadcasting service may invest heavily in acquiring programme rights, producing a programme, arranging cameras and technical infrastructure, transmitting signals, maintaining distribution networks and attracting audiences. The value of the final broadcast therefore does not lie only in the underlying programme or event. There is also economic and organisational value in the broadcast itself.
Copyright traditionally protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recordings. Broadcasting creates a related problem. A broadcaster may lawfully obtain rights to transmit a sporting event, film, news programme or musical performance, yet another person may capture and retransmit the broadcaster’s signal without making the original programme themselves. If protection were limited only to the underlying work, the broadcaster’s investment in creating or transmitting the particular signal could be inadequately protected.
Indian law addresses this concern through the broadcast reproduction right. Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957 grants every broadcasting organisation a special right in respect of its broadcasts. The provision is deliberately described as a special right rather than simply treating every broadcast as ordinary copyright. It is therefore useful to understand broadcaster protection as a neighbouring or related right that operates alongside, and not necessarily instead of, copyright in the content being broadcast.
The modern importance of this right is especially visible in live sports and digital streaming. A match may be watched through television, a website, a mobile application or another digital service. Unauthorised websites can capture the legitimate signal and redistribute it to viewers while the event is still taking place. The legal question is not merely who owns the match itself; it also concerns who is entitled to control the particular broadcast signal and its substantial reproduction.
2. Meaning of Broadcast and Broadcasting
Section 2(dd) of the Copyright Act defines “broadcast” as communication to the public by any means of wireless diffusion, whether in the form of signs, sounds or visual images, or by wire, and expressly includes a re-broadcast. This broad formulation is significant because it is technology-neutral. The definition is not confined to a particular television technology and can accommodate different modes of communication.
A broadcast should be distinguished from the underlying event or work. For example, a cricket match occurring in a stadium is an event. The camera feeds, commentary, graphics, production decisions and transmitted signal constitute the broadcast. Copyright may separately subsist in works embodied in the programme. The broadcaster’s Section 37 right protects the broadcast as such.
The Copyright Office’s Handbook explains that broadcaster protection covers, among other things, rebroadcasting, making the broadcast available to the public for payment, making sound or visual recordings of the broadcast, reproducing such recordings in specified circumstances, and selling or commercially renting such recordings. This makes the right particularly relevant to modern piracy, where unauthorised parties may capture a live feed and immediately retransmit it online.
The concept also covers more than conventional television. A broadcaster’s activities can involve radio, satellite distribution, cable systems and internet-based streaming. However, whether a particular online service legally qualifies as a “broadcasting organisation” and how contractual media rights interact with statutory rights can depend on the facts and the applicable regulatory framework.
3. Statutory Foundation: Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957
Section 37 is the central provision dealing with the broadcast reproduction right in India. Sub-section (1) provides that every broadcasting organisation has a special right, known as the “broadcast reproduction right”, in respect of its broadcasts.
The right is directed against specified unauthorised uses. During the subsistence of the right, a person who, without the licence of the owner, performs the acts identified in Section 37(3) in relation to the broadcast or any substantial part of it may infringe the right. These acts include rebroadcasting the broadcast; causing the broadcast to be heard or seen by the public on payment of charges; making a sound recording or visual recording of the broadcast; reproducing such a sound or visual recording in the circumstances specified by the provision; and selling, giving on commercial rental, or offering for sale or rental such recordings.
The phrase “substantial part” is important. The statute does not make every incidental use automatically unlawful. The factual question may involve the nature, amount and purpose of what has been taken. This becomes particularly relevant in news reporting, criticism, review and educational uses, where the Copyright Act contains exceptions.
The right is also independent of the copyright in the underlying subject matter. Section 39A applies several provisions relating to copyright, including remedies and enforcement provisions, with necessary adaptations to broadcast reproduction rights. At the same time, Section 39A makes clear that the separate copyright in the work or performance that has been broadcast is not extinguished by the broadcaster’s related right.
Thus, a single broadcast can involve several layers of legal interests: copyright in an underlying song or film, performer’s rights in a performance, copyright or other rights in audiovisual material, and the broadcaster’s own broadcast reproduction right.
