IMPORTANT POINTS
Assignment and licence distinguished.
Rights of the lyricist and music composer do not extinguish rights of producer of sound recording.
At interim stage courts must refrain from expressing any opinion, whatsoever, touching upon the merits of the controversy, lest, the same may prejudice either of the parties in the suit.

Headnote:Per Prafulla C. Pant, J.
       (a) Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 19 and 30 – Assignment and licence – Assignment involves transfer of ownership of the copyright of the work – In licence, there is no transfer, licensee is merely allowed to use the work by the author. (Para 20)
       (b) Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 14 and 2(d)(v) – Rights of authors of literary, dramatic or musical work – Do not extinguish rights of producer of sound recording, who is also an author – He cannot be deprived of his right of communicating his work of making song to the public. (Para 21, 24)
       (1977) 2 SCC 820; (2008) 13 SCC 30 – Relied upon
       Per Ranjan Gogoi, J.
       (c) Administration of justice – Appeal against interim order – Court must refrain from expressing any opinion, whatsoever, touching upon the merits of the controversy, lest, the same may prejudice either of the parties in the suit – An elaborate reasoning with the “footnote” that the same are prima facie or tentative is hardly an effective remedy to prevent its effect on the courts below – At the interim stage, court is required to find a reasonable solution to the matter which should govern the parties until disposal of the suit where the main controversy is required to be decided – Instantly High Court has done the same – It has struck a reasonable note to find a workable solution during the pendency of the suit – No need to interfere. (Para 3, 4)
       (d) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Plaintiff taking repeated adjournments lingering the matter which is now 10 years old – Contesting this appeal – Secondly ICSAC not getting it impleaded at the trial or appellate stage entering the suit at Supreme Court stage – Not approved. (Para 5)
       Facts of the case:
       Issue involved in the present appeals is that where lyric written by ‘X’ (lyricist) and music composed by ‘Y’ (musician) are used to make sound recording by ‘Z’ (Sound Recording Company), whether ‘A’ (Event Management Company/Event Organizer) is required to seek licence from ‘X’ and ‘Y’ for subsequently playing the song in public even after ‘A’ had paid for the broadcasting of the song to ‘Z’ (Sound Recording Company) ?
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned Order does not need any interference.
       Result: Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Leave granted.

2. All these three appeals are directed against the order dated May 08, 2012 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in FAO (OS) Nos. 423-424 of 2011 and FAO (OS) No. 425 of 2011 with CM No. 19128 of 2011, whereby said Court has dismissed the appeals, and affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge in Suit CS (OS) No. 1185 of 2006 and Copyright Infringement Suit CS(OS) No. 1996 of 2009 disposing of the Interim Applications moved for temporary injunction and directions.

3. Learned Single Judge had disposed of Interim Applications in above mentioned suits as under:-

“55. In the light of the above conclusions- which are prima facie in nature, and do not preclude the plaintiffs in both cases, from establishing and proving their case- the following directions are issued:

(i) In the synergy suit, (i.e. CS(OS) 1185/2006) the applications for temporary injunctions, i.e. IA Nos., 6486/2006, 7027/2006 and 6487/2006 are disposed of by stating that the defendants do not have to secure a license from the plaintiffs;

(ii) In the CRI suit, (i.e. CS(OS) No. 1996/2009) the application, i.e. IA Nos. 13691/2009, 13692/2009 are disposed of with the directions that in case the defendants wish to perform the sound recording in public, i.e. play them, a license from PPRS is essential; in case the musical works are to be communicated or performed in the public, independently, through an artiste, the license of IPRS is essential. In case the defendant wishes to hold an event involving performances or communication of works of both kinds to the public, the license or authorization of both IPRS and PPRS are necessary. The defendant is accordingly restrained from communicating any of such works to the public, or performing them, in the public, without such appropriate authorization, or licensing pending adjudication of the suit.”

4. Issue involved in the present appeals is that where lyric written by ‘X’ (lyricist) and music composed by ‘Y’ (musician) are used to make sound recording by ‘Z’ (Sound Recording Company), whether ‘A’ (Event Management Company/Event Organizer) is required to seek licence from ‘X’ and ‘Y’ for subsequently playing the song in public even after ‘A’ had paid for the broadcasting of the song to ‘Z’ (Sound Recording Company) ?

5. Indian Performing Rights Society Limited (For short “IPRS”) (appellant before us in two of the three appeals) is the Society of authors of literary work, and composers of musical work, is the plaintiff/appellant. And International Confederation of Societies, is a non-governmental organization, an association of copyright societies, registered in France, which was not the party before the trial court, is the appellant in one of the above three appeals. Respondent No.2 – Synergy Media Entertainment is the Event Management Company of which Respondent No.1 is the Senior Manager (Finance).

6. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that authors of literary work and composers of musical work are the first owners of copyright in lyric and musical work respectively under the Copyright Act, 1957. As such they have the right to get restrained Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from infringing their copyright, and licence given to sound recording company does not affect the rights of lyricist or the musician. Reference has been made to the definition of expression “communication to the public” defined under Section 2(ff) and that of ‘performance’ defined in Section 2(q) of the Act. Further, reference has been made to the amendment introduced in 1994 in the Copyright Act, 1957 and it is pleaded that the right created under Section 14(a)(iv) cannot be read in derogation of right created under Section 14(a)(iii) of the Act.

7. The grievance of the International Confederation Society (IFS)/3rd party appellant is that the petitioner is aggrieved due to the findings and alleged legal infirmities in the impugned order as it has an immediate and direct impact on its members and the creative

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2016 Supreme(SC) 741

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis