1. Facts of the Case
A renowned poet composed a lyrical masterpiece for a film project. The production house approached the poet with a specific request: write a song that aligns with the emotional arc of a key scene. The poet delivered, crafting an expressive and unforgettable piece. In exchange, the film producer paid the poet a fixed fee, as agreed upon in advance.
The song, once recorded and released with the film, took the audience by storm. It topped music charts, was played on countless radio stations, and became a cultural sensation. With the song’s popularity came substantial revenue through streaming platforms, public performances, ringtones, and advertisements. Now, the poet claims ownership of the song’s copyright, seeking a share in the ongoing profits.
The producer disagrees. According to him, the song belongs to the production house since they commissioned and paid for it. With both parties claiming rights, the central question arises—who truly owns the copyright?
2. Issues of the Case
This case raises several legal and ethical questions:
- Does commissioning a song automatically transfer its copyright to the producer?
- Does the poet retain copyright as the original author, even after accepting payment?
- What is the legal distinction between authorship and ownership in commissioned works under Indian copyright law?
- Is the poet entitled to royalty or future earnings beyond the initial payment?
The answer lies in understanding how Indian law treats authorship, assignment, and ownership of literary and artistic works, especially in the film industry.
3. Legal Principles and Relevant Cases
a. Relevant Law: The Copyright Act, 1957
According to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the author is the first owner of the copyright in a literary or artistic work. However, there are exceptions. One such exception applies when a work is created under a contract of service or apprenticeship—in which case the employer becomes the first owner, unless otherwise agreed.
In the context of films, Section 17(b) states that in the case of a cinematograph film, the producer shall be the first owner of copyright in the film, but not necessarily in every component (like songs or background score) unless specifically assigned.
Further, Section 18 allows for assignment of copyright through a written agreement, explicitly mentioning the rights being transferred, the duration, and the geographical scope.
b. Case Law: IPRS v. Aditya Pandey (2011)
In this landmark case, the Delhi High Court clarified that the producer of a cinematograph film is the owner of the film’s copyright. However, this ownership does not extend to underlying works, such as lyrics or music, unless the authors explicitly assign their rights in writing.
c. Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Ltd. (2016)
Here, the Bombay High Court held that music composers and lyricists retain copyright in their creations unless they assign their rights. The court also stated that broadcasters need to obtain licenses from copyright owners (like lyricists or composers), not just the producers.
4. Judgment
In the given case, the key point is whether the poet assigned the copyright to the producer in writing. The mere act of accepting payment or creating content on request does not automatically transfer copyright. Unless the poet entered into a formal agreement assigning all rights to the producer, the poet remains the legal copyright owner of the lyrics.
Even if the producer commissioned the song, Indian law protects the original creator’s authorship and ownership, unless contractually surrendered. If no assignment deed exists, the producer holds limited usage rights—typically only for inclusion in the film.
Therefore, the court would likely rule as follows:
- The poet is the owner of the copyright in the song’s lyrics.
- The producer has the right to use the song in the film as per the original agreement, but cannot commercially exploit it beyond that without the poet’s permission.
- The poet is entitled to royalties from future uses of the song—such as streaming platforms, public performances, and commercial licensing.
This judgment aligns with India’s progressive move to protect artists and recognize their contribution, especially after the 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act, which emphasized moral rights and royalty entitlements for authors and composers.
