IPRS Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. and IPRS Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Ltd.: An Analysis

12th October, 2023 - 8:41 am Categories: Copyright 0 Comments

Introduction

On April 28, 2023, the High Court of Judicature in Bombay passed a landmark judgment on the rights of lyricists and composers in India, in the case of Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. and Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Ltd. ^[1](2023.)Through this judgment, the Hon’ble Court has clarified the right of authors of underlying works in literary and musical works after the introduction of the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012^[2] (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2012 Act’.) It has elucidated that such authors are entitled to receive royalties whenever the concerned work (whether a sound recording or a cinematograph film) is shown to the public, except the exhibition of the cinematograph film in a cinema hall. Let us now explore this case!

Case background and facts

The Plaintiff, the Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. (IPRS), is a society registered under the Copyright Act, 1957^[3] (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) that issues licenses and collects royalties from music users for and on behalf of its members, who are generally lyricists, composers, etc. In 2001, Music Broadcast Private Ltd. entered into a License Agreement with IPRS to use its literary and musical works’ repertoire for broadcast on its radio station named ‘Radio City FM’. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. also signed a License Agreement with IPRS in 2006 to utilise the same on their radio station, ‘Radio Tadka’. Meanwhile, in 2010, in a case wherein the current defendants were parties, the Copyright Board of India set a compulsory license fee to be paid by the radio broadcasters under Section 31(1)(b) of the Act. It expired in 2020, following which the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) set a fixed rate of royalties for both the sound recording for which the radio stations sought licenses and underlying works. An appeal against this order is pending in the Division Bench of Delhi High Court. Notably, the 2012 Act was passed to amend certain provisions of the Act like Sections 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, etc.

Meanwhile, in another case of Entertainment Network India Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Limited India and Anr.[4](2021), the statutory license rates fixed by IPAB were sought to be revised. To this, the court held that even though the case is pending an appeal, IPAB’s order will continue to operate.

Meanwhile, in the present case, IPRS filed an interim application before the Bombay High Court in 2022 demanding an interim injunction against the defendants allegedly broadcasting songs from its repertoire.

Parties’ Arguments

IPRS contended that the 2012 Act introduced changes to Sections 17, 18, and 19 of the Act, which entitled authors of underlying works to new rights, such as receiving royalties whenever a sound recording containing their literary or musical underlying work is communicated to the public. IPRS also relied on the debates that led to the enactment of the 2012 Act, the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2012 Act and the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the Copyright Amendment, which indicated to provide additional protection to the rights of the authors of underlying works. IPRS also pointed out that the existence of changes introduced by the 2012 Act was recognized by the Apex Court in the case of International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (ICSAC) v. Aditya Pandey^[5], although the facts of the case pertained to the unamended Copyright Act.

On the other hand, the defendants contended that the 2012 Act was just declaratory in nature. They argued that no substantive rights are granted by the 2012 Act because it made no changes to Sections 13 and 14 of the Act.

Key Issue

The fundamental issue, in this case, is whether the addition of provisos to Sections 17 and 18 and sub-sections (9) and (10) in Section 19 of the Act has introduced any change that would result in the recognition of additional rights in favour of authors of original underlying literary and musical works.

Judgment

A single-judge bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay headed by Justice Manish Pitale held that the amendments made to the Act were intended to provide higher protection to the rights of authors of underlying works in the music industry. The court used the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2012 Act and the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the Copyright Amendment to arrive at the judgment.

The court further passed an interim injunction directing the defendants, Rajasthan Patrika Plt. and Music Broadcast Ltd. to pay the required royalties to the plaintiff. The court has also allowed IPRS to fix the rate of royalties as per IPAB’s order.

Comparing thepre and post-2012 Amendment position

Earlier, the case ofthe Indian Performing Rights Society v. Eastern Indian Motion Association and Ors.^[6] (1977) was the precedent concerning the royalty-reception rights of authors of underlying works in India. In that case, the Supreme Court in India interpreted Section 17 of the Act in such a way that once an underlying work is incorporated into a cinematograph film, the author of such underlying work relinquishes his rights to the works. It is now overruled by the present case. Before the introduction of the 2012 Act, lyricists’ and music composers’ copyrights were automatically assigned to film producers when their underlying works were created under a work-for-hire contract or incorporated into any sound recording for a cinematographic film. While such an assignment vested the film producer with exclusive copyright commercialization rights as the copyright owner, it stripped the lyricists and composers of their inherent rights in the underlying works that they created.

The industry practice was that the film producer was considered the owner of the film, along with the underlying works. Authors of underlying works got a lump sum amount of money for their creative contribution to the works. They never received royalties for their work, no matter how successfully the film or sound recording was exploited.

In the wake of the present judgment, the imbalance between such authors and film producers has come to an end. Now, lyricists and composers can claim royalties every time the sound recording containing their literary or musical work is exploited in any forum other than when the cinematographic film into which it is incorporated is shown in a cinema hall.

Conclusion

Overall, this judgment is a boon to all lyricists and music composers. However, there is a grey area in the judgment. As aforementioned, the court, in this case, has allowed IPRS to fix the rate of royalties as per IPAB’s order. As held in the case of Entertainment Network India Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Limited India and Anr., IPAB’s order is applicable as of now. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the same is pending an appeal. It may be overruled if the judgment is passed against IPAB’s order. So, it is too early to say anything certain about the applicable rate of royalties. Nevertheless, this is a great step towards realizing the royalty right of underlying works’ authors in India.

Author: J Jerusha Melanie, A Student at SRM School of Law, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Reference

1. CRACT_AMNDMNT_2012.pdf (copyright.gov.in)
2. Analysis And Effect Of ‘IPRS vs. Music Broadcast Limited And Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited’ – Copyright – India (mondaq.com)
3. Music to Many Ears! Bombay High Court Passes a Landmark Order Recognizing the Right to Receive Royalties by Authors of Underlying Works – Spicyip

^[1]https://lawyerservices.in/Indian-Performing-Right-Society-Limited-Versus-Rajasthan-Patrika-Pvt-Ltd-and-Another-2023-04-28

^[2]https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CRACT_AMNDMNT_2012.pdf

^[3]https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf

[4]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85258133/

^[5]https://www.supremecourtcases.com/international-confederation-of-societies-of-authors-and-composers-cisac-v-aditya-pandey-ors/

^[6]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/331232/