- JUDGMENT SUMMARY: Gee Pee Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Prateek Choudhary & Ors.
- DATE OF JUDGMENT: 8 August 2001
- BENCH: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.
SUBJECT:
The present case deals with the ownership in sound recordings. Furthermore, gives a broad interpretation of Section 2 (uu) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
FACTS:
The plaintiff, Gee Pee Films Pvt. Ltd. is a music company involved in the business of music recording and deals with recordings of audio-video and film and non-film songs. The defendant (1) is a Bengali singer and defendant (2) is engaged in manufacturing and selling cassettes, C-Ds and other song recording systems. The defendant (3) is a lyricist and music composer, while defendant (4) is a relative of defendant No.3 and is a lyricist, defendant (5) is also a lyricist and music composer.
In 1999, based on an oral agreement, the plaintiff commissioned defendants (3) to (5) to compose Bengali non-film lyrics and music and proposed to release those by way of cassettes and other sound recording systems. Defendant (1), a Bengali singer had to sing the songs. The plaintiff published sound records which were based on the commissioned work. Later, the defendant (1) and (2) released music cassettes containing two songs from the plaintiff’s cassettes. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendants for infringement of his copyright in the sound records. The court granted an ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the decision, the defendants filed an appeal.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Section 2(d), Section 2(uu) and Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
- Section 2(d) – definition of an author
- Section 2(uu)- definition of a producer
- Section 17 -First owner of Copyright
ISSUES:
The main issues in question before the court were:
- Whether the plaintiff was the copyright owner in respect of the said recordings?
- Whether the defendants have infringed the copyright of the plaintiff?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT:
Appellant's Contentions: The plaintiff contended that since commissioned work fell under Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright in the commissioned work was automatically transferred to the plaintiff. Also, being the producer of the sound records, he was entitled to copyright under Section 17 as the first owner.
Respondent's Contentions: The defendants contended that there was no assignment of copyright and they were still the owners of copyright in the work they created.
According to defendants even if it is accepted that the songs were written and composed based on commission given by the plaintiff, copyright remains with the lyricist and the composer. As per defendants unless it is established that those songs were written and composed in the course of plaintiff's employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship as provided in Section 17(b) of the Act., the plaintiff cannot claim any copyright over the said songs.
Court's observations:
The Calcutta High Court while rejecting the arguments of the plaintiff, held that it was a clearcase of a contract for service and not contract of service.
The court stated that Section 17(b) of the Act mentions the only instances where an author, although engaged under a contract for service loses copyright which includes taking photographs, drawing paintings r portrait, engraving and making cinematograph film. In the present case, the defendants were not carrying any of the above-mentioned jobs.
After examining the facts of the case, the court held that the plaintiff cannot misconstrue the definition of a producer as given in Section 2(uu) of the Act. The word ‘responsibility’ appearing in Section 2 (uu) of the Act did n refer to financial responsibility but it meant ‘consequential responsibility’. It is, therefore, not only bearing the financial burden of the recording but also taking necessary legal steps that make a person producer of such recording.
The court, therefore, concluded that the plaintiff did not prove a prima facie case of copyrights in his favour and the plea for the injunction was not granted and the earlier decision was vacated.
Conclusion:
It is clear from the judgment that commissioned work is done under contract for services and that ownership in sound recordings made in the course of the author’s employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship lies with the employer in absence of any agreement to the contrary.
