9 judgments of the Delhi High Court, the Calcutta High Court and 2 other courts applying Copyright Act s.18, from 2024–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.
Appeal dismissed and the injunction upheld. The Division Bench proceeded from the position that copyright vests in a song independently in the music, the lyrics and the sound recording, and that the case turned on where each of those copyrights sits. On the facts, copyright in the sound recordings in the film Moodu Pani, including the song in issue, vested in RCA and never resided in the composer. RCA transferred that copyright to the Gramophone Company of India, later renamed Saregama, by an agreement of 25 February 1980 in consideration of royalties. It followed that the sound recording could not be exploited, recreated or adapted without Saregama's licence, and doing so infringed its copyright.
Injunction refused over a remixed version of the song 'Tirchi Topiwale', but the Court secured the plaintiff's position pending trial. It read the 1988 assignment agreement, which defined "record" to include any disc, tape, perforated roll and all other devices "now or hereafter known" in which sounds are embodied, as contemplating technical advances not envisaged in 1988. That language was held wide enough to cover dissemination, broadcasting and communication of remixed versions through digital music platforms, so royalties may be payable on the digital exploitation.
Appeals dismissed in a dispute over royalties for underlying works in sound recordings. The Division Bench held that Saregama has no legal authority or competence to grant a licence in respect of the underlying musical and literary works incorporated in a sound recording, and that Vodafone cannot commercially exploit those underlying works without express permission from the Indian Performing Right Society. Agreements between Vodafone and the sound recording companies could not negate IPRS's right to royalties where that right otherwise exists, and such agreements do not survive section 19(10) to the extent they are read as denying it. Some of the agreements in fact recorded that IPRS was entitled to royalties on commercial exploitation.
Ad hoc licensing arrangement continued pending higher adjudication. The Court held that the observations in Azure Hospitality about a non-society owner licensing at another society's tariff rates must be treated as stayed, because the paragraph giving effect to them had itself been stayed, and because the Supreme Court's clarification confined the benefit of those orders to the parties before it, so no third party may use copyrighted works without an appropriate licence. With the underlying question of whether the plaintiff can issue licences without registration as a copyright society under section 33(3) sub judice before the Supreme Court, the interim arrangement was simply extended.
Interim application disposed of without adjudicating the substantive dispute, for want of pleadings. The plaintiff's interim relief had been sought in respect of the staging of a musical based on the suit film, and consent terms with two defendants had rendered that application infructuous. The Court held that the wide language of the prayer could not be extended to cover a proposed new film without amendment of the pleadings to demonstrate prima facie infringement, and that the question whether the new storyline was a remake or a sequel, and whether the remake right under the assignment agreement was rightly invoked, could not be considered in the absence of such pleadings. Although it had called for the script in a sealed cover, it declined to look at it and returned it sealed.
Suit dismissed after trial. The Court found against the plaintiff on infringement, holding that the defendant was entitled to exploit the musical works by any and every means whatsoever under the subject agreements, which disposed of the claim to damages as well. On royalties it recorded that the defendant conceded an entitlement under the agreements and that payments had been made from time to time including for non-physical exploitation, which the plaintiff had refused to accept, leaving the parties to work out payment on the basis of the agreements and the Court's findings. Parties to bear their own costs.
Suit decreed against ex parte defendants for unlicensed public performance of a copyright society's repertoire at live music events. The Court held that a copyright society registered with the Central Government is permitted under sections 18, 19 and 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 to grant licences and collect royalty on behalf of its members, and that the evidence of the society's licensing executive and its investigator established that the songs performed at the event in question were published by its members. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the society was entitled to the injunctive relief claimed and to rendition of accounts with a decree of profits. The first defendant had agreed while the suit was pending to settle for Rs.20,00,000 with GST but paid only about Rs.9,90,000 and repeatedly violated undertakings given to the Court, so the plaintiff was directed to give credit for the amounts received and prosecute the suit on merits. On counsel's submission that the balance would be paid, the decree for rendition of accounts was made conditional: it comes into effect only if the outstanding amount is not paid by the stated date, and payment is to be treated as discharge of that obligation. Applications alleging wilful disobedience of interim injunctions were closed without separate orders because the permanent injunction and rendition of accounts were being granted in the judgment itself.
Plaintiff held to have made out a prima facie case that under its agreement with the producer of the film Moodu Pani it owns the sound recordings and the underlying musical and literary works, so the first defendant could not use a re-recorded version of the song without a licence. Balance of convenience, however, lay with the defendant, whose film was due for release the following day and which had invested substantially in recreating the recording. The Court allowed the song to be used on the defendant depositing Rs. 30 lakh, the licence fee the plaintiff had itself indicated, with the Registrar General within two days, failing which the defendant stood injuncted. All rights and contentions were left open.
Summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC and the suit decreed. The question was whether a sanyasi can own copyright in literary works of his creation, the defendant contending that a renunciate relinquishes all rights in property on entering a religious order. The Court held that copyright vests in a person by virtue of his labour and skill and subsists under section 17, and once vested can be extinguished only by a mode known to law. Civil death on entering a religious order does not prevent subsequent acquisition and holding of private property, as Shri Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir records, and the law of copyright protects a man's rights irrespective of his status as a family man or a saint. In any event there was a categorical written assignment by the author to the plaintiff Trust, registered with the Charity Commissioner.
