Keywords

1 Introduction

…. one of the plain objectives of the proposed legislation is to ensure that the authors of the works, in particular authors of songs included in cinematograph films or sound recordings, receive royalty for the commercial exploitation of such works.Footnote 1

The importance of music in cinematograph films created in India cannot be overstated. Many films produced in India are identified by the music. A lot of the music that is created in connection with cinematograph films in India is actually incorporated in the films, interspersed at regular intervals throughout the progression of the story. Hence, music holds a special significance in the context of content, in particular, Indian cinema.

Given the immense popularity of film music in India, it is unimaginable that the creation of music and accompanying lyrics would not constitute a lucrative business for the authors of these works. However, a close scrutiny of the status quo establishes that while the musical composition and the lyrics are the intellectual work of the respective authors, the substantial remuneration that accrues from the exploitation of the music actually flows to entities that may have procured the rights to it for a monetary consideration without any intimate involvement in the creative process.

This chapter explores the laws relating to equitable remuneration or “royalties” as the term is understood and used under the Indian copyright law. In particular, it explores the historical position on royalties, the current law on the subject, and the continuing complexities. At the outset, it is appropriate to clarify that the statutory concept of royalties was introduced in the Indian copyright law only in the year 2012. Hence, while prior to 2012, the payment of royalties was recognized as a requirement and an entitlement; there was no statutory mandate on it.

2 Music Deals: Indian Context

Each piece of music amalgamates several independent works. It includes the musical works composed by a music composer and the lyrics authored by a lyricist unless the music constitutes the background score for the particular cinematograph film. The musical work and literary work are fused together in a sound recording by the producer of the sound recording. This sound recording is usually incorporated in the cinematograph film. The musical work, the literary work, the sound recording, and the cinematograph film each constitute a separate and independent class of work. The definition of a “work” as detailed in the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Act”), disambiguates this conceptual differentiation.Footnote 2

While certainly not all, but a large part of the music in India is for incorporation in films or other forms of content such as television programs or web series. The structure of music deals in the Indian film industryFootnote 3 usually involves the following processes:

  1. 1.

    The producer of the film “commissions” the music composer to create the musical composition and enters into a separate agreement for the lyrics, whereby the lyricist is similarly commissioned to author the lyrics.

  2. 2.

    The music composer and lyricist are required to assign all their rights in the musical compositions and lyrics to the producer.

  3. 3.

    The music composer is also delegated the responsibility of creating the sound recording for each song and delivering this to the producer. The rights in the sound recordings are assigned to the producer.

  4. 4.

    The music composer is also delegated the responsibility of procuring appropriate assignment of rights from the various singers, musicians, who render services in relation to a particular song.

  5. 5.

    The producer of the film assigns the rights in the songs to a music label that ultimately exploits the music rights in a film.

The spectrum of rights that is assigned to the producer of the film, and subsequently to the music label, usually assumes the format of an “all inclusive” assignment including all rights of exploitation and the entire copyright in the music. The music label is hence entitled to exploit the music through all modes and mediums of exploitation, including those that are only anticipated to be invented at a future date. The constant evolution and development of technology have expanded the scope of the modes through which music can be exploited. While earlier, the most commonly used medium for accessing and listening to music in India was the radio, cassettes, and later compact discs, in the present day the most ubiquitous medium is digital platforms. It is also important to bear in mind that digital platforms have supplemented, not supplanted radio and compact discs, which continue to be used by many people in India. Further, music companies also exploit the songs in audio-visual format, through authorizing various television and digital platforms to exhibit either the full-length songs or snippets from the songs.

The equal right to royaltiesFootnote 4 accruing from exploitation of literary and musical works arose in the context of the rampant monetization of music by producers of films and music companies and the concomitant exclusion of music composers and lyricists, from a share in this commercialization. The amendments introduced in 2012 to the Act attempted to address three interrelated concerns of authors of literary and musical works incorporated in cinematograph films and sound recordings:

  1. 1.

    Authors would be entitled to receive an equal share of royalties each time the works are exploited as part of a cinematograph film, except in the case of distribution of the film in a cinema hall or in a sound recording not forming part of a cinematograph film. The royalties would be payable regardless of the medium of exploitation.

  2. 2.

    The assignment of the copyright in the works cannot be construed to extinguish the author’s right to receive royalties accruing from the exploitation of such works. While the copyright can be assigned, the right to receive royalties cannot be assigned by the author to any person other than to the author’s heirs or a copyright society for collection and distribution of royalties.

