MUSIC LAW NOTES

1) Cinematograph Act, 1952

The Cinematograph Act, 1952 is a key piece of legislation in India that governs the
certification, exhibition, and regulation of films. It establishes the Central Board of Film
Certification (CBFC), commonly known as the Censor Board, which is responsible for
reviewing and classifying films based on their content. This act ensures that films adhere to
cultural and moral standards before public exhibition.

Section 3 in The Cinematograph Act, 1952

3. Board of film Certification.—

(1)For the purpose of sanctioning films for public exhibition, the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Board to be called the Board of Film
Certification which shall consist of a Chairman and not less than twelve and not more than
twenty-five other members appointed by the Central Government.(2)The Chairman of the
Board shall receive such salary and allowances as may be determined by the Central
Government, and the other members shall receive such allowances or fees for attending the
meetings of the Board as may be prescribed.(3)The other terms and conditions of service of
the members of the Board shall be such as may be prescribed.

1. Film Certification and CBFC’s Role

The CBFC classifies films into four categories:

1. U (Universal) – Suitable for all age groups.

2. UA (Parental Guidance) – Children below 12 require parental guidance.
3. A (Adult) – Restricted to adult audiences (18+).
4. S (Special Category) – Restricted to specific professional or academic groups.

• CBFC has the power to refuse certification if a film is found objectionable under
reasonable restrictions of Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.
• Appeals against CBFC decisions now go to the High Court since the Film
Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) was abolished.

Example:
In Udta Punjab (2016), the CBFC ordered 89 cuts, claiming the film glorified drug abuse.
The Bombay High Court intervened and allowed the film with minimal cuts.

2. Principles of Film Certification (Section 5B & Section 5F)

Section 5B: Grounds for Film Censorship

• Based on Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which allows restrictions on free speech.
• Films cannot promote:
o Hatred or violence
o Defamation
 o Obscenity
o National security threats

Example:
Padmaavat (2018) faced protests for allegedly distorting historical facts. The CBFC
recommended a disclaimer and name change before certification.

Section 5F: Appeals Against CBFC’s Decision

• If a filmmaker disagrees with CBFC’s certification, they can appeal to the High
Court.
• Earlier, appeals were handled by the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT),
which was abolished in 2021.

Example:
Anurag Kashyap appealed in the Bombay High Court after CBFC objected to his film Black
Friday (2007) for political reasons.

3. Powers of the Central Government (Section 6A)

• Grants the Central Government authority to review CBFC decisions.

• If a film, despite CBFC certification, is deemed to:
o Harm public order
o Offend religious sentiments
o Threaten national security
the government can suspend or revoke its exhibition.

Example:

• India’s Daughter (2015), a BBC documentary on the Nirbhaya rape case, was banned
by the government citing public order concerns.
• The Kashmir Files (2022) was allowed screening, despite political controversy.

4. Penalties for Violations (Section 7 & Section 7A)

Section 7: Punishment for Unauthorized Film Exhibition

• Uncertified films cannot be exhibited publicly.

• Any violation leads to:
o Imprisonment of up to three years or
o A fine of up to ₹1 lakh, or both.

Example:
Many banned adult films are illegally circulated in India. Authorities have seized unlicensed
screenings in cinema halls.

Section 7A: Additional Penalties for Repeat Offenders

• If a person repeatedly exhibits uncertified films:

 o The fine can increase.
o Their exhibition license may be revoked.

Example:
Several pirated Bollywood movies have been illegally exhibited in small theatres, leading to
raids and shutdowns.

5. Licensing of Cinematograph Exhibitions (Section 10 & Section 11)

Section 10: Requirement for Film Exhibition License

• To screen films publicly, cinema owners must obtain a license from local authorities.
• Licenses are granted only if:
o The film has CBFC certification.
o The cinema follows safety and legal regulations.

Example:
Many roadside or small-scale theatres have been shut down for screening uncertified
content.

Section 11: Power to Suspend or Cancel Licenses

• If a licensed cinema hall violates any laws, authorities can:

o Suspend the license temporarily.
o Permanently revoke the license if violations continue.

