IPR
Topic 23 Copyright Societies
Topic 23 — Copyright Societies and Collective Administration
A working copyright system depends on a problem the law alone cannot solve: how does a single radio station obtain licences from the thousands of music composers, lyricists and sound-recording producers whose works it broadcasts in a single day? Direct licensing is impractical at this scale. The solution is the copyright society — a collective management organisation that aggregates rights from many authors, issues licences in bulk, collects royalties from users, and distributes royalties to members in proportion to use. Sections 33 to 36A of the Copyright Act 1957, substantially rewritten by the 2012 amendment, lay down the legal framework for copyright societies in India. This topic walks through the architecture, the major Indian societies, the post-2012 governance reforms, and the litigation that has shaped the contemporary collective-licensing landscape.
1. The Concept and Function of a Copyright Society
A copyright society is a body corporate that, having received from its members an authorisation, administers the copyright in their works on a collective basis. It performs four core functions:
1 AGGREGATE pool rights of many authors | 2 LICENSE issue blanket licences | 3 COLLECT royalties from users |
4 DISTRIBUTE royalties to members | 5 ENFORCE sue infringers on behalf |
Without a copyright society, every author would have to negotiate individually with every user — an impossible task in industries like radio, television and live performance, where thousands of works are used daily.
2. The Statutory Framework — Sections 33 to 36A
A. Section 33 — Registration of Copyright Societies
Section 33(1) — The Registration Requirement "No person or association of persons shall, after coming into force of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994, commence or, as the case may be, carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of any work in which copyright subsists or in respect of any other rights conferred by this Act except under or in accordance with the registration granted under sub-section (3): Provided that an owner of copyright shall, in his individual capacity, continue to have the right to grant licences in respect of his own works consistent with his obligations as a member of the registered copyright society." |
Three points emerge from the text:
- Carrying on the business of collective licensing is reserved exclusively to societies registered under Section 33(3).
- The proviso preserves an individual author's right to grant licences directly — but only if it is consistent with the author's obligations as a member of the society.
- Section 33(3A) (added in 2012) requires every existing copyright society to re-register within one year of the amendment's commencement — a one-time clean-up imposed by Parliament after years of governance concerns.
B. Section 33A — Tariff Schemes
Inserted by the 2012 amendment. Every copyright society must publish its tariff scheme — the rates at which it grants licences — and any user aggrieved by the tariff may file a complaint before the Commercial Court / High Court. The Court may, after holding inquiry, fix royalty rates that are reasonable.
C. Section 34 — Administration of Rights
Section 34 governs how the society administers rights. It must:
- Issue licences only on terms approved by the society's general body of members.
- Collect fees in accordance with the published tariff scheme.
- Distribute fees to its members in accordance with a scheme approved by the general body.
- Enter into reciprocal agreements with foreign sister societies (Section 34(2)) to license international works in India.
D. Section 35 — Control by Authors
Section 35, also rewritten in 2012, gives the authors and other owners — the members — supervisory control over the society. Every society must hold annual general meetings, must obtain general-body approval for tariffs and distribution schemes, and is subject to inspection and audit.
E. Section 36 — Submission of Returns and Reports
Each society must submit annual returns to the Registrar of Copyrights detailing its activities, accounts, distributions, and any non-compliance issues.
F. Section 36A — Saving for Performing Right Society
A residual saving clause covering the position of pre-existing performing-right societies during the transition between regimes.