  3. 3.

    The proviso to Section 18 of the Act, introduced vide the 2012 amendments, sought to restrict an assignment of copyright in respect of unforeseen modes and mediums of exploitationFootnote 5: “Provided further that no such assignment shall be applied to any medium or mode of exploitation of the work which did not exist or was not in commercial use at the time when the assignment was made, unless the assignment specifically referred to such medium or mode of exploitation of the work.” The intent behind the amendment was to ensure a guaranteed stream of royalties to authors upon the advent of new technological formats. “In short, the amendments in section 18 will protect interests of authors in the event of exploitation of their work by restricting assignments in unforeseen new mediums and henceforth author of works in films will have right to receive royalties from the utilization of such work in any other form except to the legal heirs or to a copyright society and any other contract to the contrary shall be void.Footnote 6”

    However, since the proviso referred to an “assignment,” contracts have employed a “license” from the author to such future modes and mediums.

3 Historical Perspective

3.1 Judicial Backdrop to the Amendments

An oft-used argument by producers of cinematograph films to deny royalties to authors related to the commissioned status of the works created by such authors. A work is considered to be “commissioned” under the Act if it is created at the instance of another person. Section 17 of the Act encapsulates the principle of “commissioned” works. The relevant portion of the erstwhile provision as it read prior to the amendments in 2012 is reproduced below:

(b) subject to the provision of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein.Footnote 7

The provision operated to vest first ownership of the identified classes of works in the person who extended “valuable consideration” and at whose “instance” the cinematograph film was made.Footnote 8 Since one of the enumerated classes of works was cinematograph films, producers of such works argued that the entire copyright in the underlying works, such as musical works and literary works, incorporated in a cinematograph film, was owned by the producer by virtue of the qualifying status of the film as a commissioned work. It is perhaps apposite to explain here that under the Indian copyright laws, authorship and ownership of a work are bifurcated. An author of a work may not be the first owner of the work in all instances. The general proposition is that the author is also the first owner of the work. However, this general principle is defeated in cases of a work created in the course of employment and in the cases of commissioned works.Footnote 9 Producers of cinematograph films used the “commissioned” status of the films to argue that by implication, authors were also divested of their right to receive royalties, in conjunction with the copyright in their works, to the producer of the film who would be deemed the first owner of the film including all works incorporated therein. The stance employed by the producers was bolstered by a decision of the Supreme Court of India in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association.Footnote 10 The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS)Footnote 11 instituted an appeal against the order of the Calcutta High Court which held that the producer of a film could oust the first ownership of the literary or musical works incorporated in a cinematograph film, by the authors of such works, in cases where the film constituted a commissioned work under Section 17(b) of the Act:

In our opinion, therefore, when a composer of lyric or music composes for the first time for valuable consideration for purposes of a cinematograph film, the owner of the film at whose instance the composition is made, becomes the first owner of the copyright in the composition. The composer acquires no copyright at all either in respect of the film or its sound track which he is capable of assigning.Footnote 12

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court held that when a literary or musical work is commissioned by a producer for incorporation in a cinematograph film, the copyright in the entire film, including the underlying literary and musical works, vests with the producer by virtue of Section 17 of the Act:

This takes us to the core of the question namely, whether the producer of a cinematograph film can defeat the right of the composer of music … or lyricist by engaging him. The key to the solution of this question lies in provisos (b) and (c) to section 17 of the Act reproduced above which put the matter beyond doubt. According to the first of these provisos viz. proviso (b) when a cinematograph film producer commissions a composer of music or a lyricist for reward or valuable consideration for the purpose of making his cinematograph film, or composing music or lyric therefore i.e. the sounds for incorporation or absorption in the sound track associated with the film, which as already indicated, are included in a cinematograph film, he becomes the first owner of the copyright therein and no copyright subsists in the composer of the lyric or music so composed unless there is a contract to the contrary between the composer of the lyric or music on the one hand and the producer of the cinematograph film on the other…. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the rights of a music composer or… lyricist can be defeated by the producer of a cinematograph film in the manner laid down in provisos (b) and (c) of section 17 of the Act.Footnote 13

The argument adopted by producers was clearly anomalous given that the “right to receive royalties” is not recognized by the Act as a right flowing from the copyright in a work. Section 14 of the ActFootnote 14 details the rights that are construed to be included in the copyright in a work. The right to receive royalties is conspicuously absent from rights enumerated in Section 14. Hence, the right to receive royalties is deducible from the factum of authorship, i.e., it is attendant upon the authorship of a work and not the copyright in a work.

