Rights of composers & lyricist

• JUDGMENT SUMMARY: Indian Performing Right Society v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Assn.
• DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14 March 1977
• BENCH: Jaswant Singh, J. and Krishna Iyer, J.

SUBJECT:

The rights of a music composer or a lyricist can be defeated by the producer of a cinematograph film in the manner laid down under Section 17 of the Act.

FACTS:

Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS), was incorporated in 1959to issue or grant licenses for performance in public of all existing and future Indian literary and musical works in which copyright subsists in India.IPRS laid down a tariff laying down the fees, charges and royalties to be collected for issuing licenses as they claimed themselves to be an assignee of the copyright. Various producer’s associations raised objections against it.

The Cinematograph Exhibitors Association in India filed objections before the Copyright Board under Section 34 of the Act. The Copyright Board observed that the copyright in musical works incorporated in soundtracks of cinematograph films remains with the composers and the lyricists and that they could assign the right to perform in public to IPRS. Furthermore, it held that the tariffs imposed by IPRS were reasonable and IPRS could charge fees, royalties, etc. Aggrieved by the decision of the Board, the respondents appeared before the Calcutta High Court which reversed the decision of the Copyright Board and thus held that the music composers have no right, instead it is the producers of cinematographic films who has the copyright over it. Aggrieved by the Decision of High Court, the Appellants have filed an appeal under Article 133(1) of the Constitution before the Supreme Court of India. The appellants alleged that the music composers have the copyright over the work and the IPRS can charge a fee or royalty when these works are to be performed in public.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

Clauses (d), (f), (j), (m), (p), (q), (r), (v) and (y) of Section 2, Section 13, Section 14, Section 17, Section 18, Section 22, Section26 and Section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

ISSUES: The main issues in question before the court were:

1. Whether an existing or a future right of music composer /lyricist is capable of assignment or not?

2. Whether the producer of the film can defeat the rights of a composer or a lyricist in musical works incorporated in soundtracks of a cinematograph film by engaging them?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT:

Appellant's Contentions: The Appellants contended that the composers and the lyricists retain their performing rights in their musical works incorporated in soundtracks of the cinematograph films and were capable of being assigned further.

Respondent's Contentions: The Respondents contended that the Producers are the first owners of the copyright in the said work since the composers work under a contract of service for composing songs to be utilized and incorporated in the soundtracks of the films to be produced by them. The composers lose all their rights in respect of their works to producers including the right to perform them in public. The copyright in the cinematograph film vested in the producers meant copyright in the whole of the film which includes the musical work incorporated in the soundtracks of the film.

The Appellants relied upon the decision in Wallerstein v. Herbert[1]in which it was observed that the music composed for consideration by the plaintiff under a contract for a drama to be performed on stage was not an independent composition but is an essential part of the drama and hence the music composer has no copyright over it.

Court's observations:

The Supreme Court while deciding the first issue observed that an existing and future right of a music composer and a lyricist in their respective works was capable of the assignment either wholly or partly subject to the conditions laid down in section 18 and19 of the Act. It is also provided that in case of the assignment of copyright in any future work, the assignment shall take effect only when the work comes into existence.

The court while deciding the second issue in question held that the composer loses his right over his/her musical work automatically when he enters in an agreement with a cinematograph producer to compose songs to be incorporated in the film for consideration.

According to proviso (b) to Section 17 of the Copyright Act,when a producer commissions a composer of music or lyricist, for valuable consideration to make a cinematograph film or compose music or lyrics to be incorporated in the cinematograph film then the producer shall be the first owner of the copyright therein and no copyright shall subsist in the composer unless there is a contract to the contrary between the composer and the producer of the cinematograph film. and he can defeat the rights of the composer following the provisions of Section 17 of the Copyright Act.The same result follows, according to proviso (c) to Section 17 of the Act.

Therefore, the rights of a music composer or a lyricist can be defeated in the manner laid down in provisos (b) and (c) of section 17 of the Act.

The Court also approved the decision of Wallerstein v. Herbert [2] which the respondents have relied upon.

Justice Krishna Iyer while agreeing with Justice Singh broadened the right of the music composers to some extent. Justice Iyer further elaborated that the producers enjoy a special right over the film as a whole and he need not pay any fee or royalty to IPRS. However, music as a separate element remains the copyright of the composer which means the producers can claim copyright over the film when it is performed in public as a whole but they cannot play parts of music separately in a theatre to draw the audience and if he does so he will infringe the right of the composer.

Therefore, IPRS cannot claim royalty as the right over the composition subsist in the producers the moment it comes into existence. Hence, the producer of the cinematograph film becomes the real owner.

Conclusion:

This case decided upon the uncertainty of copyright between music composers, lyricists, etc. and the film producers in respect of music incorporated in soundtracks of cinematograph films. It is clear from the judgment that the right of ownership in a cinematograph film rests with the producer of the film and he can claim exclusive rights over musical work incorporated in the film unless there is a contract to the contrary between the composer and the producer of the film. 

The judgment provided relief to the producers while the composers and lyricists were at the receiving end of hardships. Due to the constant efforts of the music composers, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 was passed by parliament which protects the rights of the composers to some extent.