Delhi High Court

Icc Development (International) ... vs New Delhi Television Ltd on 18 September, 2012

Author: V. K. Jain

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Judgment reserved on: 14.09.2012
                                    Judgment pronounced on: 18.09.2012

+      CS(OS) No.2416/2012
       ICC DEVELOPMENT (INTERNATIONAL)
       LTD & ANR                                    ..... Plaintiffs
                     Through: Mr Amit Sibal, Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Mr.
                              Sankalp Dalal and Mr. Nanju Ganpathy
                              Prateik, Advocates for plaintiff no.1.
                              Mr. N. Ganapathy and Mr. Manpreet Lamba,
                              Advocate for plaintiff no.2.
                Versus

       NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD                 ..... Defendant
                    Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
                              Vijay K. Sondhi, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr.
                              Varun Pareek and Mr. Suhail Malik, Mr Udit
                              Sood,
                              Mr Saurabh Seth and Mr Himanshu Bagai,
                              Advocates
                              Mr Anup J. Bhambhani & Ms Nisha
                              Bhambhani and Ms Bhavita Modi Advs. for
                              Intervener (NBA)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

V.K. JAIN, J.

IA No.14505/2012 (under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

1. The plaintiff no.1 is a wholly owned subsidiary of ICC, international

governing body for the sport of cricket, and the functions assigned to it by ICC

include holding of cricket competitions held under the aegis of ICC and managing

sponsorships and programmes in relation to such cricket competitions. The

exploitation of all the commercial and other rights pertaining to such competitions

is one of the functions assigned to plaintiff no.1. Plaintiff no.2 is a sport

broadcasting and contents provider, which delivers various international and

regional sports contents to viewers via its sport channel services. Plaintiff No.2 is

the host broadcaster and provides broadcast services to plaintiff No.1, for the

purpose inter alia, of making and transmitting live and highlight transmissions.

Plaintiff No.2 provides broadcast services and produces the broadcast feed which

includes a number of alterations to the live feed such as scores, statistics, graphics,

analysis and several other inputs which it provides while making the broadcast.

The plaintiff no.1, has awarded, to plaintiff no.2, exclusive broadcasting rights for

ICC events which include making live transmissions, deferred transmissions and/or

delayed transmissions on designated websites with commentary in any language. In

accordance with the agreement between the plaintiffs, plaintiff no.2 has assigned

all rights in the footage of ICC CWC 2011 to plaintiff no.1, which now owns the

plaintiff no.2 has been granted exclusive rights to record, edit and use the said

footage/clippings for the purpose of making and transmitting highlights/clippings

on its channels, right to utilize the footage belonging to plaintiff No.1 for TV

shows, shown on its channels. The rights given to the plaintiff no.2 include the

right to use the footage for advertisement and promoting exclusive broadcast of

ICC events including ICC CWC 2011.

Thus, in nutshell, according to the plaintiffs all the rights, including

plaintiff no.2 with right to sub-license such rights as are provided in the agreement

between them. The plaintiff no.2 has exclusive rights to make live, deferred or

delayed transmissions on its designated channels, record, edit or utilize footage in

order to transmit highlights, mobile broadcast rights along with various broadcast

sponsorship rights, commercial airtime rights and other rights to associate ICICI

events for the period from September, 2007 till 2015 and include an exclusive

broadcasting reproduction rights of ICC events. Plaintiff no.1 has granted

sponsorship/ partnership rights to various companies such as LG Electronics Corp.,

Pepsi Cola International and they have paid large sums of monies to be designated

official sponsors of ICC CWC 2011. Some of the rights granted to the sponsors/

partners have been enumerated in para 11 of the plaint and include rights to

advertise in the official programmes of each ICC CWC 2011 cricket match, have

its logo identification as a global partner/official sponsor printed on official

material, non exclusive right to use thirty minutes of video of events held prior to

commencement of the agreement with plaintiff No.1, non-exclusive right to use

upto two minutes of footage from each match, after 72 hours of completion of the

match, for promotional/advertising purposes, have sponsorship of ICC CWC 2011

promoted on the website of plaintiff No.1.

2. It is alleged that ICC CWC 2011 which started on 12.2.2011 and ended on

2.4.2011, was witnessed by as many as 2.2 billion viewers. The plaintiff no.1

claims to have made substantial investment in terms of time, skill, labour and

money for organizing such event. The television production of the events alone

costs more than US$ 10 million to plaintiff no.1. The plaintiff no.2 also incurs

considerable expenses in equipments, staff and production facilities to broadcast

such events. Since the stadium where the matches are played have limited capacity,

television is the primary source of disseminating all such events to the general

public and plaintiff no.1 is able to recover its investments largely by selling

exclusive rights to parties such as plaintiff no.2 and official sponsors of the events.

3. The defendant company is running a number of TV channels such as NDTV

24x7 (English) and NDTV India (Hindi). It is alleged in the plaint that after ICC

CWC 2011 commenced, the defendant violated the News Access Guidelines

framed by plaintiff no.1 on multiple occasions and infringed the copyright and

other rights of the plaintiff no.1. The guidelines framed by the plaintiff no.1 permit

use of the fresh footage for five and a half minutes per news day, two minutes of

fresh footage per hour of broadcasting and two repeat exhibition per broadcast

hour. The defendant, however, broadcasted more than six minutes of archive

footage per news day two of archive footage. The defendant, however, far

exceeded the limits set out in the said guidelines with respect to the use of fresh

and archive footage. It is also alleged that the defendants did not even extend the

courtesy bug acknowledging the plaintiff no.1 nor did it use the logo of plaintiff

no.2 or logo of ICC CWC 2011. The defendant is alleged to have positioned logos,

trademarks, word marks and image of ICC CWC 2011 trophy adjacent to

intellectual properties of third parties which were not associated with the said

events and also used the said logos, trademarks, word marks and images in fantasy

and prediction games sponsored by third parties not associated with the events. ICC

CWC 2011 logos, trademarks, word marks, trophy are also alleged to have been

commercially associated by the defendant with third parties during broadcast of

special shows relating to the said events.

4. In its reply, the defendant has not disputed the copyright and broadcast right

claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendant has also not denied use of the footage of

ICC CWC 2011. It has also not been disputed that the defendant has been carrying

advertisements on the tickers at the time footage is shown. The defendant has also

not disputed telecast of special/sponsored programmes during ICC CWC 2011.