Further, the argument also overlooks the distinction created between the various classes of works in Section 13 of the Act. Section 13 clarifies that literary works, musical works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings are separate classes of works and copyright subsists in each work. The erstwhile Section 17(b) of the Act refers to the commissioning of a cinematograph film, not the independent works that are incorporated in it. The cinematograph film, as a whole, is owned by the person who commissioned it. Conceptually, the provision is inextricably linked to the distinction between the author and the first owner of a work under the Act. Section 2(d)Footnote 15 of the Act states that the author of a cinematograph film is the producer of the film. However, by virtue of Section 17(b), the first owner of the cinematograph film could be a person other than the producer, i.e., the person at whose instance and consideration the film was made.

The bifurcation becomes clear when the definitions in the Act are viewed in the context of the reality of film production deals in India. Section 2(uu)Footnote 16 of the Act defines a “producer” as a person who takes the initiative and responsibility for making the cinematograph film. The structure of film production deals in India involves multiple parties, frequently commencing at the instance of an entity that possesses the financial resources to commission the development of the film, and this entity usually delegates the responsibility of completing the film to a production house. Since the production house assumes the actual responsibility and initiative for making the film, the production house is recognized as the “producer” under Section 2(uu) of the Act. Conversely, given that the film is made at the instance of and with the aid of the consideration advanced by the financing entity, this entity is ultimately construed to be the “first owner” of the film under Section 17 of the Act.

While the law reflects the realities of film production in India through conferring appropriate legal status on the various parties involved, the argument advanced by producers and related entities conflates the cinematograph film with the literary and musical works incorporated in it. Ostensibly, the literary and musical works are created for incorporation in the film. However, as stated earlier, under Section 13 of the Act, each work constitutes a separate and independent work. Section 14 delineates the various rights associated with the copyright in each work. Hence, while the cinematograph film in totality is owned by the person that commissioned it, the various works comprised in it continue to retain their independent status and would continue to be owned by the author unless expressly assigned to the producer or the commissioning entity by the author. It is arguable to presuppose that to the extent that the literary and musical works are synchronized in the cinematograph film, they are owned by the commissioning entity to the extent of their synchronization, but to extend the argument to all other rights devolving from the copyright in a work would be counterintuitive to the independent status afforded to each class of work under the Act.Footnote 17

A similar question was raised in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Aditya Pandey & Ors.,Footnote 18 wherein the Delhi High Court considered whether the underlying literary and musical works are also performed each time that a sound recording is performed. The court concluded that when a sound recording is communicated to the public, there is no separate communication of the underlying literary and musical works, since the sound recording fuses the underlying works during the process of production of the eventual sound recording:

when a sound recording is communicated to the public by whatever means, it is the whole “work” i.e. the lyrics, the score, the collocation of sounds caused by the equipment and the capturing of the entire aural experience which is communicated. The musical or literary work, which is the subject matter of the copyright under Section 14(a) of the Act, per se is not communicated or broadcast; nor is there a method of separating that element, while communicating the entire work, i.e. the sound recording, to the public. The recognition afforded by the Parliament to the content of sound recording itself suggests that the content of a sound recording is perceived in law, as different from that of a musical or literary work, though there may be a coalescence of the two, but not necessarily so, all the time. It is, therefore, unjustified to say that when a sound recording is communicated to the public by way of a broadcast the musical and literary work is also communicated to the public, through the sound recording.

The Delhi High Court hence ruled that a separate license is not required to be procured each time that the sound recording is communicated to the public since there is no separate communication of the underlying literary and musical works. The court also discussed the counteractive provision contained in Section 13(4) of the Act, which essentially states that the copyright in a cinematograph film or a sound recording has no effect on the separate copyright comprised in the underlying works that form a part of the cinematograph film or sound recording.Footnote 19 The court, however, dismissed the argument that the clarification enunciated in Section 13(4) could be interpreted to posit a requirement that a separate license from the authors of the underlying literary and musical works would have to be procured each time that a sound recording is communicated. The court’s decision was reached based on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures AssociationFootnote 20:

In other words, the author (composer) of a lyric or musical work who has authorised a cinematograph film producer to make a cinematograph film of his work and has thereby permitted him to appropriate his work by incorporating or recording it on the sound track of a cinematograph film cannot restrain the author (owner) of the film from causing the acoustic portion of the film to be performed or projected or screened in public for profit or from making any record embodying the recording in any part of the sound track associated with the film by utilising such sound track or from communicating or authorising the communication of the film by radio-diffusion, as Section 14(1)(c) of the Act expressly permits the owner of the copyright of the cinematograph film to do all these things.