4. Scope of the Broadcaster’s Rights
The first major component is the right against unauthorised rebroadcast. If Broadcaster A lawfully transmits a live sporting event and another service captures and retransmits the same signal without permission, the second transmission may fall directly within Section 37(3)(a). This is one of the most commercially important aspects of broadcaster protection.
Second, Section 37 protects against causing the broadcast to be heard or seen by the public on payment of charges. The provision recognises that unauthorised commercial exhibition can undermine the broadcaster’s licensing and subscription model. For example, if a venue charges customers specifically to watch a protected broadcast without the necessary authorisation, the circumstances may attract the provision.
Third, the right covers the making of sound or visual recordings of the broadcast. This is significant because recording a broadcast and later distributing it can interfere with the broadcaster’s exploitation of the broadcast.
Fourth, the provision covers certain reproductions of such recordings. The wording distinguishes between a recording made without licence and a licensed recording used for a purpose not envisaged by the licence. Therefore, the terms of contractual permission may matter substantially.
Fifth, Section 37 covers sale or commercial rental, or an offer for such sale or rental, of relevant recordings. The provision therefore protects not only the live transmission but also specified commercial exploitation of captured broadcast material.
The scope must, however, be read together with Section 39. The law does not create an absolute monopoly over every reference to or use of a broadcast. Private use, bona fide teaching or research, and fair-dealing use of excerpts in reporting current events or for bona fide review, teaching or research are addressed by the statutory exceptions. Consequently, the legal balance is between preventing unauthorised exploitation and preserving legitimate public-interest uses.
5. Term of Protection: Twenty-Five Years
The term of the Indian broadcast reproduction right is expressly provided in Section 37(2). The right subsists until twenty-five years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the broadcast is made.
The wording requires careful calculation. The period does not simply mean “twenty-five years from the exact date of broadcast.” Instead, the statute uses the beginning of the next calendar year as the starting point. Section 2(e) defines “calendar year” as the year beginning on 1 January.
Illustration: assume a qualifying broadcast is made on 15 July 2026. The next calendar year begins on 1 January 2027. The twenty-five-year statutory period is calculated from the beginning of that year. The protection therefore extends through the statutory period measured from 1 January 2027, rather than from 15 July 2026.
This method provides a uniform and administratively workable rule. Every broadcast is anchored to a calendar year rather than requiring calculation from the exact hour or date of transmission.
It is also important to understand that the twenty-five-year term applies to the broadcast reproduction right, not automatically to every right associated with the content. A film, sound recording or underlying literary or musical work may have a different and substantially longer copyright term. Similarly, contractual media rights may exist for a different period. Expiry of the broadcast reproduction right therefore does not necessarily mean that the broadcast content becomes completely free for every possible use.
The distinction can be illustrated through a sports programme. If a broadcaster’s statutory broadcast reproduction right expires, other copyright or contractual interests connected with recorded commentary, music, graphics, footage or other protected material may continue to exist. The expiry of one right should therefore not be confused with the expiry of all intellectual-property rights surrounding a programme.
6. Relationship with Underlying Copyright and Performer’s Rights
Broadcasts often contain several protected elements. A television programme may include music, photographs, scripts, performances, graphics and recorded footage. The broadcaster may have acquired permission to use those works while separately receiving protection for its own broadcast.
Section 39A is particularly important because it confirms that the broadcast reproduction right does not affect separate copyright in the work that has been broadcast. The same provision also states that a broadcast reproduction right does not subsist in a broadcast or performance if that broadcast or performance itself infringes copyright in the underlying work.
This reflects a layered structure. The broadcaster does not become the owner of every copyright embodied in the programme merely because it transmits the programme. Instead, it obtains a distinct statutory interest in its broadcast, subject to the Act.
Performer rights add another layer. Section 38 provides a special right to performers, while Section 38A sets out exclusive rights relating to recordings and communication of performances. A live concert broadcast may therefore involve the rights of the composer, lyricist, performers, producer and broadcasting organisation. Licensing must be structured accordingly.
This layered approach is commercially important because a broadcaster may hold exclusive television or digital media rights through contract while also relying on Section 37. Courts examining unauthorised streaming therefore often consider both the contractual media-rights position and the statutory broadcast reproduction right.
