PPL Flags Unlicensed Music Use in Kapil Sharma’s Netflix Show, Bombay High Court Seeks Replies

PPL Flags Unlicensed Music Use in Kapil Sharma’s Netflix Show, Bombay High Court Seeks Replies

Introduction

In a significant development at the intersection of copyright law and digital entertainment, copyright society Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) has approached the Bombay High Court alleging unauthorised use of copyrighted sound recordings in the popular Netflix show The Great Indian Kapil Show. The dispute raises important questions about licensing obligations for background music used in live recordings of streamed content.

Factual Background

PPL is a copyright society representing sound recording owners and holds rights in a vast repertoire of musical works. According to PPL, sound recordings owned or exclusively licensed to it have been regularly used as background music during the live recording of episodes of The Great Indian Kapil Show without obtaining the requisite licence.

The show is produced by K-9 Films Private Limited and BeingU Studios Private Limited and is hosted by comedian Kapil Sharma. PPL stated that three seasons comprising multiple episodes have already been recorded and streamed, and that shooting for Season 4 is currently underway, giving rise to a continuing and imminent threat of further infringement.

Procedural Background

PPL instituted a suit before the Bombay High Court seeking injunctive and ancillary reliefs against the production entities and individuals associated with the show, including Kapil Sharma and other directors. The matter came up before Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, who granted the defendants two weeks’ time to file their reply to the application.

Issues

1. Whether the use of sound recordings as background music during live recordings of the show amounts to copyright infringement in the absence of a licence from PPL.

2. Whether continued shooting and streaming of future seasons poses an imminent risk of further infringement.

3. Whether interim protective measures, including injunction and seizure of devices, are warranted.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff: The plaintiff argued that the unauthorised use of PPL’s copyrighted sound recordings has a direct and adverse impact on its music licensing business and commercial reputation. PPL asserted that the defendants have been exploiting its repertoire without consent or payment, despite the show’s large-scale commercial streaming on Netflix. PPL contended that such unauthorised exploitation squarely constitutes infringement and must be restrained, particularly when the producers are continuing with the shooting of subsequent seasons.

Defendant: Detailed submissions on their behalf are yet to be placed on record, pursuant to the time granted by the Court to file a reply.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court has not yet adjudicated the merits, the pleadings bring into sharp focus the legal position that copyright protection extends equally to background music, regardless of whether it forms the central or incidental element of a show. PPL’s case proceeds on the premise that any use of sound recordings during live recordings intended for streaming constitutes exploitation requiring prior authorisation.

The Court took note of PPL’s assertion that multiple seasons have already been filmed and streamed and that further episodes are currently under production. This, according to PPL, establishes a continuing cause of action and a credible apprehension of repeated infringement if no interim restraint is granted.

The plea also highlights a broader industry concern: that large-scale digital productions cannot bypass licensing requirements by characterising music use as incidental or background. If accepted, such a practice could significantly undermine the statutory rights of sound recording owners and copyright societies.

Decision

Justice Sharmila Deshmukh granted the defendants two weeks’ time to file their reply to PPL’s interim application. The Court has deferred consideration of interim relief until the defendants place their response on record. The matter is expected to be taken up thereafter, when the Court will examine whether the alleged unauthorised use of background music warrants injunctive protection at this stage.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani and Advocate Amogh Singh. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Anand Mohan, Ms. Monisha Mane and Mr. Chandrajit Das briefed by Parinam Law.