Delhi High Court Closes Copyright Suit Over Pre-1965 Public Domain Songs

In a decision that underscores the boundaries of copyright protection in India, the Delhi High Court has disposed of a suit filed by event management firm Bignet Solutions LLP against music licensing company Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. The court ruled on November 21, 2025, that no infringement occurred in the use of pre-1965 sound recordings at a private event, as these works have entered the public domain under Section 27 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the cause of action no longer survived, given Novex's explicit disclaimers and the uneventful conclusion of the event.

This ruling provides clarity for event organizers, performers, and licensing entities navigating the nuances of expired copyrights in the music industry, potentially reducing unnecessary licensing demands and litigation.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy arose in the lead-up to Bignet's private event scheduled for October 12, 2025. The venue hosting the event instructed Bignet to secure a license from Novex, a prominent player in music rights management in India. Bignet, seeking to comply, initially requested a license quote from Novex but soon discovered that the 15 songs on its playlist—all predating 1965—were no longer under copyright protection.

Under Section 27 of the Indian Copyright Act, the term of copyright for sound recordings, cinematograph films, and anonymous or pseudonymous literary, dramatic, or musical works is 60 years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the work was first published. For works published before 1965, this term expired by January 1, 2025, placing them firmly in the public domain. This statutory provision ensures that once the protection lapses, the works can be freely used without permission or royalties, fostering cultural access and creativity.

Bignet approached the Delhi High Court via a suit for a declaration that its intended use of these tracks would not constitute infringement of Novex's rights. The company argued that demanding a license for public domain material was not only unnecessary but potentially coercive, highlighting broader concerns about overreach in the music licensing sector. This case echoes ongoing debates in Indian intellectual property law, where licensing societies like Novex, which administer rights for labels such as T-Series and Zee Music, have faced scrutiny for blanket licensing practices that sometimes encompass expired works.

Court Proceedings and Parties' Statements

On October 10, 2025, the court recorded statements from both parties, setting the stage for a swift resolution. Novex clarified its position unequivocally: "It does not enforce rights over works it neither owns nor manages, nor over public-domain material." This disclaimer was pivotal, as it alleviated any immediate threat of enforcement action against Bignet.

In response, Bignet undertook to limit its performance to the 15 specified pre-1965 songs listed in the plaint. The company agreed to provide a certified recording of the event, along with confirmation from the venue, to verify compliance. Satisfied with these assurances, the court permitted the event to proceed without interruption, marking a pragmatic approach to balancing legal rights with practical needs.

Post-event, Bignet submitted supporting documents demonstrating that the program concluded smoothly, with only the listed tracks played. It further contended that its initial email to Novex had included the song list, and Novex could have clarified the public domain status to avoid escalation. Novex, in its rejoinder, noted that the email provided only song titles without release dates, and mentioned that at least one track had a recreated version under its rights management. However, it reiterated no intent to pursue fees for public domain works and expressed contentment with the suit's disposal, despite minor reservations about the completeness of Bignet's recording.

These exchanges reveal a common friction point in music licensing: incomplete information exchange can lead to disputes, even when no actual infringement exists. For legal practitioners, this underscores the importance of due diligence in verifying publication dates and copyright status before issuing demands.

Court's Reasoning and Disposition

Justice Arora's order on November 21, 2025, accepted Bignet's affidavits and Novex's repeated disclaimers, holding that "the cause of action no longer survived since Bignet's October 12, 2025 event proceeded without disruption and Novex expressly disclaimed rights in the songs in question." The court disposed of the suit, effectively closing the matter without costs or further orders.

This disposition aligns with principles of judicial economy and the avoidance of moot controversies. By emphasizing Novex's categorical statement—"it does not claim any rights over sound recordings published before 1965"—the ruling reinforces that licensing entities cannot assert control over expired copyrights. It also validates Bignet's proactive verification process, where it "found that all 15 songs it intended to play were in the public domain because their 60-year copyright term under Section 27 of the Copyright Act had expired."

The decision draws on established precedents in Indian copyright jurisprudence, such as cases involving the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) and Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL), which have delineated the scope of public performance rights. While not creating new law, it applies Section 27 straightforwardly, reminding stakeholders of the automatic lapse of protection after 60 years.

Legal Implications and Analysis

For the legal community, this case illuminates several key implications under Indian copyright law. First, it reaffirms the public domain's role in democratizing access to cultural heritage. Pre-1965 sound recordings, often iconic tracks from India's golden era of film music, can now be performed freely at events, reducing barriers for small-scale organizers like Bignet. This is particularly relevant in an industry where licensing fees can strain budgets, and blanket licenses from societies like Novex sometimes fail to exclude expired works.

Second, the ruling highlights potential liabilities for licensing companies in over-demanding rights. If Novex had proceeded with enforcement, it could have faced countersuits for abuse of process or anti-competitive practices under the Competition Act, 2002. The case serves as a cautionary tale: entities must maintain accurate catalogs to distinguish between protected and public domain material, avoiding inadvertent inclusion in licensing repertoires.

From a broader perspective, this decision contributes to ongoing reforms in India's intellectual property framework. The Copyright Act's 60-year term for sound recordings is shorter than the life-plus-70 years for literary works, reflecting a policy choice to prioritize public access for audio-visual content. Legal scholars may argue this incentivizes preservation efforts, as rights holders lose exclusive control earlier, encouraging digitization and archiving before works fall into the public domain.

Moreover, the court's interim permission to proceed with the event, contingent on undertakings, exemplifies injunctive relief tailored to commercial realities. This flexible approach could influence future suits involving time-sensitive performances, such as weddings or corporate events, where delays could cause irreparable harm.

Critics within the music industry might point to challenges in verifying release dates, especially for remastered or recreated versions, as Novex noted. This raises questions about the need for a centralized public domain registry, similar to those in the EU or US, to streamline compliance. For IP lawyers, advising clients on such matters now requires rigorous historical research, potentially leveraging databases from the Indian Music Industry or Copyright Office records.

Impact on Legal Practice and the Music Industry

The ripple effects extend to event planners, venues, and performers. Venues, often caught in the middle, may revise contracts to include public domain disclaimers, reducing liability exposure. Licensing firms like Novex could update their processes to request publication details upfront, preventing similar disputes.

In the justice system, this case exemplifies efficient dispute resolution—spanning from filing to disposal in under two months—amid India's overburdened courts. It promotes alternative pathways, such as affidavits and undertakings, over protracted trials, aligning with the Commercial Courts Act's emphasis on speedy adjudication.

For international comparisons, India's 60-year term contrasts with longer protections elsewhere, potentially affecting cross-border licensing for global events. As digital streaming grows, this ruling could inform challenges against platforms monetizing public domain content without attribution.

Ultimately, the Delhi High Court's disposition empowers users of cultural works while holding rights administrators accountable. It reminds the legal fraternity that copyright's ultimate aim is not perpetual monopoly but balanced innovation and access.

In a landscape where music fuels countless events, this decision harmonizes law with creativity, ensuring pre-1965 melodies ring free.

(Word count: 1,248)