International publishers back IPRS against the High Court judgments, reports Anita Iyer
Indian music industry is going through dramatic changes, be it the impending amendment to the copyright act or the royalty row between the radio stations and copyright licensing bodies. India is perceived as a key market as it is opening up to changes and embracing global practices.
Not surprising then that the Bombay High Court judgment dated 25 July 2011 followed by Delhi High Court one against IPRS, nullifying claims on performing rights by composers and authors has sent ripples in the international community. With publishing industry exceeding the revenues of recording industry in the developed markets, these judgments pose as a major setback for international publishers. It is a critical issue as it drastically reduces the royalties collected from the Indian market.
On its part, the IPRS (Indian Performing Rights Society) obtained a stay against the Bombay High Court judgment on 29 September 2011. Comments IPRS CEO Rakesh Nigam, “We are happy and relieved with the stay granted on the 25th July 2011 Mumbai High Court Judgment, as this judgment and its interpretation was first of its kind in the history of copyrights through the world. As we not only handle Indian Musical & Literary works but also International Musical & Literary works and it would have raised serious questions of India’s compliance with the Berne Convention obligations and TRIPS which we have signed. We will be able to now start royalty collection and take action against infringers of our rights who play the musical & literary works and for the sound recording of such works.”
Global licensing societies and publishing companies have expressed their apprehensions and disappointment over the judgment to Sound Box.
Andrew Jenkins
Executive Vice President, International
Universal Music Publishing Group
“I was shocked by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Music Broadcast Private Limited versus IPRS which has set Indian IP protection back 50 years. India is now completely out of step with the rest of the world in the protection given to musical works, which is the original rather than the derivative copyright. I fully expect the international community of composers, authors, publishers and collection societies to lobby for commonsense to prevail and for this ruling to be overturned.”
Ger Hatton
Secretary General
ICMP, the global voice of music publishing
“In two recent cases, the Mumbai High Court and Delhi Court ruled that Indian right holders cannot claim royalties or license fees from broadcasters for works played on the air after agreeing to have their music included in sound recordings. This is a terrible blow to the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS), which represents music composers and lyricists, as the rulings imply that it cannot collect royalties on behalf of the artists whose work is included in the recordings being played. In the two cases, the courts have argued that artists lose their rights to their work by agreeing to have them included in sound recordings.
These court rulings demonstrate a serious backslide in Indian copyright protection and are also in direct contradiction of international rules to which India is bound. It is a serious setback to music composers and lyricists. Furthermore, they place India as the only country in the world – among the 121 member countries of the organisation that represents collecting societies – that faces the issue of being unable to license broadcasters on behalf of composer and author rights. For a country whose composers have such a huge impact on culture, not just in Indiaq but worldwide, it is as tragic as it is confusing that the courts have decided to take this decision, placing India alone in a category of one.
ICMP believes that this situation is particularly serious given that India’s Copyright Act is currently under debate and therefore we call upon the Indian Government to address the grave concerns raised by those of us who represent music composers, lyricists, and singers and take appropriate measures to ensure the upcoming Copyright Act does not reflect the outcome of these rulings.”