The plea taken by the defendant is that the injunction sought by the plaintiffs would

infringe on its constitutional and statutory rights and would also be against public

policy and interests of the general public. It is also alleged that usage of footage in

the news amounts to fair dealing with the same and is covered by the exceptions

provided under Section 39(b) and 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act 1957. The

defendant has also contended that the plaintiffs had no cause of action to file the

present suit, injunction sought by them being against an anticipated act. It is also

contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to injunction after more than 16

months of ICC CWC 2011 taking place. The defendant has denied commercially

associating third parties with the event organized by the plaintiffs. As regards

advertisements during use of the footage, it is stated that the advertisements remain

on the lower ends and corner of the screen and are so placed that the paid sponsors

are not associated with the sporting event. According to the defendant, the

advertisements remain there on the screen irrespective of whether the news pertains

to ICC World Cup or not and are not placed there only during telecast of the

footage. It is also claimed that the defendant, though primarily guided by

principles of fair dealing also derived guidance from the guidelines issued by NBA.

According to the defendant, the advertisements on the scroller remain there even

after telecast of the footage of the plaintiffs is over and the main bulletin is

restored.

5. Primarily, the following issues arise for prima facie consideration of the

Court in this case:-

(i) What should be the maximum length of the fresh and archival

footage which can be said to be consistent with the concept of

fair dealing with the work of the plaintiffs;

(ii) whether advertisements can be carried by the defendant

immediately before, during or immediately after special

programme which it telecasts on the news channels;

(iii) whether advertisements can be shown on the ticker(s) below the

footage at the time live/archival footage is being shown during

such special programmes;

(iv) whether the defendant can give such title(s) to its special

programmes as would indicate an association of the

sponsor/advertiser of such programme with the event subject

matter of discussion in such programmes.

(v) whether advertisements can be shown on the ticker(s) below the

footage at the time live/archival footage is being shown during

news bulletins and if so, subject to what conditions and

limitations.

6. The term „broadcast‟ has been defined in Section 2(dd) of the Copyright Act,

1957 to mean communication to the public by any means of wireless diffusion,

whether in any one or more of the forms of signs, sounds or visual images; or by

wire, and includes a re-broadcast. Section 37 of the Act provides that every

broadcasting organization shall have broadcast reproduction rights in respect of its

broadcast. Thus, broadcasting rights are independent of the copyrights granted

under the Act and this legal preposition was upheld by a Division Bench of this

Court in ESPN Star Sports v Global Broadcast News Ltd. & Ors. [2008(38) 477

(Del.) (DB)], where the Division Bench, inter alia, observed and held as under:

"17....The term "broadcast" has been separately defined under Section 2(dd), as a communication to the public. It is thus evident that there could be both copyright and broadcasting reproduction right which could separately co-exist. As an example the copyright of cinematography film being broadcast on a satellite channel vests with the producer of the film whereas the broadcast reproduction right for the same vests with the broadcaster channel itself. The recording of such movie and unauthorized re-telecast by cable operators could thus result in violation of two separate rights. The first being the copyright which vests with the producer and second the broadcast reproduction right which vests with the broadcaster channel. These rights may vest with two different persons or even with the single person which is evident from the Act."

Section 39 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, provides that no broadcast

reproduction right shall be deemed to be infringed by the use consistent with fair

dealing, of excerpts of a performance or of a broadcast in the reporting of current

events or for bona fide review, teaching or research. Section 52 of the Act, to the

extent it is relevant, provides that a fair dealing with any work not being a

computer programme, for the purpose of reporting of current events and current

affairs, shall not constitute an infringement. Therefore, the Legislature while

recognizing copyright and broadcast rights as independent rights has permitted use

of the work of another person for limited purposes, provided that such use does not

travel beyond the fair dealing with the work. The Act does not define as to what

constitutes „fair dealing‟ with a work in which the copyright and/or broadcast

reproduction right is held by another person. However, the following observations

made by the Division Bench of this Court in ESPN (supra), throw some light on

what may not amount to fair dealing with such a work:

"23. Therefore, a lot of effort entailing considerable expenditure is undertaken by the broadcaster to bring the live feed of the match on television and the benefits of bringing the live feed of the match ought not to be reduced by the repeated telecast of the important portions of the match by a channel in a special RFA(OS) 25/2008 Page No.45 of 68programme which may adversely affect the commercial viability of the appellant's telecast. It is the broadcasting reproduction right of the broadcaster which is an exclusive right, including an independent copyright and any reproduction of any such work in any form and for excessive durations may amount to infringement of its rights. Excessive usage of the telecast of the appellant in the form of news, in a given case may amount to the infringement of the right of the broadcaster, which has the exclusive monopoly to broadcast the live feed of the match or

any reproduction of it or of any programme before the start of the match or after the match is over. It is also noteworthy that if such a right of the broadcaster is not protected then the whole concept of an exclusive broadcaster producing a telecast or live feed of the event would become futile, diluted and uneconomical and thus, the rights of the broadcaster under such circumstances need to be protected.

xxxx

Thus, the prolonged RFA(OS) 25/2008 Page No.46 of 68and repeated footage of the broadcast of the cricket match in the news channels, beyond what is permissible by the concept of fair dealing, may unfairly affect the appellant's exploitation of its rights. The appellant's goodwill, its relationship with the advertiser and its commercial prospects could be substantially damaged by this competition. Hence, the broadcasting reproduction rights of the appellant needs to be protected.

25. ....Thus, any unauthorized and prolonged telecast/replay of the cricket match or portion thereof falling beyond the concept of fair dealing without the permission of the appellant, amounts to infringement of the broadcasting reproduction right, the monopoly of which belongs to the appellant as above. However, we make it clear that this position of law does not apply to news coverage falling within the ambit of 'fair dealing' by the respondent T.V. Channel."