Example:
A few single-screen theatres in rural India were shut down for showcasing pirated films.

6. Role of Local Authorities (Section 13)

• Local authorities (District Magistrate, State Governments) also have power over
film exhibition.
• They can suspend or prohibit films in their jurisdiction if the screening disrupts
public order.

Example:
Many states temporarily banned The Kerala Story (2023), citing public unrest concerns.

7. Rules for Video Films (Rules 2021)

• The 2021 rules categorize video films into:

1. Feature Film
2. Foreign Film
3. Long Film (> 72 minutes)
4. Short Film (< 72 minutes)
• Advertisements are also included under certification.
Example:
Advertisements containing misleading or harmful content (e.g., alcohol, tobacco) can be
denied certification.

8. Exhibition and Regulation of Films

The Act covers films exhibited on:

• Theatrical releases (cinemas)

• Cable TV and broadcasting (regulated under the Cable Television Networks
Regulation Act, 1995)
• Online platforms (OTT services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and YouTube)

Example:

• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) was not released in India due to CBFC
concerns over sexual violence.
• Sacred Games (Netflix) faced legal scrutiny but remained uncensored under OTT
guidelines.

Conclusion

The Cinematograph Act, 1952 ensures that films in India align with moral, cultural, and
national interests. However, strict censorship often leads to legal battles and debates over
freedom of expression.

2) Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995

The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 was enacted to regulate the operation
of cable television networks in India and to ensure that television content adheres to
broadcasting standards and national interest. The Act prevents unauthorized
transmission, regulates content, and provides legal provisions for penalties in case of
violations.

1. Objectives of the Act

• To regulate cable television networks in India.

• To prevent unlawful transmission of content that may affect national security,
public morality, or public order.
• To ensure cable operators comply with licensing rules.
• To enforce content guidelines through a Programme Code and an Advertisement
Code.

2. Key Definitions (Section 2)

Section 2(a)(iii) – Cable Operator

 • A Cable Operator is defined as any person who provides cable television services
through a network.
• Operators must register with the government and follow content regulations.

Example:
Unlicensed cable operators have been fined for illegally transmitting pirated or banned
content.

Section 2(c) "cable television network" means any system consisting of a set of closed
transmission paths and associated signal generation, control and distribution equipment,
designed to provide cable service for reception by multiple subscribers;

Section 2(g) – Programme

• A Programme includes any content broadcast through a cable TV network, such

as:
o Movies
o News
o Advertisements
o Documentaries
o Entertainment shows

Example:
A TV serial showing excessive violence or hate speech can be restricted under this section.

Section 2(h) "registering authority" means such authority as the Central Government may,
by notification in the Official Gazette, specify to perform the functions of the registering
authority under this Act 4 [within such local limits of jurisdiction as may be determined by that
Government];

3. Registration of Cable Operators (Section 3)

• All cable operators must register with the designated authority.

• Unregistered operators cannot legally transmit cable TV content.
• The registration certificate must be renewed periodically.

Example:
Several illegal cable networks operating in small towns have been shut down for operating
without registration.

4. Digital Addressable System (DAS) - Section 4A

• This section mandates the use of a Digital Addressable System (DAS) (i.e., Set-Top
Boxes) for cable transmission.
• Ensures that only authorized subscribers receive content, reducing piracy.
• Operators must provide itemized billing for channels to ensure transparency in
pricing.
Example:
The government mandated digitalization in phases to eliminate black-market distribution
of cable signals.

Example:
Before 2015, cable TV subscribers could not choose individual channels. After DAS
implementation, customers could select channels individually, making TV viewing more
affordable.

5. Regulation of Programme Content (Section 5 & Section 6)

Section 5 – Programme Code

• Every cable operator must adhere to the Programme Code, which prohibits:
o Content that offends religious sentiments.
o Content that endangers national security.
o Scenes of excessive violence or obscenity.
• The Programme Code is specified in Rule 6 of the 1994 Cable Television Network
Rules.