7. Exceptions and Limitations
A strong protection regime must coexist with public-interest uses. Section 39 of the Copyright Act expressly identifies acts that do not amount to infringement of broadcast reproduction rights or performer’s rights.
One important exception concerns making a sound or visual recording for private use, or solely for bona fide teaching or research. Another permits fair-dealing use of excerpts of a performance or broadcast for reporting current events or for bona fide review, teaching or research. Section 39 also connects the exceptions to acts that would not constitute copyright infringement under Section 52.
The current-events exception is particularly significant for news broadcasters. A news channel should not necessarily be prevented from reporting that a major sporting event occurred simply because the event was covered by another broadcaster. At the same time, reporting cannot automatically become a substitute for the original broadcast. Courts have therefore examined whether the use is genuinely reporting-oriented or whether it effectively exploits the protected footage as a competing programme.
In ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. v. Global Broadcast News Ltd., the Delhi High Court dealt with the use of sports footage in news programming and considered the statutory protection for reporting current events. The case demonstrates the need to distinguish legitimate reporting from uses that commercially appropriate the value of the protected broadcast. The court’s analysis is useful in understanding why the statutory exception should not be treated as a blanket licence to reproduce an entire event.
Section 52 also contains broader copyright exceptions, including fair dealing for criticism, review and reporting current events and current affairs. The application of these provisions to broadcast material requires attention to the exact facts, the amount used, the purpose of use and whether the use competes with the protected exploitation of the broadcast.
The balance is therefore functional rather than absolute: the broadcaster receives protection against unauthorised exploitation, while the public retains space for news reporting, criticism, education, research and other legally recognised uses.
8. Statutory Licensing and the Position of Broadcasters
Broadcasters are not only rights holders; in many circumstances they are also users of copyrighted material. Section 31D provides a statutory licensing mechanism for a broadcasting organisation that wishes to communicate published literary or musical works and sound recordings to the public by broadcast, subject to the conditions of the section.
The provision requires prior notice and payment of royalties to the owners of rights. It also requires the broadcasting organisation to maintain relevant records and accounts. The Copyright Rules prescribe details concerning notice, including information about the channel, territorial coverage, work identification, authors and performers, mode of broadcast and programme details.
This distinction is important. Section 31D concerns the broadcaster’s use of existing copyrighted works. Section 37, in contrast, protects the broadcaster’s own broadcast reproduction right. The two provisions therefore operate in different directions.
For example, a radio station broadcasting a published sound recording may need to comply with the statutory licensing framework and pay applicable royalties. Once the station creates and transmits its lawful broadcast, another party cannot simply capture and commercially redistribute that broadcast without considering the broadcaster’s Section 37 rights.
The legal architecture therefore recognises both sides of the broadcasting ecosystem: broadcasters must respect the rights of authors, composers, performers and producers, while their own investment in transmitting content receives related-right protection.
9. Landmark Judicial Developments in India
Indian courts have repeatedly encountered broadcasting disputes in the context of sports, news and media rights.
In ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. v. Global Broadcast News Ltd. & Ors., the Delhi High Court considered the use of sports broadcast footage by news channels. The decision is significant for the relationship between broadcaster rights and the freedom to report current events. It illustrates that the fair-dealing/current-events exception must be applied to the actual purpose and nature of the use rather than treated as an unrestricted permission to reproduce protected footage.
In Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Prasar Bharati, the dispute involved sports broadcasting signals and the statutory framework requiring sharing of signals of sporting events of national importance with Prasar Bharati. The litigation demonstrates that broadcaster rights are subject not only to the Copyright Act but also to sector-specific legislation and public-interest obligations. The existence of an exclusive media right does not necessarily remove statutory duties imposed by another valid law.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Star India/Prasar Bharati litigation further illustrates the interaction between exclusive commercial broadcasting arrangements and the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007. The statutory scheme requires qualifying live sports signals to be shared in the manner prescribed by law.
These cases show that broadcaster protection is not an isolated proprietary entitlement. It exists within a broader regulatory framework involving copyright, contractual media rights, public access, freedom of expression and sector-specific broadcasting legislation.
10. Recent Digital Enforcement: Rogue Streaming Websites
The internet has changed the nature and speed of broadcast infringement. A traditional infringer might record a programme and distribute physical copies. A modern infringer can capture a live feed, upload it to a website and make it available to thousands of viewers during the event itself. Domain names can also be changed rapidly, making enforcement more difficult.