In Media Works NZ Limited and another v Sky Television Network

Limited [CIV 2007-404-5674], the defendant before the Court Sky Television was

telecasting the footage of „Rugby World Cup,2007‟ for which the broadcasting

rights were held by TV-3 Channel. The issue before the Court was whether Sky‟s

use of that footage falls within „fair dealing right‟ created under Section 42 of the

New Zealand act or not. The excerpts played by Sky TV were very short in

duration usually not more than a minute. As per the agreement of TV3 with Rugby

World Cup Limited, the copyright owner in the work, no advertisement could be

carried out during live broadcast of the matches. TV3, therefore, had developed

magazine style programmes, outside the live broadcast, in order to attract

advertisers and earn revenue. The Court in that case, inter alia, held as under:

"71. In British Broadcasting, the Judge had regard to guidelines a representative of BSB had provided to the producer of the programme. Those guidelines noted that fair dealing meant that the extract must be brief, and should be considered in the context of the length of the recording. For World Cup broadcasts, in relation to any one match, an extract of not more than 60 seconds duration was thought to be acceptable, repeated no more than 4 times in one day. The extracts had to be used within 24 hours of the event for it to amount to a "current event", and was only to be used in a programme that reported current events, e.g. not in a review of a player's career to date.

The Judge referred to these as "fair and proper" guidelines, noting that a fair dealing defence may still be available even if one or other of the guidelines had not been strictly observed. However, the preparation and observance of the guidelines were considered to provide a solid foundation for a fair dealing defence for the purposes of reporting current events.......... ............

[76] The rate of repetition of TV3's footage by Sky is in itself an unfair dealing with the material. It will erode to some extent at least, TV3's position as the exclusive broadcaster of the World Cup. The level of access to footage shown by Sky is such that for some viewers it will be enough to satiate, rather than whet their appetite for more coverage................... [114] Having weighed these matters I consider that the balance of convenience favors the grant of an injunction. At this point I take a step back and consider where the overall justice lies. It lies with TV3. At considerable cost it bought the exclusive rights to broadcast Rugby World Cup matches. It has structured its business planning, investment and programming around that acquisition. TV3 has a strong case that Sky's use of its footage is beyond what might reasonably be necessary for reporting current events. Its use is likely to compete directly with TV3's own exploitation of its rights. TV3's goodwill (its brand, its audience, its relationship with advertisers) could be substantially damaged by that competition, but the damage would be difficult to adequately quantify." (emphasis

supplied)"

The above reasoning was expressly approved by the Division Bench of this

Court in ESPN(supra) and it was of the view that the test laid down in the above

judgment must of necessity be applied when determining the claim of fair dealing.

The Division Bench also held as under:

"The respondents under the guise of news reporting could certainly show significant events such as a century/fall of wicket/attainment of landmark achievement in cricket and a scoring of a goal, grant/denial of a penalty and sending off a player in Football and Hockey. They may also show a controversial incident which occurred in the match. However, such events could not be shown to an extent where fair comment transpires itself into a commercially profitable programme showing several minutes of footage of the appellant or its report in a programme centered around a discussion. The reporting of news is undoubtedly a fundamental right vested in the news channel by way of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution but, however, repeated and prolonged telecast by the respondents of what was actually broadcast by the appellant, especially in a form of a special programme, may amount to commercial exploitation not protected by Article 19(1)(a), especially when the factum of the programme being aired later in the day is constantly advertised and announced by the news

channel and such programmes are liberally interposed with commercials. In addressing the issue of fairness, it is necessary to look at the totality of the footage of the broadcast of the cricket match as shown by the respondents. The appellant contended that through the number of programmes and the rate of repetition of those programmes, the respondents are achieving an intensive level of broadcasting of the appellant's distinct and exclusive footage in direct competition with the appellant's telecast. It is also evident that such telecast by the news channels are in commercial competition with the appellant's telecast because of the amount and importance of the work which has been utilized. In light of these principles as noted above, we are of the view that the appellant's case, that the use by the respondents of the repeated broadcast of the cricket match in the various footage is not fair dealing, is certainly required to be considered by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the interim relief application."

In this regard, the Division Bench also held as under:

"However, this above position of law expressed by us in this judgment should in no manner be construed as curbing the news channel's rights to have special programmes based on cricket/cricket matches. Indeed such a right is an inalienable part of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. If, therefore, there

is a cricket based programme involving discussion, analysis, interaction with the audience and other allied features without utilization of unreasonably excessive footage from the appellant's telecast, such right is in our view is fully protected. Indeed, in the facts of the case such analysis could certainly include the footage already telecast by news channels under the rights available to it, subject of course to the limitations imposed by the concept of fair dealing."

7. The learned senior counsel for the defendant is right in submitting that

reporting news and current events is a part of fundamental right of Freedom of

Speech and Expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. But,

since reasonable restrictions can always be placed on such a right in terms of

Article 19(2) of the Constitution, and the validity of the Copyright Act, 1957, to the

extent it protects the copyright and broadcast rights subject to the exceptions and

exemptions stipulated therein, has not been challenged, the defendant, while using

the works in which copyright/broadcast rights are held by the plaintiffs, is required

to confine such use to the provisions contained in the said Act. Therefore, the

footage of the plaintiffs cannot be used by the defendant for an unlimited duration

and only that much footage can be shown as is necessary for reporting the news

and current events and/or for review of the event subject-matter of the rights of the

plaintiffs.

8. As regards the length of the footage which the defendant can show on its

channels, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, this is not

the case of the defendant, in its reply to the application, that the limit fixed by the

plaintiff under the guidelines framed by them, was inadequate for reporting of the

matches or their review by experts. As noted earlier, the guidelines framed by the

plaintiff, use of fresh footage permit a broadcast of a maximum of 5.5 minutes per

news day during news programmes provided that a maximum of two minutes of

fresh footage can be broadcasted per hour of broadcasting and the broadcast of

fresh footage may be repeated during a news day, but the total number of broadcast

of such footage will not be more than two exhibitions per hour of broadcasting.

Any permitted repeat of the broadcast of fresh footage does not count towards the

maximum permissible limit of 5.5 minutes of fresh footage per news day. With

respect to the archival footage, the guidelines permit a maximum of six minutes of

such footage per news day, subject to a maximum of two minutes of such footage

per hour of broadcasting, as in the case of fresh footage. Broadcast of archival

footage may be repeated but is restricted to four exhibitions per news day, provided

there is interval of not less than two hours between each exhibition. Any archival

footage merged with fresh footage is to be treated as fresh footage.