Example:
The broadcast of adult-rated movies on TV channels during daytime hours has been
penalized under this section.

Example:
In 2016, the Bollywood movie Great Grand Masti was banned from TV broadcast due to
explicit adult content.

Section 6 – Advertisement Code

• Advertisements must comply with the Advertising Code (Rule 7 of 1994 Rules).
• Advertisements must not contain misleading information.
• Ads promoting tobacco, alcohol, or harmful drugs are strictly prohibited.

Example:
Advertisements for surrogate alcohol brands (such as music CDs branded under alcohol
names) have been penalized.

Example:
In 2018, a gutkha brand advertisement was pulled off air as it indirectly promoted a banned
tobacco product under surrogate advertising.

6. Restrictions on Content (Section 8 & Section 9)

Section 8 – Compulsory Transmission of Certain Channels

• Cable operators must carry channels prescribed by the Central Government,

including:
o Doordarshan National (DD National)
 o Doordarshan News (DD News)
• Ensures access to government information and public welfare programs.

Example:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, cable operators were directed to ensure uninterrupted
broadcasting of health advisories.

Section 9 – Prohibition of Exclusive Rights

• No cable operator can deny access to any broadcaster without proper justification.
• Ensures fair competition in the cable TV industry.

Example:
A major cable company blocking competitor news channels can be penalized under this
section.

7. Penalties for Violations (Section 11 & Section 16)

Section 11 – Power to Prohibit Transmission

• The government can restrict or prohibit transmission of any channel if:

o It endangers national security.
o It violates content regulations.
• Operators failing to comply may face legal action.

Example:
Certain foreign news channels were banned for showing content violating Indian territorial
integrity.

Example:
In 2017, the government banned a Pakistani news channel from airing in India as it spread
misinformation about Kashmir.

Section 16 – Offenses by Companies

• If a cable network violates the law, company directors and managers are held
liable.
• Ensures corporate accountability in the television industry.

Example:
A cable company that continuously airs pirated content may face legal action under this
section.

8. 1994 Cable Television Network Rules

The Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, lay down detailed regulations for cable TV
services.

Rule 6 – Programme Code

 • The Programme Code ensures that content:
o Does not harm public decency.
o Does not promote communal disharmony.
o Adheres to broadcasting ethics.

Example:
In 2015, a crime documentary show was suspended for a month as it contained highly
disturbing crime re-enactments.

Rule 7 – Advertisement Code

• The Advertisement Code prohibits:

o False and misleading advertisements.
o Ads promoting alcohol, tobacco, and drugs.
o Indecent or obscene ads.

Example:
An advertisement misleading viewers about medical cures was banned under this rule.

Example:
A fairness cream advertisement was banned for promoting unrealistic beauty standards
under misleading advertising laws.

9. Regulation of Cable TV Operations

• Cable operators must maintain records of:

o Programmes transmitted.
o Subscription details.
o Complaint redressal mechanisms.
• Violations of these norms can lead to fines and cancellation of licenses.

Example:
Operators failing to broadcast prescribed government channels can face legal penalties.

Conclusion

The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, ensures that cable TV operators
follow strict content guidelines while protecting consumer rights. With the digitalization of
cable services, the government has introduced stricter regulations, especially regarding
advertising, program content, and consumer pricing.
 3) Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines
and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021 were notified under the Information Technology Act, 2000 to regulate OTT
platforms, digital news media, and social media intermediaries. These rules aim to ensure
transparency, accountability, and compliance with Indian laws for online platforms.

1. OTT Regulation in India

• The rules regulate online content under the IT Act, 2000.

• Part III of the rules is administered by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
(MIB).
• The rules do not use the term "OTT platforms", instead refer to them as "publishers
of online curated content".

Classification of Online Publishers

• Publishers of News and Current Affairs Content – Includes digital news portals.
• Publishers of Online Curated Content – Includes OTT platforms like Netflix,
Amazon Prime, Disney+ Hotstar.

Example:
Platforms like AltBalaji and SonyLIV fall under the publisher category, making them
subject to content moderation and grievance redressal mechanisms.

