4 judgments of the Calcutta High Court, the Delhi High Court and 1 other court applying Copyright Act s.33, from 2025–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.
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.
Interim injunction granted over two songs used in a film. The Court held the plaintiff had exclusive copyright in the audio-visual recording, the sound recording and the underlying literary and musical works as original and independent works, and that the copyright had not lapsed under section 19(4) by the date of suit. The defendants' use was neither fair use nor de minimis. On a point that recurs in music licensing, the Court held that the plaintiff was not prohibited from issuing a licence merely because it was neither a registered copyright society nor a member of one, section 33 notwithstanding, and that the fee demanded was not excessive, unreasonable or exorbitant, nor was there delay in communicating it.
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.
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.