Recent Delhi High Court proceedings demonstrate the continuing use of Section 37 in digital sports piracy disputes. In Star India Private Limited v. Crichd-Live.Top & Ors., decided on 3 December 2025, the plaintiff sought protection against unauthorised websites alleged to be streaming major cricket events, including the India Tour of Australia 2024–25 and the Big Bash League 2024–25. The Court recorded the plaintiff’s claim to exclusive media rights and its reliance on Section 37, and ultimately granted permanent injunctive relief against the defendants who had failed to contest the proceedings.
In another decision concerning Star India and Crichd.Pk, decided on 20 January 2026, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction concerning unauthorised dissemination of the ICC Women’s T20 World Cup 2024. The proceedings illustrate how courts may respond to online services that communicate or make protected sports content available without authorisation.
A further Delhi High Court judgment dated 15 January 2026 in Star India Private Limited v. 1XBETCOM & Ors. concerned the ICC Champions Trophy 2025 and claims concerning exclusive broadcasting and reproduction rights. These recent cases indicate the continuing importance of injunctions and domain-related enforcement in the online environment.
Digital enforcement also raises practical issues. A court order against one domain may not end the activity if the same operators shift to mirror websites. Rights holders therefore increasingly seek relief capable of addressing linked or future infringing domains, subject to procedural safeguards and judicial scrutiny. The law must simultaneously protect legitimate websites and intermediaries from overbroad restrictions while providing an effective response to organised live-stream piracy.
11. International Framework
Broadcaster protection is not unique to India. International intellectual-property law recognises broadcasting organisations as holders of related rights.
The Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, 1961, provides broadcasting organisations with rights against specified acts, including rebroadcasting, fixation, reproduction of fixations and certain forms of communication to the public. The Convention also recognises exceptions, including private use and use of short excerpts for reporting current events. Its minimum term for broadcaster protection is twenty years from the end of the year in which the broadcast took place.
The TRIPS Agreement, through Article 14(3), requires WTO Members to provide broadcasting organisations with the right to prohibit unauthorised fixation, reproduction of fixations, rebroadcasting by wireless means and certain communication to the public of television broadcasts, or to provide equivalent protection through copyright owners in the subject matter. Article 14(5) requires a minimum protection term of twenty years from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast took place.
India’s twenty-five-year term under Section 37 therefore exceeds the minimum TRIPS term. The Indian rule also differs in its calculation method: Section 37 measures the twenty-five-year period from the beginning of the calendar year following the year of the broadcast.
The international framework is important because broadcasting is inherently cross-border. Satellite signals, international sports events and online streaming can involve multiple jurisdictions. Differences in term, exceptions, remedies and intermediary liability can create enforcement difficulties. International standards provide a baseline, while domestic law determines the precise scope of protection.
12. Challenges in the Digital Era
The first challenge is speed. A live broadcast can lose a significant portion of its commercial value if an unauthorised service begins streaming it simultaneously. Conventional litigation may take time, whereas the harm occurs immediately.
The second challenge is technological replication. Screen capture, stream ripping, restreaming services and mirror domains can make it difficult to identify the original source of infringement. Automated systems can assist in detection, but false positives may also affect legitimate commentary, criticism and news reporting.
The third challenge is jurisdiction. A broadcaster may be located in one country, the content rights may originate in another, the hosting provider may operate elsewhere, and viewers may be distributed across many jurisdictions. Indian court orders can be highly effective within the Indian legal framework, but cross-border enforcement may require additional legal mechanisms.
The fourth challenge is defining legitimate public-interest use. News organisations, reviewers, commentators and educational users may need to show short extracts. An enforcement model that treats every clip as infringement could interfere with lawful reporting. Conversely, an overly broad interpretation of exceptions could allow commercial services to reproduce substantial parts of a broadcast while presenting the activity as commentary.
The fifth challenge is the changing nature of broadcasting itself. Traditional television, OTT platforms, social-media live streams and hybrid services increasingly overlap. Legal rules written around broadcasting technology must therefore be interpreted in a manner consistent with statutory language while remaining responsive to technological realities.