Recently, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Aditya Pandey & Ors., with an additional stipulation that subsequent to the enactment of the amendments to the Act in 2012, the authors of literary and musical works incorporated in sound recordings would remain entitled to receive an equal share of royalties accruing from the utilization of the sound recordings.Footnote 21

3.2 The Problems with Copyright Societies in India

The amendments enacted in 2012 were also devised as reactionary measures to the denial of royalties and mismanagement of copyright societies in India by music labels. The parliamentary report on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, noted the following in relation to the division of interests and inefficient functioning of copyright societies:

The Committees notes that there are inherent problems in the administration and functioning of copyright societies which have been continuing since long. Situation has deteriorated to such an extent that the owners of works/music companies are dominating these societies denying equity shares to the performers/authors. The basic reason for such a dismal scenario is obviously entirely different considerations and interests of the owners and authors.Footnote 22

The primary copyright societies in India are the IPRS, which grants licenses for and collects and distributes royalties in respect of literary and musical works, and the Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), which deals with rights in sound recordings. There was, and continues to remain, a clear demarcation between the repertoire of works managed by both the societies. While the IPRS managed the literary and musical works underlying sound recordings, the PPL managed the sound recording itself. However, the music labels which controlled the PPL, as owners of sound recordings, succeeded in ousting the authors of literary and musical works from the governing body of the IPRS, leading to an establishment of control over both the IPRS and PPL by the music labels.Footnote 23

Following the exclusion of authors from the governing body of the IPRS, the payment of royalties to authors effectively ceased. A series of notices were addressed by the government to the IPRS demanding an explanation on the cessation of the payment of royalties to authors:

The undersigned is directed to forward a complaint dated 20.12.2010 and 26.12.2010 received by this Ministry from 28 authors and music composers regarding illegalities with respect to administration of Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) and non-disbursement of royalties due to them. It has been alleged in the above complaints by these authors and music composers that IPRS is illegally distributing the royalties due to them to its other members.Footnote 24

The emergence of new modes of exploitation of works exacerbated the issues of the authors. With the rise in popularity of ringtones, authors expected a concomitant increase in the royalties since each time that a ringtone was utilized, royalties were payable to the authors of the literary and musical works and to the owners of such works.Footnote 25 However, the IPRS claimed that it had assigned the right to grant rights with respect to the utilization of works for ringtones to the PPL, which was managed by music labels:

Sometime in 2004, IPRS inexplicably and certainly at the behest of its Music Company members decided to terminate existing mobile distribution agreements executed with third party aggregators. It was discovered much later that the said rights were in fact handed over completely without sanction of the author or composer members to the Phonographic Performance Limited or PPL as it is referred to normally and/or the Indian Music Industry or IMI which is the association of the Music Companies.Footnote 26

4 The New Royalties Regime

The 2012 amendments to the Act aimed to usher in a new regime of royalty collection and distribution and to ameliorate the existing condition of authors with respect to royalty payments. The most prominent contribution of the amendments was the introduction of an unwaiveable right to receive royaltiesFootnote 27 by authors of literary and musical works forming part of cinematograph films and sound recordings.Footnote 28 The new royalties provision was modelled on the authors’ remuneration provision contained in the EC Rental Rights Directive.Footnote 29 Article 4 of the aforesaid Directive encapsulates the following principles:

  1. (i)

    It assures authors of an equitable remuneration.

  2. (ii)

    The right to equitable remuneration cannot be waived by the authors.

