Source: Delhi High Court  

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the copyright in a cinematograph film which includes the soundtrack of the film vests in the producer of the film.               

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Saregama India Limited v. Vels Film International Limited & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Saregama India Limited v. Vels Film International Limited Case?  

• The plaintiff is engaged in acquiring copyrights in sound recordings and literary, musical, and dramatic works, as well as distributing, selling, and exploiting them through various mediums. 
• The plaintiff was formerly known as "The Gramophone Company of India Limited" and was also known as "HMV" (His Master’s Voice). 
• The plaintiff operates in the music entertainment industry, having produced or acquired numerous sound recordings, along with the musical and dramatic works contained in them. 
• The plaintiff owns an extensive catalogue of film and non-film music, including works in Tamil and other regional languages, and enters into licensing agreements with third parties for the use of its works. 
• On 25th February 1980, the producer of the cinematograph film Moodu Pani, Raja Cine Arts, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff (then The Gramophone Company of India Limited), through the plaintiff’s agent, Saraswati Stores. 
• As per this agreement, the plaintiff owns the copyright in the sound recordings, musical, and literary works of the film Moodu Pani, including the song En Iniya Pon Nilave. 
• On 9th January 2025, the plaintiff discovered a teaser for the film Aghathiyaa on various social media platforms, where defendants 1 and 2 announced the release of a sound recording on 10th January 2025, described as a "recreation" of the song En Iniya Pon Nilave. 
• Upon learning of this, the plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 10th January 2025, directing them to stop using or exploiting the plaintiff’s copyrighted works and to refrain from publishing the infringing song. 
• Despite receiving the legal notice, defendants 1 and 2 proceeded to publish the allegedly infringing song on multiple streaming platforms. 
• On 11th January 2025, defendant 1 responded to the legal notice via email, claiming that they had obtained a license to adapt, record/recreate, and synchronize the original song En Iniya Pon Nilave from defendant 3, whom they claimed to be the owner of the copyright in the song and its underlying works. 
• Consequently, the plaintiff has filed the present suit, alleging copyright infringement of the song by the defendants. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines what would constitute copyright. 
• The Court observed that Section 13 (4) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that copyright in a cinematograph film or a record, shall not affect the separate copyright in any work in respect of which, or a substantial part of which, the film, as the case may be, the record. 
• It was further reiterated that under the scheme of the Copyright Act, 1957 the copyright in the cinematograph film vests with the producer of the film, which includes, the soundtrack of the cinematograph film. 
• Thus, as per Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 the producer of a cinematograph film or a sound recording, is the first owner of the copyright in the sound recordings, literary works, musical works and other works, which form a part of the said cinematograph film 
• Further, it was observed that Proviso to Section 17 was added by way of amendment in 2012. This protects the right of a music composer in a cinematographic film. 
• Accordingly, after the amendment of 2012, only if the music composer enters into a specific agreement with the producer of the film, that his rights shall be transferred to the producer of the cinematograph film. The present case however, pertains to a work before the 2012 amendment, and therefore, the said amendment is not applicable to the present case.  
• Also, the Court observed that the music composer cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered to be in possession of copyright over the lyrics of the song in question. 
• Thus, it was held by the Court that the owner of the song was the plaintiff (i.e. Saregama) and the music composer had no right to assign the rights in the song. 
• Therefore, the Court considering the facts of the case granted relief in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, an injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. 

Who is the Author of a Cinematograph Film and the Musical Work? 

• Section 2 (d) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines “author”. 
  • As per this Section in relation to a cinematograph film or a sound recording the producer of the work is the owner of the work. 
• Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that in case a cinematograph film is made for 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. 
• Thus, as per Section 17 of the CA, the producer of a cinematograph film or a sound recording, is the first owner of the copyright in the sound recordings, literary works, musical works and other works, which form a part of the said cinematograph film. 
• Further, Section 13 (4) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that the copyright in a cinematograph film or a sound recording shall not affect the separate copyright in any work in respect of which or a substantial part of which, the film, or, as the case may be, the sound recording is made. 
• Therefore, the right of the composer of the music shall be safeguarded in terms of Section 13(4) and 14(1) of the Copyright Act, otherwise than as a part of the cinematograph film. 
• Additionally in the year 2012 a proviso was added in Section 17 which provided that  in case of a work incorporated in the cinematographic film the rights of the author shall not be affected. 
• The result of the amendment is that only if the music composer enters into a specific agreement with the producer of the film, that his rights shall be transferred to the producer of the cinematograph film.

What are the Landmark Judgments on this Issue?  

• Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association and Others (1977) 
  • The Court held in this case that the producer of a cinematographic film can defeat the right of a composer of music by engaging him. 
  • It has been held that when a cinematograph film producer commissions a composer of music for valuable consideration for the purpose of making his cinematograph film or composing music, the sounds for incorporation or absorption in the soundtrack associated with the film, are included in a cinematograph film 
  • In such case, the producer of the cinematograph film, becomes the first owner of the copyright therein and no copyright subsists in the composer of the music so composed, unless there is a contract to the contrary between the composer of the music and producer of the cinematograph film.
• Music Broadcast Private Limited v. Indian Performing Right Society Limited (2011) 
  • The Bombay High Court in this case held that the first owner of the copyright in a literary work and a musical work are the author of the literary work and the composer of the musical work respectively.