In its reply, the defendant does not say what according to it should be the

maximum footage allowed per news day in its news programmes. Same is the

position with respect to archival footage. This is not the case of the defendant that

the limit of two minutes of fresh footage per hour of broadcast is inadequate for

review of the match in the special programme or for reporting the match as a part

of reporting of current events and current affairs, permitted under Section 52(1) of

the Act. Same is the position with respect to the total number of broadcasts of

fresh footage and archival footage.

9. News Broadcasters Association(NBA), which is an association of news

broadcasters, provides that a designated news broadcaster may broadcast a

maximum of 5.5 minutes of fresh footage per match per news day, which may be

repeated in a news cycle, provided that in addition to 5.5 minutes of fresh footage

mentioned above, not more than a maximum of one minute of fresh footage from

the pre match toss, any pre-match entertainment, post-match entertainment and any

post-match presentation may be used. It further provides that if broadcast as a part

of news or sports bulletin, a maximum of two minutes of fresh footage may be

used per half our of broadcasting and if broadcast is a part of special programme, a

maximum of six minutes of fresh footage may be used per hour of the

broadcasting. The number of repeats is restricted to two repeat exhibitions per half

hour of news broadcast, provided that such restrictions on repeats do not apply to

fresh footage of an exceptional event which has been defined to mean any

newsworthy event of an extraordinary nature or a landmark achievement from a

match including, without limitation, events such as the scoring of a boundary, the

fall of a wicket, the scoring of a half-century or a century and/or the achievement

of any personal cricketing landmark by any player.

These guidelines permit broadcast maximum of six minute of usage per

news day, which can be repeated throughout the day provided that if broadcast as a

part of a special programme, a maximum of 4.5 minutes of the archival footage

may be used per hour of broadcasting and the same can be repeated if the

programme is repeated. If broadcast as a part of promotional programming, a

maximum of 10 seconds per promotion, show-open or montage is allowed with not

more than a maximum of 60 seconds of archival footage to be used in a news day

within promotional programming.

In the guidelines of the plaintiff, a fresh footage has been defined to mean as

any footage (other than archival footage and live footage) broadcast for the first

time by a Designate News Broadcaster. The definition given in the guidelines of

News Broadcasters Association is almost the same except that it does not expressly

exclude the live footage.

In the guidelines of NBA, archival footage has been defined to mean any

footage from a match from the period 24 hours after the completion of the match

concerned, and/or any and all match footage from previous events.

The guidelines of the plaintiffs, however, also include, in archival footage,

all match footage from previous events listed in Schedule-II of the guidelines.

10. Neither the guidelines framed by the plaintiff nor the guidelines framed by

NBA have a statutory backing and the said guidelines, therefore, can only be used

as an aid in determining what can be said to be use of the footage consistent with

the concept of fair dealing with the work. As noted by the Division Bench in

ESPN Star Sports (supra), reproduction of such footage for excessive duration

may amount to infringement of the copyrights which the copyright holder and

broadcasting rights holder have in the work and would travel beyond the concept

of fair dealing, since such use may unfairly affect the rights of copyright

holder/broadcasting rights holder to exploit the rights for which they have incurred

considerable expenditure and efforts.

In Media Works NZ Limited (supra), the Court referred to the guidelines,

which stipulated that fair dealing mean that the extract must be brief and should be

considered in the context of the length of the recording. Considering the format of

Twenty-20 World Cup and the time which such matches normally take, I find no

justification to hold that the guidelines framed by the plaintiffs with respect to

length of fresh and archival footage which the broadcasters can use is so

unreasonable as to impinge on their right to report current events and current

affairs and to undertake a meaningful and purposive review of the event subject

matter of/or connected to the footage. In fact, during the course of arguments

before me, there was not much dispute between the parties with respect to length of

the fresh and archival footage which a news broadcaster is permitted to use free of

any cost to it. I, therefore, hold that unless otherwise indicated in this order, the

defendant can use the fresh and archival footage only for such duration and subject

to such limitations and conditions as is permitted in the guidelines framed by the

plaintiff.

11. Coming to the special programmes, a perusal of the screen shot at pate 529,

533, 536, 539 and 570 would show that the defendant has been associating various

companies with the events subject matter of such special programmes. Use of the

names of such advertisers in this manner, is bound to given an impression to the

viewers that either these advertisers are the sponsors of the event or are otherwise

associated with it. In the screen shot on the page 529, the names of Aircel and J P

Cement appear just above the heading "Today‟s Match". The team logo of India

and Bangladesh along with time and venue of the match also appear on the screen.

The impression one gets is that the match referred on the screen was sponsored by

Aircel and J P Cement. In the screen shot at the page 533, Aircel and J P Cement

are shown as the presenter of "Cup of Pride". This obviously is reference to ICC

World Cup, 2011 which was being played at that time. Admittedly, neither Aircel

nor J P Cement was the official sponsor of the said event. Despite that, the

advertisement gives an impression of these companies being the

organizer/sponsors of the event. In the screen shot on page 539, Aircel has been

shown as presenting "Googly" which is a form of bowling. Again, this

advertisement indicates a connection between Aircel and the event being played at

that time. On page 536, Aircell is shown as presentor of "Super Hit Muqabala".

Again, this is a clear reference to ICC World Cup, 2011, though Aircel was not

officially associated with the event.

It is not in dispute that there are various companies which are officially

associated with ICC World Cup Event, 2012 and which have paid large amounts to

the plaintiffs for such association/sponsorships. If the advertisers other than those

who are officially associated with the event are allowed to be shown as presenter

of the event or otherwise associated with it, that is bound to diminish the value of

the rights purchased by the official advertisers/sponsors. The learned counsel for

the plaintiff was right in submitting that there would be no good reason for these

official advertisers/sponsors to pay large sums to the plaintiffs for being associated

with the event in case they can directly strike deals with the news channels paying

much lesser amounts to them and if allowed to be shown, this is bound to

prejudicially affect the revenue which the plaintiffs generate from such events,

thereby impairing their capacity to organize such events and bring them to the

viewers in the form they are being brought.

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the defendant cannot use

the name, logo, etc. of any advertiser in the special programmes with respect to

ICC World Cup, 2012 in a manner which would give an impression of the

advertiser being a sponsor of or associated with the event.