2. Governance and Grievance Redressal Mechanism

The rules establish a three-tier regulatory system to handle content-related complaints

and disputes.

Rule 8: Obligations of Significant Social Media Intermediaries

• Platforms with over 50 lakh users are categorized as significant social media
intermediaries.
• Must appoint a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), Nodal Contact Person, and a
Resident Grievance Officer.
• CCO ensures compliance with IT Rules and Indian laws.

Example:
Meta (Facebook), X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram fall under significant intermediaries
and must appoint compliance officers.

Rule 9: Self-Regulation by Online Publishers

• Applies to OTT platforms and digital news publishers.

 • Must follow the "Code of Ethics" to ensure responsible content publishing.
• Content must not violate public order, defamation, sedition, or obscenity laws.

Example:
Amazon Prime removed certain scenes from Tandav due to religious concerns.

Rule 10: Level-I: Self-Regulation by Publishers

• OTT platforms must appoint a Grievance Officer.

• The officer must:
o Address complaints within 15 days.
o Provide a complaint redressal mechanism.
• Publishers must clearly disclose their grievance redressal process.

Example:
Platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime now have dedicated grievance officers to
handle user complaints.

Rule 11: Due Diligence by Intermediaries

• All intermediaries (social media and OTT platforms) must exercise due
diligence.
• They must publish privacy policies, terms of use, and content moderation
policies.
• Failure to comply removes their legal immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act.

Example:
WhatsApp must prevent fake news and trace the originator of messages if required by
law.

Rule 12: Level-II: Self-Regulatory Mechanism

• A self-regulatory body of publishers is formed.

• Headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or High Court.
• Reviews complaints not resolved at Level-I.

Example:
A self-regulatory organization monitors whether digital news portals and OTT
platforms follow content guidelines.

Rule 13: Level-III: Oversight by Government

• The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has oversight powers.

• It can:
o Issue content compliance notices.
o Direct blocking of unlawful content.
Example:
In 2022, the government issued warnings to certain news websites for spreading
misinformation.

Rule 14: Identification of First Originator

• Significant social media platforms must trace the "first originator" of messages.
• Applies to platforms like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram.
• End-to-end encryption must not be compromised, but platforms must identify the
original sender.

Example:
WhatsApp was ordered to trace the source of messages spreading fake news during farmer
protests.

Rule 15: Compliance Reports

• Intermediaries must publish compliance reports every month.

• The report should include:
o The number of complaints received.
o Actions taken against flagged content.
o User grievances addressed.

Example:
Google and Twitter now publish transparency reports showing content takedowns.

3. Blocking of Information in Case of Emergency (Rule 16)

• The government can block online content in case of:

o National security threats.
o Public order disruptions.
• No prior hearing is required before blocking in emergencies.

Example:

• The government banned 100+ Chinese apps in 2020, citing security concerns.
• Pirated copies of The Kashmir Files were taken down from OTT sites after a legal
request.

4. Code of Ethics for Online Content

The rules introduce a content code of ethics, requiring platforms to self-regulate content
based on classification and public concerns.

Appendix: Online Curated Content Regulations

(A) General Principles

• Content must:
 o Not harm na*onal security, religious sen*ments, or public order.
o Follow Indian laws on defama*on, sedi*on, and obscenity.

Example:
A movie that insults religious sentiments may be taken down or restricted.

(B) Content Classifica5on

OTT platforms must classify content into age-appropriate categories:

• U (Universal)
• U/A 7+ (Parental Guidance for children above 7)
• U/A 13+ (Parental Guidance for children above 13)
• U/A 16+ (Parental Guidance for children above 16)
• A (Adult) (18+ only)

Mandatory Self-Identification:

• Pla/orms must label and age-rate content.

• Provide parental control mechanisms.

Example:
Netflix has introduced content labels like 16+ and 18+.
Amazon Prime Video has parental controls to restrict adult content.

(C) Content Modera5on and Grievance Redressal

• OTT pla/orms must set up redressal mechanisms for user complaints.

