Introduction:
Rights available to the authors of an underlying work have undergone a substantial change in the recent past. Underlying works include individual components of a whole (like lyrics and melody in a music recording). This blog piece would delve into the contours of author's rights and their development in the contemporary legal landscape through significant amendments and landmark judgements.
Background
The first position with regard to the rights of authors of underlying work was tad bit controversial. The Supreme Court ('SC') took the view that, once an underlying work has been published in a cinematograph film, the rights of author of such underlying work ceases to exist. The view in IPRS v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures, 1977 was subject to heavy criticism that even found mention in Parliamentary Standing Committee's report which stated that the rights of authors were exploited in the name of the verdict.
The next development took place decades later in 2012 with the amendment of copyright laws in India ('The Amendment'). It involved acknowledging the rights of originally dramatic, artistic, literary, and musical content, even when they are incorporated into derivative works. However, this was insufficient in the backdrop of the SC not recognising such rights, disregarding the essence of the amendment.
It was only until 2022 when the Bombay High Court in the verdict of IPRS v. Rajasthan Patrika established that "the authors of underlying woks are entitled to receive royalties each time their work is communicated to the public through radio stations, including when played on the radio."
Calcutta High Court Clearing The Blues
The status quo has been settled by the recent decision of the Calcutta High Court in Vodafone v. Saregama where the court protected the rights of authors of underlying works in sound recordings. The conflict was pertaining to value-added service (VAS) introduced by Vodafone which allows users to peruse caller tunes for personal listening. The central question was whether Vodafone was liable to pay royalties to IPRS in order to commercially exploit the underlying works authored by members of IPRS? Calcutta High Court ruled in favour of IPRS and held that
Vodafone contended that the first owner of the underlying works was Saregama, hence there is no need to obtain license from IPRS. Further, they argued that the authors surrendered their rights under Section 17 (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 by entering into a service contract. They also said that the position by 2012 amendment does not alter the individual copyrights subsisting in the sound recordings.
However, the court opined that after the amendment, the right of authors to claim royalties overrides the claims of Saregama. Thus, the fact that Saregama holds the first ownership of sound recordings does not affect the right of authors to claim royalties.
Personality Extension
The court also cited a research paper penned by Prashant Reddy wherein it is quoted that "copyright is not seen merely as an economic tool, a property right but as something like an extension of the personality of the author – something for his benefit and that of his heirs," The philosophical perspective given by Hegel views copyright as a means of protecting author's personhood and allow them to retain the fruits of their labour. This perspective also believes that an individual's personality is inalienable from the physical expression. This forms part of the 'moral rights' within the copyright law. They are distinct from economic rights and seen as an extension of the author's personhood.
Prashant in his paper also argues that the amendment was inspired by this system of moral rights. The incorporation of such perspective by courts would open the debate for a more nuanced discussion.
Implication of the judgement
By requiring royalties for the commercial use of authors' works, the ruling puts an end to the historical undervaluation of their contributions. This will guarantee that authors receive fair compensation and inspire greater creativity. The verdicts rendered by the High Courts in Bombay and Calcutta could have an impact on ongoing copyright disputes. As an example of the precedence of authors' rights over contractual agreements that seek to undermine them, the Calcutta High Court's decision may be used in similar cases.
Conclusion
The recent judgments by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts have been a significant victory for authors' rights in India. By overturning the controversial 1977 Supreme Court decision in IPRS v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures, these rulings have strengthened the ability of authors to receive royalties when their works are used in derivative formats like films and sound recordings. The 2012 amendment to India's copyright law had already acknowledged authors' rights to royalties when their original works are incorporated into derivative works. However, the Supreme Court had not recognized these rights, undermining the intent of the amendment. The High Courts have now rectified this, with the Bombay High Court establishing authors' rights to royalties when their works are communicated to the public through radio, and the Calcutta High Court protecting authors' rights in sound recordings.
Crucially, the Calcutta High Court cited the philosophical perspective that copyright is an extension of the author's personality, and that moral rights are inalienable. This view, which inspired the 2012 amendment, gives authors the right to claim royalties even if a company holds the first ownership of the derivative work. These rulings will have a lasting impact on the Indian creative landscape. By ensuring authors receive fair compensation, they will inspire greater creativity. The precedents set by the High Courts can be used in similar copyright disputes to uphold authors' rights over contractual agreements that seek to undermine them. In conclusion, the recent judgments have been a major step forward for authors' rights in India.
References
- Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14, Acts of Parliament (India)
- Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Saregama India Ltd., 2024 SCC Online Cal 5131
- Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v. Eastern India Motion Pictures, 1977 AIR 1443
- Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd, 2023 SCC Online Bom 944
- Surbhi Katare, Sweet Sound of Victory: Looking at the Calcutta HC's Decisive Decision on Rights of Authors, Spicy IP (May 23, 2024) https://spicyip.com/2024/05/sweet-sound-of-victory-looking-at-the-calcutta-hcs-decisive-decision-on-rights-of-authors.html
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.