12. The defendant is running news channels and not a sport channel. Presenting

special programmes is a part of its right to report this event in which people of this

country are greatly interested and to carry out its review. Therefore, there can be

no valid objection to the defendant presenting special programmes with respect to

ICC World Cup, 2012. But, if the defendant carries an advertisement immediately

before, during or immediately at the end of such programmes and the footage of

the plaintiffs is used in the programme, that, in my view, would amount to

commercial exploitation of the work which is not protected either under Article

19(1)(a) of the Constitution nor under Section 37 and/or 52 of the Copyright Act,

1957. It has to be kept in mind that plaintiff No. 2 also presents special

programmes where experts are invited to review the match and comment upon the

performance of the players. If the defendant airs such programmes, some of the

viewers, interested in watching such programmes may, instead of watching the

channel of plaintiff No. 2, watch the channels of the defendant. To this extent,

there may not be any valid objection to hosting such programmes and it is for the

viewers to decide which programme they want to see. But, if the defendant shows

advertisement immediately before, during or immediately after special

programmes in which footage of the plaintiffs is used, that would not be a bona

fide dealing with the work of the plaintiffs protected under Sections 37 and 52 of

the Act, since the preliminary objective of the defendant in that case would be

deemed to be earning profits at the cost of the advertisers of the plaintiffs and

cannot be said to be an act of reporting current news and events and/or reviewing

of such events. It has to be kept in mind that the viewers of such programmes

would be those who are specially interested in such programmes and not the

general viewers of the news and current events. Therefore, it is the potential

viewers of such programmes on the channel of plaintiff No.2 who would be drawn

to such programmes if produced and aired by the defendant. The defendant cannot

use the footage of the plaintiff to give an unfair advantage to its advertisers, at the

cost of official advertisers of the plaintiff, by carrying out advertisements in case

the footage is used during the special/ sponsored programmes. Therefore, carrying

out advertisements during such programmes cannot be consistent with the concept

of fair dealing. The Defendants cannot be allowed to earn commercial advantage

to the prejudice of the plaintiff during such special programmes.

13. The guidelines framed by the plaintiff provide that broadcast of a fresh

footage needs to be delayed by at least 30 minutes for ICC Twenty-20 World Cup.

In my view, the restriction is wholly justified considering the fact that despite

restrictions on use of the footage, the news channels would be at liberty to report

the event, without any restrictions, so long as the live footage is not shown. This is

not the case of the defendants in their reply that 30 minutes delay in telecasting the

footage comes in the way of efficient reporting of the event, subject matter of the

footage. During this 30 minutes interregnum, the defendants may, through its news

Readers and reporters inform the viewers of every important development in the

match including fall of a wicket, scoring of a century/ half century of live score,

personal achievement of a player and breaking of a previous record, besides live

score of the match. The restriction is only on telecast of the live footage.

Considering that the sports channel of the plaintiff no.2 would be telecasting the

event live, the defendant cannot be permitted to have direct competition with that

channel at the cost of the plaintiff by telecasting the footage which is live or which

does not maintain a reasonable time lag between the live telecast and delayed

telecast.

Under the guidelines framed by the NBA, there needs to be minimum of 7

minutes delay following the live broadcast of any footage by the official /host

before the excerpts of any footage may be used by the bulletin broadcaster. The

exception to this Rule is permitted in case of exceptional events for which the

minimum of at least five minutes delay is required. As noted earlier, exceptional

events include scoring of a boundary, fall of a wicket, scoring of a century/ half

century and any personal achievement by any player. The guidelines permitted by

NBA, in my view, do not adequately safeguard the interest of the plaintiff since

five minutes or seven minutes delay may not achieve the desired objectives. It has

to be kept in mind that the viewer of a news channel normally watches the channel

for the purpose of knowing the current events and happenings which are not

confined to cricket matches being organized by the plaintiff. Therefore, the delay

of thirty minutes between the live telecast and delayed telecast would not be

permitted to the interests of the viewers who, go to a news channel for knowing the

score of the match and not for seeing its live footage. If they want to see the live

footage, they would prefer to go to the channel which is telecasting the match live

and not to a channel which shows such footage as part of its regular news

programmes.

14. As regards advertisements on the tickers, at the time footage of the match is

being shown, the learned counsel for the plaintiff drew my attention to clauses 6

and 7 of the guidelines framed by NBA which reads as under:

"6. The use of Fresh Footage pursuant to paragraphs 3 and the use of Archival Footage pursuant to paragraph 5 above is strictly limited in each case to use within news and/or current affairs programmes. No use of Fresh Footage and/or Archival Footage is permitted in any circumstances for any commercial purposes.

7. For the avoidance of doubt, a Designated News Broadcaster may commercially exploit a news and/or sports and/or current affairs and/or other programme within which Fresh Footage and/or Archival Footage is broadcast as a whole, in the regular course, through normal advertising/ sponsorship breaks usual in programming of news channels, provided always that, except as permitted pursuant to paragraphs 8 to 10 below, no advertising, sting, logo, graphic, and/or any other commercial (morphing) activity occurs immediately before, immediately after or during the Fresh Footage and/or Archival Footage and no association is created between the use of Fresh Footage and/or Archival Footage and any third party brand or product.

He has also pointed out that even in its reply, the defendant has stated

as under in this regard:

"..It is further submitted that as per the industry guidelines and practice a news organization is permitted to show regular show sponsorships and normal ad spots so long as there is no advertising immediately before or after or during the airing of the footage.

..It is submitted that the defendant is permitted to air sponsored shows on its channel provided there are no advertisement before or after or during the telecast of the footage. This has been the practice of the defendant and is also the prevalent industry practice duly recognized by the NBA."

The learned counsel for the defendant on the other hand contended that the

above referred extracts from the reply do not pertain to advertisements/ sponsorship

shown on the tickers and apply only to the advertisements on the footage itself. In

reply, the learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that this is nowhere the case

in the reply of the defendant that advertisements are permitted on the tickers,

though not on the footage itself.

The learned counsel for the defendant contended that as stated in the reply

advertisements on the tickers appear irrespective of whether the news on the

tickers pertains to the ICC World Cup or not, they are not specifically placed on

the tickers during telecast of the footage, and are not meant to indicate any

association of the advertisers with the footage.

The learned counsel representing NBA also submitted that the guidelines

framed by them do not prohibit advertisements on the tickers during the time the

footage is being played and it is only the advertisement on the footage itself which

are prohibited. This, however, was countered by the learned counsel for the plaintiff

who pointed out that even the guidelines do not permit advertisements even on the

tickers during airing of the footage and the contention of the learned counsel is

contrary to the guidelines framed by NBA.