• Publishers must ensure factual accuracy in news content.

Example:
A news website spreading misinformation can be asked to issue a correction.

(D) Monitoring and Compliance

• MIB has the authority to oversee digital content compliance.

• PlaLorms must submit compliance reports regularly.

Example:
OTT platforms must disclose how many user complaints were addressed per month.

5. Additional Provisions

• Social media intermediaries (like WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook) must:

o Identify the first originator of a message if required by law.
o Remove content within 36 hours upon legal request.
o Appoint a grievance officer in India.
Example:
WhatsApp was ordered by the government to reveal the first originator of messages
spreading fake news on farmer protests.

6. Recent Developments and Controversies

• OTT platforms argue that the rules promote government control over content.
• Some platforms have already started moderating content proactively.
• Self-regulation is expected to prevent unnecessary censorship.

Example:
Amazon Prime removed a few scenes from the web series Tandav after political protests
over religious content.

Schedule I of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and

Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

Schedule I of the IT Rules, 2021 consists of two parts:

1. Part I – Entities Excluded from Part III of the Rules

2. Part II – Additional Obligations for Certain Intermediaries

Part I: Excluded Entities

• Excludes certain entities from being classified as "publishers of news and

current affairs content".
• The following do not fall under the direct scope of Part III of the rules:
1. News aggregators that do not produce original content but merely collect
and display news (e.g., Google News, Inshorts).
2. User-generated content platforms that allow individuals to post content
without editorial oversight.
3. E-commerce websites that only display product listings and reviews.
4. Business communication services (e.g., Slack, Microsoft Teams) used
primarily for corporate communication rather than public dissemination.

Example:
Google News does not create original news but aggregates news articles from different
sources. Hence, it is not considered a "news publisher" under Part III.

Part II: Additional Obligations for Certain Intermediaries

• Applies to significant social media intermediaries (SSMIs) (platforms with over 50

lakh users).
• Includes specific obligations beyond those applicable to smaller platforms, such as:
1. Mandatory appointment of compliance officers (Chief Compliance Officer,
Nodal Contact Person, and Grievance Officer).
2. Monthly transparency reports detailing content takedowns and grievance
redressal actions.
 3. Requirement to identify the first originator of messages in case of legal
orders (for platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram).
4. Obligation to remove flagged content within 36 hours of receiving legal
notice.

Example:
Meta (Facebook), Twitter, and YouTube must publish monthly compliance reports and
provide a mechanism for tracing the first originator of messages on request.

Key Takeaways

• Part I excludes certain aggregators and non-news platforms from direct

oversight under OTT and news media rules.
• Part II imposes stricter compliance requirements on major digital platforms to
ensure content moderation and accountability.

Conclusion

The IT Rules, 2021, bring accountability and self-regulation to the digital entertainment and
news industry. While they ensure content moderation and consumer protection, concerns
remain about excessive government intervention in online content.

4) Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with

Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007
1. Objective of the Act:

• Ensures that important sporting events of national interest are accessible to the
public via free-to-air channels.
• Mandates private broadcasters to share live broadcasting signals of such events with
Prasar Bharati (India’s public broadcaster).

2. Key Provisions:

Section 3 – Mandatory Sharing of Live Signals

• Private sports broadcasters must share live TV signals (without advertisements) with
Prasar Bharati.
• Prasar Bharati telecasts the event on Doordarshan’s free-to-air channels.
• Ensures maximum reach to citizens, especially in rural areas.
Example:

• Cricket matches featuring the Indian national team in ICC events are telecasted on
Doordarshan even if private networks (like Star Sports) hold the rights.

Section 4 – Revenue Sharing Mechanism

• Revenue generated from advertisements on Doordarshan is shared between the

private broadcaster and Prasar Bharati.
• Prasar Bharati gets 25% of the revenue, and the private broadcaster retains 75%.

Example:
During ICC Cricket World Cup telecasts, Doordarshan earns ad revenue from its
broadcast, which is then shared with the official rights-holder (e.g., Star Sports).