3. The Major Indian Copyright Societies
Society | Subject Matter | Year Founded |
|---|---|---|
Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) | Musical and literary works (lyrics, music) | 1969 (re-registered 2017) |
Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) | Sound recordings | 1941; current registration history complex |
Indian Singers' Rights Association (ISRA) | Performers' rights — singers | 2013 |
Screenwriters Rights Association of India (SRAI) | Screenplay and dialogue rights | 2013 |
Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation (IRRO) | Reprographic / photocopying rights | 2000 |
Society for Copyright Regulation of Indian Producers for Film and Television (SCRIPT) | Film and TV producer rights | Registration applied / pending various times |
✅ IPRS — the most-litigated Indian copyright society IPRS administers the public-performance and broadcasting rights of authors of literary and musical works. After years of governance and registration disputes, IPRS was re-registered as a copyright society in 2017 and has since been the central player in the post-2012 royalty-rights regime. Most of the litigation discussed in this topic involves IPRS as plaintiff or defendant. |
4. Major Litigation Involving Copyright Societies
📖 Indian Performing Right Society v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association, (1977) 2 SCC 820 Facts — IPRS, a society of authors of literary and musical works, demanded performance fees from cinema owners for public performance (i.e., screening) of films incorporating its members' works. Holding — The Supreme Court held that, when a composer or lyricist is engaged for valuable consideration to compose a song for incorporation in a cinematograph film, the producer becomes the first owner. IPRS could not collect royalty from cinema owners for the in-cinema exhibition of the film. Significance — The leading pre-2012 authority on the merger of underlying-work rights into the cinematograph-film copyright. Substantially overruled by the 2012 amendments to Sections 17, 18 and 19. |
📖 Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., (2008) 13 SCC 30 Although primarily a compulsory-licensing case under Section 31, the judgment is also a leading authority on the relationship between copyright societies and their member-rights-holders. The Supreme Court emphasised that the power to compel licensing must be exercised judicially, balancing the property right of the copyright holder under Article 300A against the public interest in access. Implicitly recognises copyright societies as the principal vehicle through which collective licensing of broadcast rights operates. |
📖 Indian Performing Right Society v. Aditya Pandey, (2017) 11 SCC 437 Facts — IPRS sued event organisers and broadcasters for using its members' musical and literary works incorporated into sound recordings, claiming that a separate licence was needed in addition to any sound-recording licence. Holding — The Supreme Court (under the pre-2012 Act) held that no separate licence was required: communication of the sound recording carried with it communication of the underlying works. Significance — A landmark pre-2012 ruling. The Court, however, did note that the 2012 amendment "made some changes" to the legislative framework that fell to be considered separately in subsequent cases. The case was decided on the pre-amendment position because the cause of action arose before 2012. |
📖 Indian Performing Right Society v. Music Broadcast Ltd. & Indian Performing Right Society v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 94 Facts — Post-2012, IPRS sued radio broadcasters Music Broadcast Limited (Radio City) and Rajasthan Patrika (Radio Patrika) for using its members' literary and musical works in broadcasts of sound recordings, without paying royalty to underlying authors. Holding — The Bombay High Court (Single Judge, Justice Manish Pitale, 28 April 2023) held that, after the 2012 amendments to Sections 17, 18 and 19, authors of underlying works are entitled to claim equal royalty share when the sound recording is broadcast. Significance — The first authoritative judicial enforcement of the post-2012 unwaivable-royalty regime. Confirms that broadcasters must obtain a separate licence (or pay equal royalty share through IPRS) for the underlying works. Explicitly differs with the contrary single-judge view of the Delhi HC in IPRS v. Entertainment Network India (Jan 2021). |
5. The 2012 Reforms — Why They Mattered
The Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012 substantially restructured the copyright-society regime. Three reforms were particularly significant:
- Mandatory re-registration — every existing society had to re-register within one year (Section 33(3A)). This led to a procedural break for IPRS and other societies, who only re-registered in 2017.
- Author-controlled governance — Section 35 was rewritten to ensure that authors and other rights-holders, not the societies' management, control tariffs and distribution.
- Tariff-fairness oversight — Section 33A introduced statutory oversight of tariff schemes by the Commercial Court / High Court, on complaint of any aggrieved user.
✅ Why governance reform mattered Pre-2012, copyright societies in India had been criticised for lack of transparency in tariff-setting and for slow distribution to members. The 2012 amendment responded by inserting governance, transparency and accountability requirements. The two-year gap (2017–2019) before IPRS re-registered created uncertainty in the broadcasting industry that has only recently been resolved. |
6. International Reciprocity
Section 34(2) authorises Indian copyright societies to enter into reciprocal agreements with foreign copyright societies. Through these reciprocal arrangements, IPRS represents the interests of members of foreign sister societies — such as the UK's PRS for Music, the US's ASCAP and BMI, France's SACEM, and Germany's GEMA — within Indian territory. Conversely, IPRS's member-authors are represented abroad by these foreign societies. The aggregate result is a global system of cross-licensing administered by the international confederation CISAC (International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers), of which IPRS is an active member.
7. Practical Implications
✅ Six things every copyright lawyer should know about copyright societies Only registered societies (Section 33) can carry on collective licensing — unregistered bodies cannot validly grant blanket licences. Authors retain individual licensing rights (Section 33 proviso) but must respect their obligations to the society. Tariffs are subject to statutory review (Section 33A) — an aggrieved user can challenge them before the Commercial Court / High Court. The society's general body — not its directors — controls tariffs and distribution (Section 35). Foreign sister-society rights are administered by Indian societies through reciprocal agreements (Section 34(2)). Post-2012, the unwaivable royalty rights of underlying authors (Sections 19(9)–(10)) operate through and alongside copyright societies — IPRS v. Music Broadcast Ltd. (2023) is the modern leading authority. |
🎯 EXAM POINTERS — TOPIC 23
|