Ending the Era of Unnecessary Royalties: Delhi High Court Rules on Public Domain Music

In a significant clarification regarding intellectual property rights, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that sound recordings released prior to 1965 are part of the public domain and do not require copyright licenses. The ruling came in the case of Bignet Solutions LLP v. Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd. , effectively settling a dispute over licensing fees for historical musical works.

The Conflict: Licensing for the Past

The dispute arose when Bignet Solutions LLP, planning an event for October 12, 2025, was directed by its event venue to secure an 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) or copyright license from Novex Communication for a selection of sound recordings. Upon verifying the release dates, Bignet discovered the music consisted of pre-1965 works, which they argued fall under the public domain pursuant to Section 27 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Fearing potential interference with their event, the plaintiff approached the High Court seeking a declaration that no license was required for these songs and requesting an injunction against the defendant.

Arguments from the Trenches

The Plaintiff’s Stand: Bignet Solutions asserted that they had clearly identified the songs at issue as pre-1965 historical tracks. They argued that the defendant had wrongfully demanded license fees for works that had long ago seen their copyright term expire, leading to unnecessary financial pressure on the organizers.

The Defendant’s Defense: Novex Communication, represented by Senior Counsel, clarified that they never claimed rights over pre-1965 recordings and did not expect entities to obtain licenses for such music. They argued the dispute was largely a result of communication gaps, noting that the plaintiff failed to specify the publication dates of the tracks in their initial inquiry. Furthermore, the defendant noted that some songs have been "recreated" in modern films, over which they do hold valid copyrights, adding complexity to the identification of the works.

Key Observations

The Court maintained a pragmatic approach, emphasizing that the focus should remain on the specific rights claimed by the parties. Several passages from the judgment crystallize this:

• "The defendant... has reiterated that it does not claim any copyrights in sound recordings published pre-1965 and it does not expect any person and/or entity to obtain licence for pre-1965 recordings."
• "In view of the aforesaid statement of the defendant categorically stating that it asserts no claims in pre-1965 sound recordings... this Court is of the opinion that the cause of action on which the suit was filed stands satisfied."
• "The Court has not expressed any opinion on the allegations in the plaint pertaining to misrepresentation, unlawful interference, or unjust enrichment on the part of the defendant."

A Lesson in Pre-Litigation Due Diligence

The Court ultimately disposed of the suit, noting that the defendant had no intention of pursuing claims over the recordings in question.

Perhaps most notably, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s request for a refund of court fees. The reasoning was firm: the plaintiff chose to bypass the statutory mechanism of pre-institution mediation to invoke the court’s intervention to hold their event. This serves as a stern reminder to legal professionals and event organizers alike that the Court’s time is a resource that should be utilized only after exhausting lower-level dispute resolution mechanisms.

The immediate effect of this judgment is a clear precedent: public domain music remains free for use, and businesses asserting copyright must ensure their claims are limited to their specific, validly held repertoires. While the immediate matter is closed, it highlights the growing necessity for better transparency between licensing agencies and event organizers to avoid the courtroom entirely.