Section 8 – Penalties for Non-Compliance

• Broadcasters failing to share signals face penalties or revocation of licenses.

Example:
In 2017, Star India contested the Act, arguing that Doordarshan should not re-broadcast
events on its private DTH platform, as it affected their subscription revenue.

3. Importance of the Act

• Promotes equal access to major sports events.

• Prevents monopolization of sports broadcasting.
• Ensures national pride events are free-to-air.
Comparative Study of Film Censorship:
USA, UK, and India
1. United States (USA)
Legal Framework

• First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Protects freedom of speech and

expression, making government-imposed censorship unconstitutional.
• No government agency directly censors films, but regulatory mechanisms exist.

Regulatory Bodies

• Motion Picture Association (MPA): Implements a voluntary rating system through

the Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA).
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Regulates TV and radio content but
not films.
• Local authorities: Some states historically had censorship boards, but these were
largely abolished after Freedman v. Maryland (1965).

Censorship Mechanism

• The MPA ratings system classifies films into:

o G (General audiences)
o PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
o PG-13 (Parents Strongly Cautioned)
o R (Restricted, under 17 requires an adult)
o NC-17 (Adults Only)
• The MPA does not ban films but distributors may self-censor to obtain favorable
ratings for commercial viability.
• Prior restraint (pre-censorship) is unconstitutional, making the U.S. unique in its
approach.

Key Case Laws

1. Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915)

o Declared that films were not protected under the First Amendment.
o Allowed states to censor films for public morality.
2. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952)
o Overturned Mutual Film Corp. (1915).
o Recognized films as a form of free expression under the First Amendment.
o Declared "sacrilegious" bans unconstitutional.
3. Freedman v. Maryland (1965)
o Struck down pre-censorship laws requiring films to be approved before
screening.
o Established safeguards for censorship laws:
§ Censorship must be quick.
 § Burden of proof lies with the censor, not the filmmaker.
§ Decisions must be subject to judicial review.

Conclusion

• No official government censorship; instead, a voluntary rating system exists.

• Strong constitutional protections against prior restraint.
• Market-driven censorship—distributors may self-censor to fit commercial needs.

2. United Kingdom (UK)

Legal Framework

• Licensing Act 2003

• Obscene Publications Act 1959
• Video Recordings Act 1984
• Communications Act 2003 (applies to TV and streaming)

Regulatory Bodies

• British Board of Film Classification (BBFC): Responsible for classifying and

censoring films.
• Ofcom (Office of Communications): Regulates TV and online content.

BBFC Classification System

The BBFC assigns age-based classifications:

• U (Universal) – Suitable for all.

• PG (Parental Guidance) – Some scenes may be unsuitable for young children.
• 12A (Cinema) / 12 (Home) – Suitable for 12+; under 12 requires an adult.
• 15 – No one under 15 admitted.
• 18 – Adults only.
• R18 – Restricted to licensed sex shops.

BBFC Censorship Procedures

• Advisory Role: Provides recommendations to filmmakers.

• Cuts and Bans: BBFC can demand edits or refuse classification if content violates
guidelines.
• Appeal Process: Distributors can challenge BBFC decisions.

Key Censorship Issues

• Violence and sexual content: Subject to strict scrutiny.

• Hate speech and discrimination: Strictly regulated.
• Extreme content: Films like A Serbian Film (2010) were cut for graphic content.
Conclusion

• Government-backed censorship through the BBFC.

• Age-based rating system but also enforces cuts/bans.
• More restrictive than the U.S., but with legal appeal mechanisms.

3. India
Legal Framework

1. Cinematograph Act, 1952

o Governs film certification.
o Establishes the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
2. Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995
o Regulates TV broadcasts.
o Allows the government to block channels deemed inappropriate.
3. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
Code) Rules, 2021
o Covers OTT platforms (Netflix, Amazon Prime).
o Introduced a self-regulation system.

Regulatory Bodies

• Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)

o Also known as the Censor Board.
o Has power to deny certification or demand cuts.
• Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) – Regulates TV content.