A balanced approach should combine clear licensing arrangements, rapid evidence preservation, targeted injunctions, responsible platform cooperation and careful protection of statutory exceptions.
13. Illustrations
Illustration 1 – Unauthorised live sports stream: A broadcaster obtains exclusive rights to transmit a cricket tournament in India. Website X captures the broadcaster’s feed and simultaneously streams it to the public without permission. The conduct may fall within Section 37(3)(a), subject to the facts and the broadcaster’s enforceable rights.
Illustration 2 – News reporting: News Channel Y reports the result of a major match and uses a short extract of the broadcast to explain a particular incident. If the use satisfies the requirements of Section 39 and applicable fair-dealing principles, it may not constitute infringement. The exact amount and purpose of the footage remain important.
Illustration 3 – Commercial public screening: A venue charges customers specifically to watch a protected broadcast without the necessary permission. Section 37(3)(b) may become relevant because the statute addresses causing the broadcast to be seen by the public on payment of charges.
Illustration 4 – Private recording: An individual records a broadcast for private use. Section 39 provides an exception for private use, subject to the statutory conditions.
Illustration 5 – Licensed recording used outside the license: A broadcaster grants permission to another party to record and use a program for a specified purpose. If the recording is later exploited for a purpose not contemplated by the license, Section 37(3)(d) may become relevant.
These illustrations show why the legal answer depends on the nature of the use, the license, the purpose, the audience and the relationship between the broadcast and the underlying copyrighted material.
14. Critical Analysis and Way Forward
The Indian framework provides a comparatively clear statutory foundation for broadcaster protection. Section 37 identifies the right, specifies prohibited acts and establishes a defined term. Sections 39 and 39A prevent the protection from becoming absolute, while Section 31D addresses circumstances in which broadcasters themselves use copyrighted material.
The principal difficulty lies less in the absence of a statutory right and more in enforcement against rapidly changing digital technologies. The law must respond to services that operate through multiple domains, applications, social-media accounts and technical methods of retransmission. Courts have increasingly used injunctions to protect live sports broadcasts, but procedural safeguards remain important because blocking orders can affect legitimate users and lawful content.
There is also a continuing need for clearer public understanding of the difference between an event and its broadcast. A person does not necessarily acquire a right to copy the broadcaster’s signal merely because the underlying event occurred in public. At the same time, the existence of a broadcast right does not automatically prevent all discussion, criticism or news reporting about the event.
Future enforcement can benefit from clearer licensing records, rapid notice mechanisms, technological watermarking, evidence-preservation procedures and targeted judicial relief. Broadcasters should also ensure that their enforcement strategies distinguish commercial piracy from genuine public-interest uses.
From a legal-policy perspective, the objective should be to maintain an equilibrium. Strong protection is necessary to preserve incentives to invest in expensive broadcasting infrastructure and media rights. Equally, legitimate reporting, criticism, education and research should remain protected. The strength of Section 37 ultimately depends on how effectively this balance is maintained.
15. Conclusion
Broadcaster’s rights occupy an important place within modern intellectual-property law. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, the broadcast reproduction right gives broadcasting organisations a special statutory interest in their broadcasts. Section 37 protects against specified forms of unauthorized rebroadcasting, public exhibition for payment, recording, reproduction and commercial dealing in recordings.
The Indian term of protection is twenty-five years, calculated from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the broadcast is made. This right is separate from, but connected with, copyright and performer rights in the material embodied in the broadcast. Its existence does not eliminate the need to respect underlying rights, nor does it create an unrestricted barrier against legitimate news reporting, criticism, teaching, research or private use.
Judicial decisions concerning sports broadcasting and recent online piracy litigation show that Section 37 remains highly relevant in the digital era. The international framework under the Rome Convention and TRIPS also confirms the broader recognition of broadcasters as related-right holders.
Ultimately, effective broadcaster protection requires more than a statutory term. It requires careful licensing, technologically informed enforcement and a principled distinction between piracy and legitimate public-interest use. As broadcasting continues to evolve from television signals to internet-based live streaming and multi-platform distribution, the legal framework must remain capable of protecting legitimate investment while preserving the exceptions and freedoms that copyright law itself recognises.