15. In my view, the use of the footage of the plaintiff during news bulletins is not

per se inconsistent with the concept of fair dealing merely because the

advertisement is carried out on the ticker of the footage when it is shown as a part

of the news bulletin. As observed by this Court in Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v

Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (45) PTC 70 (Del.), it is neither

possible nor advisable to define the exact contours of fair dealing and every

commercial use of a work does not ipso facto render it unfair. As held by the

Division Bench in the case of ESPN Star Sports (supra), the question as to whether

an act does or does not amount to a fair dealing with the work in which copyright/

broadcast right is held by another person would vary from case to case and depend

upon the particular facts of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to

what constitutes fair dealing with a copyright/ broadcast right. As and when use of

such work by a person other than the person holding copyright/ telecast right is

challenged, the Court would have to examine the matter on the facts and

circumstances of the cases including the length of the use, context in and the

purpose for which the work is used and the intention behind such use, whether it is

by way of a bonafide reporting of the current news and its review or it is aimed at

commercial exploitation of the work so as to gain unfair advantage for the

broadcaster.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that the advertisements are

not always there on the tickers as is contended by the learned counsel for the

defendant. In this regard, he referred to screen shots on pages 527, 528, 530,

531,533 532 of the documents where there is no advertisement either on the first

ticker or on the second ticker. In the screen shots at page 554, the advertisement

appears only on the first ticker and not on the second ticker though this is a screen

shot taken at the time the footage is being broadcast. In the screen shot on page

535, there is no advertisement either on the first ticker or on the second ticker.

Same is the position in the screen shot at page 538. These screen shots filed by the

plaintiff clearly show that the advertisement on the tickers do appears sometimes

though not all the times a news item is being telecast. There can be no objection to

the advertisements of the sponsor of the news bulletin being shown on the ticker(s)

since, carrying such advertisement cannot be said to be a commercial exploitation

of the footage at the time the footage is shown during the course of the news

broadcast. It is quite possible that the advertisements received by the defendant

during the days the ICC World Cup is organized are higher than the advertisements

received on the days when no important event is being held. But, this is true not

only of the events such as ICC World Cup but also all other events including

important sports events. Therefore, it would not be appropriate, in my view, to

altogether stop advertisements on the tickers during the time the footage is being

shown on the channels of the defendant. It has to be kept in mind that the interest

of the viewer of the news channel is not confined to cricket or even the sports-

events alone. They watch a news channel to have information with respect to

national and international happenings and that may include the sports events such

as ICC World Cup, but it cannot be said that showing advertisements on the tickers

during the telecast of the footage would have the effect of diverting the viewers

from the news channel of the plaintiff no.2 to the news channel of the defendant.

As stated earlier, the defendant runs a news channel and not a sport channel

whereas the plaintiff no.2 is running only a sports channel. Therefore, there is no

competition as such between the channel of the plaintiff and the channel of the

defendant. It has to be borne in mind that private channels cannot survive without

advertisements, which are their bread and butter. The only source of revenue for

them is the advertisements and subscriptions which they get from DTH/cable

operators. The advertisements on the tickers are carried by them not only when

they telecast footage of the plaintiff, but also when they telecast the works in which

copyrights are held by others, the obvious reason behind such practice being that

such advertisements are not considered to be commercial exploitation of the work

and such a practice, in my view, is consistent with the concept of fair dealing

enshrined in Section 39 and 52 of the Copyrights Act, 1957.

In my view, it cannot be said that showing advertisements on the ticker,

during telecast of the footage is per se meant to take commercial advantage of the

footage and works to the disadvantage of the plaintiff, when viewed in the light of

the fact that such advertisements on tickers are being shown also when the footage

of the plaintiff is not being telecast. There is no direct competition between the

plaintiffs and the defendant and such footage is shown either as a part of the

regular news bulletin or as a part of a review of the event which is permitted under

Section 39 of the Act, so long as it is consistent with the concept of fair dealing

with the work. It is only if the defendant books an advertisement agreed to be

shown only at the time the event is being reported or displays the logo/

advertisement of the sponsor only while reporting the event, it can be said to be

taking commercial advantage of the footage for defendant‟s own purposes and to

the detriment of the plaintiffs or their advertisers.

Airing the advertisements agreed to be shown only during the time the event,

subject matter of the footage, is being reported would not be consistent with the

concept of fair dealing with the work and would amount to commercial

exploitation of the said work, by taking undue advantage of the same without any

payment to the holder of the copyright/ broadcast rights. Therefore, the defendant

cannot be allowed to show any advertisements on the tickers if they are booked to

be shown only during reporting of ICC CWC 2012. I also feel that if there is a

sponsor of the news bulletin, the name of the sponsor should appear on the ticker,

throughout the news bulletin and not only during reporting of the ICC Twenty-20

World Cup, 2012.

16. There is no dispute between the parties that no advertisement can be shown

either immediately before, during or immediately after the fresh or archival footage

of the plaintiff is shown by the defendant. It is also not disputed before me that no

advertisements can be carried on the footage itself, whether shown during special

/sponsored programmes or during regular news bulletins.

17. No advertisement can, in my view, be carried out by the defendant on the

tickers, at the time the footage of the plaintiff, whether fresh or archival, is being

shown during a special/ sponsored programme, whether as a part or independent of

the news bulletin. As noted earlier, such programmes come in direct competition

with similar programmes being shown by the plaintiff no.2, which has contractual

arrangement in this regard with the official sponsors advertisers of such

programmes. Any advertisement even on the tickers, shown during such

programmes is likely to create an impression of the sponsor/ advertiser being

associated with the event, which, in turn, is likely to have prejudicial effect on the

commercial interests of the official sponsors/ advertisers who have entered into

contractual arrangements with the plaintiff in this regard. If advertisements are

shown on the tickers at the time the footage is being telecast during such

programmes, it can hardly be disputed that the purpose in showing such

advertisements is to commercially exploit the work of the plaintiff without making

any extra efforts and without paying any charges to the plaintiff. Such exploitation

of the work in which the copyrights/ broadcast rights are held by the plaintiff

would not be consistent with the concept of fair dealing with such works, and,

therefore, cannot be permitted.

18. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, drew

my attention to a number of screenshots which show advertisements on the footage

itself, in the news programmes of NDTV Hindu. The learned counsel for the

defendant fairly conceded that such advertisements appearing on the footage itself

go beyond the concept of fair dealing with the work and, therefore, cannot be

allowed. He however, maintained that the defendant does not any more have any

connection with NDTV Hindu. Be that as it may, it is made clear that no

advertisements can be allowed on the footage of the plaintiffs, if used by the

channels of the defendant.

19. The guidelines framed by the plaintiff stipulate that courtesy bug

acknowledging IDC and ESS must be pasted by the designated news broadcast

with due prominence throughout the broadcast of any footage and they must use

the correct name ICC World Twenty-Twenty Sri Lanka, 2012 or a shorter title

„ICC World Twenty-Twenty‟ and the event logo in all broadcasts in which the

event is mentioned or referred to, whether or not including the broadcast of any

clip of fresh footage and/or archival footage. It further provides that in the event

the official event or ESS Logo should be covered by the logo of the news

broadcast, it must include courtesy line extended at the bottom of or elsewhere on

the screen. I do not see any valid reason to the pasting of courtesy bug with due

prominence on the footage of the plaintiffs if shown by the defendant. Similarly,

there can be no objection to carry out correct name of the event or the shorter title

as per the guidelines of the plaintiff, on the footage of the plaintiff, telecasted by

the defendant. There can be no objection to a courtesy line being extended on the

screen, in the case of official logo of the plaintiff is covered by the logo of the

defendant.

20. I do not find any merits in the contentions that the plaintiffs cannot seek

injunction on the basis of an anticipated act, on the apprehension that the defendant

would infringe their rights during ICC Twenty-20 World Sri Lanka, 2012. It is an

admitted position that the defendants used the footage of the plaintiffs during ICC

CWC 2011 and the footage at that time carried advertisements booked by the

defendant. It is also not in dispute that special programmes sponsored by third

parties, not connected with the event, were also telecasted by the defendant during

ICC CWC 2011. Prima facie, the use of the footage in the manner it was done

right of the plaintiffs. This is also not the case of the defendants in their reply that

during ICC Twenty-20 World Sri Lanka, 2012, they would not be using the

footage in the manner it was used during ICC CWC 2011 and they would confirm

to the guidelines framed by the plaintiffs in this regard. Their case is that use of the

footage in the manner they did during ICC CWC 2011 is protected by Article

19(1)(a) and Section 39(b) and 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. This, in

my view, gave more than sufficient cause of action to the plaintiff to file this suit

since there is a genuine and imminent threat of the rights of the plaintiffs being

infringed by the defendants in the same manner it was done during ICC CWC

2011. The plaintiffs need not wait till the event is over since the main relief being

claimed by them would become more or less infructuous, once the event is over. In

view of the provisions contained in Section 37 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act

read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs need

not wait till the actual injury is caused to them and a bonafide apprehension of such

injury being caused to them is sufficient to give rise to a cause of action to seek

injunction.

21. The plaintiffs have also objected to the score cube at the bottom of the screen

where the defendant gives score of the match on a continuous basis alongwith the

name of an advertiser/sponsor. This, to my mind, cannot be objected to by the

plaintiffs since it does not involve any use of the work of the plaintiffs. The score

of the match is in public domain and can be broadcasted by any channel as a part

of its right to report current news and events. In my view, mere giving the name of

an advertiser/news sponsor of the defendant along with with the live score does not

give an impression of the advertiser/sponsor of the plaintiff being associated with

the event.

22. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that since the defendant is a

commercial channel unlike Doordarshan, actuated by profit motive and not by any

public interest and since in Prasar Bharti v Sahara TV Network Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

[2006(32) PTC 235 (Del.)], the Court prohibited commercial programmes and

advertisements before, during and after the cricket news any advertisement even on

tickers during telecast of the footage would be its commercial exploitation, which

should not be permitted. The learned counsel for the defendant, however, pointed

out that this was an agreed interim order and, therefore, does not reflect the view of

the Court as to whether the advertisements can be shown during telecast of the

footage or not. Therefore, in my view, this judgment does not help either the

plaintiff or the defendant.

23. In Time Warner Entertainment Co.,L.P. & Ors v RPG Netcom & etc.[AIR

2007 Delhi 226], relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant, a Division

Bench of this Court held that the ownership right do not subsist in a cinematograph

film before the film is complete and prospective owner of such a film cannot be

regarded as an author or first owner of the film. The Court held that any right to

claim infringement in a future work does not exist in any person before the

cinematograph film is complete. The contention of the learned counsel for the

defendant was that they are not using any cinematographic film as defined under

Section 2(f) of the Act since they are using live feed and, therefore, they are not

infringing any copyright of the plaintiff. In ESPN Star Sports (supra), ESS was

receiving live footage from the host broadcaster (Channel-9) and was broadcasting

such footage after making their additions or alterations etc. The Division Bench

held that recording of final mix, as telecast, gives rise to an independent copyright

to ESS in such a final recording and this copyright was separate and distinct from

the satellite broadcast made of the mix by the ESS which would give rise to a

broadcast reproduction rights. It was further held that the satellite broadcast per se

would not amount to a cinematograph and, therefore, the broadcast through a

satellite, of a live coverage of a match, gives rise to a broadcast reproduction right,

but not necessarily a cinematographic right, since the latter would arise only if

there is an actual recording of what has been broadcasted and where it has been

merely broadcasted through satellite without recording them. The learned counsel

for the plaintiff, however, pointed out that the „broadcast‟ as defined in Section

2(dd) means communication to the public by not means of wire deviation or by

wire and this right is independent of the copyright as was upheld by the Division

Bench of this Court in ESPN Star Sports (supra). This right finds statutory

recognition in Section 37 of the Act. The reliance upon this judgment, therefore, is

wholly misplaced.