CBFC Certification Categories

• U – Unrestricted public exhibition.

• UA – Parental guidance for children below 12.
• A – Adults only.
• S – Restricted to specialized audiences (doctors, scientists, etc.).

Censorship Mechanism

• Films must obtain CBFC certification before release.

• CBFC can cut, alter, or ban films.
• Political, religious, and explicit content is heavily regulated.

Key Censorship Cases

1. Udta Punjab (2016) – CBFC ordered 89 cuts; Bombay HC later reduced them.
2. Padmaavat (2018) – Faced bans due to religious protests.
3. The Kashmir Files (2022) – Received political backlash but was not censored.
Conclusion

• State-controlled censorship with broad discretionary powers.

• No strong free speech protections like the U.S..
• TV and digital media are also regulated, unlike the U.S. and UK.

Comparative Analysis of Film Censorship

Aspect United States United Kingdom India
Licensing Act, Cinematograph Act,
Legal Basis First Amendment
BBFC guidelines 1952
Censorship No official censorship, BBFC ratings and CBFC-mandated
Mechanism voluntary rating cuts censorship
BBFC (state-
MPA (private), FCC CBFC (government
Regulatory Body backed), Ofcom
(TV) authority)
(TV)
U, PG, 12A, 15, 18,
Film Rating System G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 U, UA, A, S
R18
Minimal, censorship is Moderate, BBFC Strong, CBFC enforces
Government Role
unconstitutional enforces cuts censorship
Limited to extreme Violence, hate Religious, political,
Content
obscenity, child speech, extreme sexual, and violent
Restrictions
exploitation content content
Tribunals, but
Courts (First BBFC appeals
Appeal Mechanism government influence is
Amendment) process
strong
Regulation of Self-regulation by Ofcom regulations
IT Rules, 2021 for OTT
OTT/Streaming platforms apply

Final Thoughts

• USA: Strongest free speech protections, market-driven censorship.

• UK: Moderate censorship, BBFC-enforced cuts with appeal mechanisms.
• India: Strictest censorship, government-controlled CBFC.
Protection of Sports Match Digital Content
Sports broadcasting and digital content protection involve intellectual property rights,
copyright laws, and broadcasting regulations. Various legal principles determine who owns
the rights to broadcast, distribute, and commercially exploit live sports events. The Copyright
Act, 1957 (India) and judicial precedents define these rights and their enforcement
mechanisms.

1. Ownership of Broadcast Rights in Sports

• The primary issue in sports broadcasting is whether players, teams, or broadcasters

hold the copyright over live match telecasts.
• Courts have generally ruled that broadcasters and event organizers hold exclusive
rights over live broadcasts.
• The doctrine of "Work Made for Hire" states that an employer owns the copyright
over content created by employees.

Case: Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Association

(1986)

• The MLB Players Association claimed that broadcasting games without players'
consent infringed on their performance rights.
• The court ruled that:
o Live telecasts are "works made for hire" under the U.S. Copyright Act.
o Major League Baseball clubs, as employers, hold copyright ownership.
o Players do not own rights over match broadcasts.
• Legal Principle: In the absence of express agreements, sports teams and leagues
retain broadcasting rights.

Application in India:

• Under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, sports federations, leagues, and
broadcasters can claim ownership over sports broadcasts.

2. Copyright Protection under the Copyright Act, 1957 (India)

The Copyright Act, 1957, provides protection for broadcast signals, live telecasts, and
sports footage.

Relevant Provisions:

• Section 61:
o States that in copyright infringement suits, only the copyright owner or an
exclusive licensee can file a case.
o Prevents third parties from claiming rights unless they are legally authorized.
• Section 39(4):
o Protects broadcast reproduction rights.
o Any unauthorized recording, transmission, or reproduction of a sports
event’s broadcast amounts to infringement.
 o Provides protection for 25 years from the date of the broadcast.

