Role and Challenges of Copyright Socities in Modern Ip Law.

30th August, 2024 - 1:03 pm Categories: Copyright 0 Comments

Understanding the challenges and role of copyright Societies:

This blog delves into the role and challenges of copyright societies. It explores how these societies protect the right of creators, the impact of legal interpretations on copyright licensing and the implication of recent rulings. The article highlights the necessity for clear and precise legislative drafting to avoid ambiguities and ensure effective protection and commercialization of IPR. Additionally, it examines the governance of Copyright societies and the potential existential crisis they face in light of emerging licensing entities.

Introduction

Intellectual property rights protect the creation of people in artistic, musical, scientific and other fields. It is considered as the protection of the product of the intellect or creative minds. The greater scope throughout the year has gain the international validity through various terms such as Patent, Copyright, Trademark, Designs etc. Dwelling into the concept of Copyright, it is a type of intellectual property which has gained tremendous importance through the rapid technological advancements in the field of Painting, communication etc. Copyright is a type of protect where the creator owns an exclusive right on the work they created. The aim of copyright law is to encourage artists, authors to create original work by rewarding them with exclusive right for a limited period to exploit the work for monetary gain.

Aim of Copyright Act

Copyright is a creation of statute and is only entitled to the works provided under the Act. It is only entitled to ‘original’ work and also acts as a right to prevent others from exercising without authority any other form of right attached to copyright. These can be either licensed or assigned to work in whole or separately. Copyright Act, 1957, Section 13[1] mentions works in which copyright subsists. A work does not need to meet any criteria of intelligence or quality to qualify for copyright protection. However, copyright does not exists for mere ideas. For example, if someone thinks of an idea and shares it with another person who turns it into a tangible work, the person who materialized the idea receives copyright protection, not the one who originally conceived the idea. Additionally, copyright protection does not cover live events or any works that are illegal, defamatory or seditious.

What is a Copyright Society?

Copyright societies is the legal body whose object is to protect or safeguard the interest of the owners work. Their functions are to grant license of copyright for reproduction, performance, issuing copies of work to public, locate infringement and initiate legal proceedings if required.

Before the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1944, sections 33 to 36 of the act governed the performing rights societies in India. These societies were responsible for issuing or granting licenses for performances of copyrighted works which were limited to literary, dramatic and musical works. But after the amendment the scope of the societies were significantly expanded, which provided specific provisions to better address the needs of copyright holders. Presently, Copyright Societies are governed under Copyright Act.1957. Different societies are designated for various types of work. The registration requires of minimum 7 members and is valid for a 5 years which can be renewed periodically. The central government reviews and grants renewal requests based on specific reports and evaluations. The 2012 amendment required previously registered societies to re-register within one year to ensure that all the societies work under the updated legal framework.

Challenges and Governance of Copyright Societies.

However, the governance of copyright societies is not without challenges. Their operations are presumed to be transparent and fair, but that’s always not the case. Issues such as decision making, distribution of royalties and the lack of accountability have sometimes plagued these societies, leading to dissatisfaction among creator. As in a recent ruling[2] by the Bombay High Court has complicated the landscape of copyright societies. It allows the owners to issue license irrespective of whether they author the work or it was assigned to them. This ruling has the potential to create an existential crisis for Copyright societies, as it challenges their traditional role as the sole entities authorize the issue licenses. Entities like Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) and Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd., which holds a significant market shares, are already capitalizing on this ruling. For e.g. PPL manages the licensing of sound recordings and public performance rights, while Novex handles large repertoire of music and film rights. This independent licensing could pave way to bypass traditional copyright societies and seek financial gain through such entities.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

This shift could lead to more fragmented and competitive licensing environment. While this may increase the options available for creators, it also introduces complexities for users of copyrighted works, such as broadcasters, event organizers etc., who may find challenging to determine whom to approach for licensing rights.

For, example consider a scenario where a music event organizer needs to obtain licenses for the performance of various songs. Traditionally, they would approach society like IPRS to secure the necessary licenses. However, with the new ruling, the organizer might have to negotiate separately with the individual entities like PPL and Novex, complicating the process and potentially increasing the cost and time involved.

Conclusion.

The primary aim of codifying laws is to provide certainty, yet much of legal interpretation involves understanding legislative intent, which can be unreliable due to the lack of comprehensive legislative deliberation records. Legislative intent is typically not codified beyond the statement of objects and reasons. Clear, coherent, and non-contradictory provisions are essential. In this scenario, the prohibition on conducting copyright business under “Registration of Copyright Society” conflicts with the requirements for registration in the Copyright Rules, 2013. This legislative style led to a favorable interpretation for the plaintiffs, as Section 33 does not explicitly forbid owners from issuing licenses. Conversely, Section 30, which addresses “Licences by owners of copyright,” was interpreted to grant this right to owners. This ambiguity could have been prevented with more precise drafting.

Justice Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that we are governed by laws, not legislative intentions. Justice Leventhal likened relying on legislative history to searching for friends at a crowded party. These perspectives highlight the necessity of clear statutory drafting. Legislative intent is best demonstrated through the language of a statute, and judicial interpretation of intent can be unreliable. A well-crafted statute should clearly and certainly define the law through a comprehensive legislative process. As copyright societies and licensing entities navigate these legal complexities, ensuring clear and precise legislative drafting will be crucial for the effective protection and commercialization of intellectual property rights.

Author:  Gayathri Anil Menon, 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

• The Copyright Act, 1957
• Copyright Rules, 2013
• Novex Communications Private Ltd v. Trade Wings Hotel.
• SCC OnLine.

[1] The Copyrights Act, 1956, § 13

[2] Novex Communications v. Trade Wings Hotels, Commercial IP Suit No. 264 of 2022