24. It was contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that though,

according to the plaintiff, they infringed the copyright/ broadcasting right during

ICC World Cup, 2011, the plaintiff chose not to come to the Court till soon before

the commencement of the ICC Twenty-20 World Cup, 2012 and, therefore, they

are guilty of laches and delay. In this regard he placed reliance on Kanungo Media

(P) Ltd. v RGV Film Factory and others [2007 LawSuit (Del.) 1648]. No

prejudice having been caused to the defendant company on account of plaintiff not

coming to the Court earlier. The plea of delay, acquiescence, waiver and laches

normally becomes fatal when prejudice is shown to have caused to the defendant

on account of such delay and laches. In the absence of any prejudice to the

defendant having been shown, the delay in case of commercial exploitation of the

the defendant. Therefore, I am not inclined to decline the injunction only because

the plaintiff did not approach the Court either during or soon after ICC World Cup,

2011. Moreover, in Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia &

Others [2004 (3) SCC 90], the Supreme Court expressly held that in case of

infringement "either of trademark or of copyright", normally an injunction must

follow and mere delay in bringing an action is not sufficient to deny grant of

injunction in such cases. This judgment applies not merely to infringement of

trademark since the view taken by the Apex Court is not confined to cases of

infringement of trademark but expressly referred to infringement of copyright. It is,

therefore, difficult to say that the delay in coming to the Court is fatal to the case of

the plaintiffs.

25. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has in his written submissions referred

to Neo Sports Broadcasts Pvt. Ltd. v Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. and

another [CS(OS) 2030/2010 decided on 01.10.2010]; Satnam Singh and others v

Punjab & Haryana High Court and others [1997 (3) SCC 353]; Project Officer,

IRPD and others v. P.D. Chacko [2010(6) SCC 637]; Deewan Singh and others v

Rajendra Pd. Ardevi & Ors [2007(10) SCC 528]; T.N. Housing Board v

Keeravani Ammal & Ors. [(2007) 9 SCC 255]; Harper & Row, Publishers Inc. v

Nation Enterprises [471 U.S. 539]; The Right Honourable Paddy Ashdown, MP

PC v Telegraph Group Ltd.,[ (2000) EWCA Civ 1142]; M/s. Marksman

Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. v Bharti Tele-Ventures Ltd. & Ors. [C.S. 74 of 2006

in the High Court of Judicature of Madras]. Whereas the learned counsel for the

defendant in his written submissions has referred to Wiley Eastern Ltd.& Ors. v.

Indian Institute of Management [61(1996) DLT 281]; British Broadcasting

Corporation v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd. [ 21 IPR 503]; Civic Chandran and

Ors. v C. Ammini Amma and Ors. [Manu/KE/0675/1996]; Hindustan Times and

others v State of U.P. and Anr. [AIR 2003 SC 250]; Luke Skyywalker v Acuff-

Rose Music Inc. [510 U.S. 569]; Copinger and Skone James on Copyright

(Sixteenth Edition) by Kevin Garnett, Gillian Davies and Gwilym Harbottle;

National Basketball Association and NBA Properties v Motorola, INC 105 F.3d

841]; ICC Developments (International) Ltd.v Arvee Enterprises and Anr. [ 2003

VII AD (Delhi) 405]; Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P & Ors. v Sudhir

Shivram Jadav [148 (2008) DLT 119]; Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v

Harinder Kohli & Ors. [IA No.9600/2008 in CS(OS) 1607/2008 decided on

22.09.2008]; India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Yashraj

Films Pvt.Ltd. [FAO(OS) 583/2011 decided on 21.08.2012]; Hubbard and Anr. v

Vosper and Anr.[All England Law Reports (1972) 1 All ER]; Toyota Jidosha

Kabushhiki Kaisha v Deepak Mangal and others [2010 (43) PTC 161(Del.)].

However, none of these judgments really apply to the issues involved in this case,

except to the extent that duration of the footage which can be used by the

defendant. None of these judgments deals with a case of carrying out

advertisements at the time the footage is shown as a part of the news bulletin or

during special programmes. These judgments do not deal with carrying out

advertisements during telecast of the footage vis-à-vis the concept of fair dealing

contained in Section 39 and 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Therefore, these

judgments have not been much of help to the Court.

26. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the following directions are issued, to be

followed by the parties during pendency of this suit:

(i) The duration of the footage of the plaintiffs, whether fresh or archival, by the defendant would be limited to the extent permitted under the „ICC Twenty 20 World Cup, Sri Lanka, 2012‟ News Access Regulations in India. This would include not only the maximum footage, but also the maximum footage per hour of the broadcast, repeat of the footage and the total number of broadcast of such footage, as stipulated in the said guidelines/ regulations.

(ii) The fresh footage of the plaintiff will be delayed by at least 30 minutes, in terms of the regulations of the plaintiffs.

(iii) The defendant shall not air any advertisement immediately before, during or immediately after the footage of the plaintiffs, during the news bulletins, except to the extent indicated in (iv) below.

(iv) If the footage of the plaintiff is shown in the news bulletins, the defendant shall subject to the condition and limitations stipulated herein below, be at liberty to carry advertisements on the tickers, even when the footage, whether fresh or archival, is shown during regular news bulletin provided that such advertisement(s) have not been booked by the defendant to be shown only during reporting of ICC Twenty 20 World Sri Lanka, 2012. The advertisement(s)/logo(s) of

the sponsor(s) of the news bulletin in which footage of the plaintiffs is shown can be carried by the defendant on tickers at the time of reporting of the event, only if the sponsorship is of the news bulletin and the logo and/or advertisement of the sponsor appears on the ticker(s) throughout the news, except when the advertisements of others are being aired.

(v) If advertisements are carried by the defendant immediately before, during or immediately after the special /sponsored programmes on ICC Twenty 20 World Cup 2012 telecasted on its news channel, the footage of the plaintiff will not be shown in the programme(s).

(vi) If the advertisements are carried even on tickers, immediately before, during or immediately after such special/sponsored programmes, the footage of the plaintiff will not be shown in the programme.

(vii) The defendant would not use the footage of the plaintiff if it gives any such title to its special/ sponsored programmes as would indicate an association between the advertiser(s) and the event subject matter of the programme.

(viii) The defendant, while showing the footage whether fresh or archival would paste „courtesy bug‟ acknowledging the plaintiffs, with due prominence, throughout the broadcast of the footage.

(ix) The defendant would use the name „ICC Twenty 20 World Cup, Sri

Lanka, 2012 or a shorter title „ICC World Twenty 20‟ and the event logo while using the footage of the plaintiff, whether during the special programme or during news bulletin.

(x) In case the official logo of the plaintiff is covered by the logo of the

defendant when the footage is shown, it would include a courtesy line

extended at the bottom or elsewhere on the screen.