Case: ESPN Star Sports v. Global Broadcast News Ltd. (2008)

• Facts:
o ESS (ESPN Star Sports) held exclusive rights to broadcast the India-
Australia cricket series.
o News channels (CNN-IBN, Aaj Tak, etc.) used ESS's footage without
permission.
• Ruling:
o The Delhi High Court held that broadcasting rights differ from general
copyright.
o Fair dealing does not allow unauthorized commercial use of sports content.
o News channels exceeded fair use limits.

Legal Takeaway:

• Even short clips of match highlights can infringe copyright.

• Broadcasters must seek permission before airing match footage.

3. Distinction Between Different Types of Sports

• Courts distinguish between "purposive" and "aesthetic" sports to determine

copyright ownership.
o Purposive Sports (e.g., Cricket, Football):
§ Not pre-planned, so players have no copyright over their actions.
§ Only broadcasters hold rights over the telecast.
o Aesthetic Sports (e.g., Gymnastics, Figure Skating):
§ Planned and choreographed performances.
§ Players can claim copyright over their routines.

Case: Institute for Inner Studies & Ors. v. Charlotte Anderson & Ors. (2014)

• Facts:
o The plaintiffs claimed that "Pranic Healing" techniques were a dramatic
work under Section 2(h) of the Copyright Act.
• Ruling:
o The court rejected the claim, stating that practices like yoga and healing
techniques lack originality.

Application in Sports:

• Aesthetic performances like gymnastics may be protected under copyright, but

regular sports actions are not.

4. Intellectual Property Rights Over Real-Time Sports Data

• Real-time updates of sports scores and player statistics raise legal concerns over
data ownership.
 • Courts have ruled that facts cannot be copyrighted, but curated content can.

Case: National Basketball Association (NBA) v. Motorola, Inc. (1997)

• Issue:
o Whether real-time transmission of NBA statistics infringed on NBA’s
broadcasting rights.
• Ruling:
o "Facts themselves cannot be copyrighted".
o Motorola did not misappropriate NBA’s work.
o Only creative elements of a broadcast (e.g., commentary, video footage) are
protected.

Implications for Sports Data Protection:

• Raw sports scores are public domain.

• Analyzed/curated content (e.g., match summaries) enjoys protection.

5. Unauthorized Use of Sports Clips and Highlights

Case: England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd. v. Tixdaq Ltd. (2016)

• Issue:
o Whether short video clips (8-second cricket highlights) infringe copyright.
• Ruling:
o Even brief highlights can infringe copyright if they capture key game
moments.
o Fair dealing does not cover commercial use.

Legal Takeaway:

• Even small portions of a game broadcast require permission.

• Social media clips of sports events can be considered copyright infringement.

6. Broadcasting Rights and Government Regulations

India mandates that major sports events must be freely available to the public.

Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act,

2007

• Private broadcasters must share live signals of nationally important sports events with
Doordarshan.
• Ensures that cricket World Cup, Olympics, etc., are available on free-to-air
channels.

Example:

• Star Sports shares ICC Cricket World Cup telecasts with Doordarshan.
7. Protection of Sports Digital Content

Challenges in the Digital Era

• Live streaming and illegal broadcasts threaten broadcasters' revenue.

• Piracy websites and social media live streams broadcast games without permission.
• Platforms like YouTube, Twitch, and Telegram often host pirated sports content.

Legal Protections

• Copyright Act, 1957 (India):

o Section 63: Imposes penalties for commercial copyright infringement.
o Section 65A: Protects technological protection measures like encryption.
• IT Rules, 2021:
o Streaming platforms must follow government guidelines on digital rights.

Recent Actions:

• Courts ordered ISPs to block pirated sports streaming sites.

• Disney+ Hotstar and SonyLIV have taken legal action against illegal live streams.

8. Conclusion

• Broadcast rights over sports events belong to leagues and broadcasters, not
players.
• Unauthorized rebroadcasting of sports matches is a copyright violation.
• Even short highlights require permission.
• Live sports data (e.g., scores) is not protected, but curated sports analysis is.
• Courts have consistently ruled that sports events themselves cannot be
copyrighted, but their telecasts can.