Copyright Infringement and Public Performance Rights: Supreme Court’s Key Judgment

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) vs. Aditya Pandey & Others. The case revolved around copyright infringement and the rights of lyricists, composers, and sound recording producers in India. It was an important ruling that clarified whether an event organizer playing a recorded song in public needed separate licenses from the lyricist and composer, in addition to the one obtained from the sound recording producer.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) and the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) claimed that event organizers must obtain separate licenses for playing sound recordings in public. They argued that even if the event organizers had paid the sound recording producers for broadcasting songs, they still needed additional authorization from the lyricists and music composers.

The case was first heard in the Delhi High Court, which ruled in favor of event organizers, stating that purchasing a license from the sound recording company was sufficient, and there was no need for additional licenses from lyricists and composers.

Aggrieved by the decision, CISAC and IPRS appealed to the Supreme Court, which had to determine whether multiple licenses were required for public performances of recorded songs.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether event organizers must obtain separate licenses from lyricists and composers after purchasing rights from sound recording producers.
• Whether the 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act, 1957, impacted royalty-sharing rights.
• How the ruling aligns with international copyright agreements like the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement.

Arguments Presented in Court

Arguments by the Appellants (CISAC & IPRS):

• The rights of lyricists and composers under Section 14(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act give them the exclusive right to “communicate their work to the public.”
• Event organizers playing a sound recording must pay separate royalties to lyricists and composers in addition to the sound recording producer.
• The ruling of the Delhi High Court was against India’s obligations under the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, which require fair compensation for songwriters and composers.
• International copyright organizations are facing losses due to India’s failure to enforce appropriate licensing measures.

Arguments by the Respondents (Event Organizers & Broadcasters):

• Once a lyricist or composer assigns their rights to a sound recording producer, the producer gains the exclusive right to publicly broadcast the work.
• The Supreme Court had already ruled in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association that authors of musical works lose independent rights once they authorize the use of their compositions in sound recordings.
• The 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act only affected royalty-sharing agreements and did not create new licensing obligations.
• Requiring multiple licenses would make public performances unreasonably expensive and would discourage music use in entertainment.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the existing legal framework and the amendments made to the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court noted:

“Though each of the seven sub-clauses of clause (a) of Section 14 relating to literary, dramatic, or musical work are independent of one another, they cannot be interpreted in a manner that conflicts with the exclusive rights of a sound recording producer under Section 14(e).”

The Court further stated:

“A song is created by three players—lyricist, musician, and singer. Once a song is recorded, the rights of these individuals merge into the final sound recording, which is then owned by the producer.”

The Supreme Court ruled that:

“Once a lyricist or music composer assigns their work to a sound recording producer, the producer has full rights to communicate the song to the public without requiring separate licenses from lyricists and composers.”

The Court also addressed concerns about international copyright agreements:

“While India is a signatory to the Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement, the law in force at the time of the dispute did not provide for additional royalties to lyricists and composers for sound recordings made before the 2012 amendment.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, stating:

“We do not find any error in the High Court’s ruling. The appeal is dismissed.”

However, the Court clarified that for sound recordings created after June 21, 2012, lyricists and composers have the right to claim an equal share of royalties when their works are played in public.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for copyright law in India:

• Sound recording producers hold primary public performance rights: Once a sound recording is created, the producer has exclusive rights, and event organizers do not need additional licenses from lyricists and composers.
• Changes apply only to post-2012 works: Lyricists and composers can claim royalties for public performances of songs recorded after the 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act.
• Aligns India’s copyright law with international standards: The ruling ensures a balanced approach between the interests of copyright holders and public access to music.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in CISAC vs. Aditya Pandey provides clarity on music licensing laws and copyright ownership in India. It upholds the rights of sound recording producers while ensuring that lyricists and composers receive fair royalties for newer works. This landmark judgment will guide the music industry and event organizers on how to manage public performances legally.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: International Confed vs Aditya Pandey & Othe Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 20-09-2016-1741883789177.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Prafulla C. Pant
See all petitions in Judgment by Ranjan Gogoi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category