  3. (iii)

    The administration of the right may only be entrusted to a collecting society.Footnote 30

Under the 2012 amendments to the Act, royalties accrue and become payable only upon the utilization of the work. If the work is merely incorporated in a cinematograph film or a sound recording, no royalties become payable unless such work is also communicated to the public as part of the cinematograph film or sound recording. Further, royalties are not payable if the work is communicated as part of a cinematograph film in a cinema hall. It is interesting to note that when the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, was under deliberation, the proposed language omitted “in any form other than for the communication to the public of the work along with the cinematograph film in a cinema hall” which forms a part of the current language of the proviso to Section 18 of the Act. The draft amendment also excluded an obligation to pay royalties incumbent upon the exploitation of the works as part of sound recordings. The proposed languageFootnote 31 was amended to alleviate the concerns of the authors that excluding royalties arising on account of exploitation of works as part of cinematograph films and sound recordings would deprive the authors of an important source of revenue:

Another objection raised by authors pertained to the inclusion of words ‘other than as part of the cinematograph film’ in sections 18 and 19. Impact of such an amendment would be such that authors would be denied royalties arising out of television/cable broadcast of films and even the distribution/exhibition of films on mobile platforms through 3G technology. They would also be denied their share of the normal license royalty arising out of music used in advertisement films.Footnote 32

It is also interesting to note that the amendment introduces an unwaiveable right to royalties to authors of all literary works forming part of a cinematograph film, which may include the script and the screenplay of the film as well, apart from the lyrics forming part of the songs of the film. However, the intention, as can be gathered from the parliamentary debates on the amendments, was to enact a statutory regime for royalties owed to authors of lyrics forming part of songs. Further, currently, royalties are paid only to lyricists and music composers, and no royalties are collected or distributed to scriptwriters.Footnote 33

As a response to the circuitous argument adopted by producers and music labels that the commissioning of a cinematograph film also signified the extinguishment of all copyright ownership of the authors of the underlying works, the amendments also introduced a reiteration of the principle that the incorporation of a work in a cinematograph film cannot be construed to affect the author’s independent copyright in the work.Footnote 34 From a contractual perspective, this would mean that unless the author specifically assigns all rights to the work created by such author, the rights will continue to be owned by the author.Footnote 35 The commissioning of a work for inclusion in a cinematograph film will not affect the myriad of other rights that are encompassed in the copyright owned by the author as the first owner of the work. The clarification also serves to ensure that the author’s right to receive royalties pursuant to the exploitation of the work is not impacted by the commissioning of the work for incorporation in a cinematograph film.

The amendments also sought to introduce greater clarity and transparency in the operations of copyright societies. Section 33AFootnote 36 introduced by the amendments mandates that every copyright society would be required to publish its tariff scheme in the prescribed manner and that a person aggrieved by the tariff scheme could appeal to the Appellate Board. Section 35(3) alludes to the exclusion of authors from the IPRS and enunciated that the governing body of every copyright society should have an equal number of authors and owners of works.Footnote 37 Section 33(3A) also, inter alia, requires all pre-existing copyright societies to register themselves with the central government within a period of 1 year from the date of commencement of the amendments.Footnote 38

5 The Aftermath of the Amendments

The copyright societies refused to comply with the dictates of the amendments.Footnote 39 Moreover, since the central government declined to re-register the IPRS and the PPL, as copyright societies, these societies utilized the denial of re-registration as a gambit to evade various investigations initiated by the government in relation to their operations and functionings.Footnote 40 An illustrative argument adopted by the IPRS is reproduced below:

To our utter shock and surprise we were informed by an email/letter dated 25th May 2014 from Office of Retd Justice Mukuk Mudgal that an “Inquiry Officer” has been appointed in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Act) reas with Rule 50 of the Copyright Rules 2013 (Rules) under the impression that we are still a Copyright Society within the meaning of Section 2(ffd)/Chapter VII of the Act. IPRS is a company under the Company’s Act limited by Guarantee…..We have been directed to inform you by Governing Council (based on legal opinion), that we are not a Copyright Society within the meaning of Section 2(ffd) of the Act….we were to be registered on or before 21.6.2013. Since, the Central Government failed to register the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) as a Copyright Society, the old Registration Certificate…. is deemed to have lapsed.Footnote 41

Section 33(1) of the Act also mandates that the business of issuing and granting licenses can only be undertaken by a registered copyright society.Footnote 42 As stated above, the IPRS and the PPL were denied re-registration as copyright societies. Further, entities such as Novex Communications Private Limited have been engaged in the business of granting and issuing licenses, in the capacity of private entities. Despite the lack of registration, these entities have claimed to possess the power to issue licenses in respect of the repertoire of works managed by them in their capacity as the owners of the works or the authorized agentsFootnote 43 of the owners. The statutory authority for this stance has been Section 30 of the Act, which entitles the owner of the work to issue licenses in respect of the work or to designate an authorized agent to grant licenses.Footnote 44 The stance assumed by these entities was bolstered by various judgments of the courts in India, which attempted to harmonize the principles reflected in Section 30 and Section 33(1) of the Act. The Bombay High Court in M/s. Leopold Café & Stores & Anr. v. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd.Footnote 45 ruled that that entities, not registered as “copyright societies,” could issue licenses for works as “authorized agents,” as long as they issued such licenses on behalf of the owner of the works:

It is not, I believe, the mere “carrying on of business” that is interdicted by Section 33. It is the carrying on of the business of issuing or granting licenses in its own name, but in which others hold copyright. Every agent also “carries on business”, but that is the business of agency, with the functioning as such, i.e., clearly indicating that it is acting on behalf of another, one who holds the copyright. This is the only manner in which both Section 33 and Section 30 can be harmonized. An absolute bar even on agency, invoking Section 33, would undoubtedly run afoul of the plain language of Section 30 and render the words “or by his duly authorized agent” entirely otiose.

In a similar instance, the Bombay High Court ruled that the IPRS would not be precluded from granting licenses if such licenses are issued in the capacity of an owner or authorized agent of the owner of the works:

… This means that despite existence of a registered Copyright Society, an Author/Owner is free to be not part of it and can always license his own rights/works independently. Thus, there is no restriction on owner of copyrights in issuing or granting licenses in respect of such literary and musical rights.Footnote 46

Apart from the ability of unregistered entities to engage in the business of issuing licenses in respect of works, another concern has stemmed from the legal entitlement of such entities purporting to act as the authorized agents of the owners, to initiate infringement actions. Under Section 55 of the Act,Footnote 47 only an owner of the work or an “exclusive licensee” can undertake actions to curb infringement of works. An authorized agent is neither an owner nor an exclusive licensee of the work.Footnote 48 Recently, the Bombay High Court restrained Novex Communications Private Limited from undertaking any coercive action against a hotel chain.Footnote 49

Certain anomalies in the language of the amendments have also been exploited contractually by various parties:

  1. 1.

    The proviso to Section 18 does not specify which entity is responsible for the payment of the royalties to authors. The natural corollary would be that the entity utilizing the works should also assume the responsibility for payment of royalties, since the royalties become payable only upon utilization of the works. However, contractually, this lacuna has been utilized by assignees or licensees of the works to state that they are not responsible for the payment of statutory royalties. The author is, however, not asked to waive his/her right to receive royalties, since the same would violate the restriction embedded in the proviso to Section of the Act, resulting in the contract being declared void. However, simultaneously, the restriction in the proviso to Section 18 has not acted to preempt assignees or licensees from disclaiming the responsibility to pay the royalty. In many instances, the principle that has been emulated is to clarify in the contract that despite being the assignee or licensee of the works, royalties would be payable only by the entity that eventually utilizes the works.

  2. 2.

    When the amendments were enacted, several contracts between the assignees and authors required authors to agree that the royalties could only be collected through a registered copyright society of which the author was a member. As explained in the preceding sections, owing to the managerial control of copyright societies by the owners of the works, the societies were not distributing any royalties to authors. Further, several societies in India were not re-registered or registered at all as “copyright societies” in accordance with the requirements of the amendments. The contractual provision hence operated to practically forestall the payment of royalties to authors.

  3. 3.

    There is also some ambiguity surrounding what is intended by the “equal share” of royalties mandated by the proviso to Section 18. While ostensibly this would entail a one-third share to each author, i.e., the authors of the literary and musical works, forming part of the cinematograph film or sound recording, and the remaining one-third share to the assignee of the works, contractually the provision has been interpreted to mean the relegation of 50% of the share to the assignee of the works and the apportionment of the remaining 50% between the authors of the literary and musical works.

6 Conclusion: The Way Forward

The future of the royalties regime in India will be determined to a large extent by the manner in which the operations of copyright societies take shape. The IPRS recently re-registered as a copyright society.Footnote 50 The annual report of the society stated that the governing body now includes an equal number of authors and owners of works.Footnote 51 However, the society’s future course of conduct will determine its compliance with the requirements stipulated by the amendments. As a precursor to the streamlining of the collection and distribution of royalties in India, greater transparency is needed in the operations of copyright societies. Copyright societies are after all establishment for the collective management of rights, given the benefits of collective management. Further, certainty is also required in the interpretation of the several provisions introduced by the amendments to curtail the myriad explanations and applications of the provisions. The disambiguation of these provisions will undoubtedly introduce finality in an important area of copyright law in India.