Discuss the law relating to exploitation of copyright in the light of licensing of copyright by

the owner of the copyright. Discuss in detail statutory licence for cover versions under the
copyright Act, 1957. (2017)
What do you understand by Assignment of Copyright? What are the requirements of a valid
assignment? Write a note on the beneficial provisions, introduced in 2012 Amendments to the
Copyright Act, for the benefit of script writers of movies?
What are the various modes of transfer of copyright? Define and distinguish between
assignment and licensing of copyright. In this respect elucidate the role of Copyright
Societies.
What is meant by 'assignment' and 'licensing including compulsory licensing of 'copyright? In
this respect discuss the role of copyright societies in the administration of copyright.

Notes
Copyright constitutes the legal entitlement to intellectual property, acknowledging an
individual's skill and effort in conceiving and communicating an original idea. It safeguards a
spectrum of cultural and artistic expressions, including literature, drama, music, and
sculpture. Copyright is a legal privilege granted exclusively to creators or groups to shield
their creative endeavours from unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, translation,
distribution, and public performance.
Licenses
In the context of copyright, a license does not transfer ownership but rather confers the right
to use the licensor's property. Once the license expires, the licensee may be vulnerable to
infringement actions, similar to any other unauthorized user. It is crucial for the licensee to
recognize that the right to use the copyright is limited to the extent specified in the license
agreement, as a license is construed as reserving all other rights.
Licenses under Indian Copyright Act
Chapter VI, sections 30,30A,31,31A, 31B, 31C,31D, 32,32A and 32B deals with provisions
in relation to licences. Section 30 provides for Voluntary Licensing of Copyright by the
authors. Sections 31, 31A, 31B deals with compulsory licensing and Sections 31C and 31D
provides for statutory licensing respectively. Section 32 and 32A deals with non-voluntary
license after a specified period. The provisions were added by the amendment of 2012 and
they broadened the choice of non- voluntary licensing in India.
a. Voluntary License
Section 30 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 stipulates that "the copyright owner of an
existing work or the prospective copyright owner of a future work has the authority to confer
any interest in the right through a license, either in writing by the owner or by their duly
authorized agent." In this context, the owner of the work has the right to grant license. A
license may extend not only to existing works but also to future works. In such a scenario, it
takes effect when the future work comes into existence. If a licensee of the copyright in a
future work passes away before the work materializes, their legal representatives are entitled
to the benefits of the license unless expressly stated otherwise. The licensing process mirrors
an assignment deed, with necessary adjustments and modifications as outlined in section 19
(section 30A). Similar to an assignment, a license deed pertaining to a work should include
the following particulars:
• Duration of the license
• The specific rights granted under the license
• Territorial scope of the license
• The amount of royalty to be paid
• Terms related to revision
• Provisions for extension and termination

In the legal matter of Deshmukh and Co. (Publishers) Pvt. Ltd. versus Avinash Vishnu
Khandekar, the High Court of Bombay stated, "Copyright comprises scheduled rights that
can be independently exercised. An exclusive license grants specific rights to the licensor or
licensee, and those authorized by them, to the exclusion of all others, including the copyright
owner. In contrast, a non-exclusive license allows the copyright owner to grant licenses to
multiple parties or exercise the rights personally.
b. Compulsory License
Section 31- Compulsory Licenses in works withheld from the public
Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957 confers authority upon the Commercial Court to grant
compulsory licenses for works that have been published or publicly performed. If, during the
validity of a copyright in a published work or a work performed in public, a written
complaint is filed with the Court, and negotiations for voluntary licenses between the
complainant and the right holder have failed, the Court may instruct the Registrar of
Copyright to issue a compulsory license to the complainant. This is contingent upon:
 The right holder's refusal to republish the work, denial of its republication, or its
public performance, resulting in the withholding of the work from the public.
 Alternatively, if the refusal has led to the non-broadcast of the work to the public or,
in the case of a sound recording, the non- broadcast of the captured work to the
general populace on terms deemed appropriate by the complainant.
Upon receipt of a complaint concerning such refusal, the Commercial Court provides a
reasonable opportunity for the copyright owner to be heard and may conduct an inquiry.
Subsequent to a thorough hearing and investigation, if the Commercial Court determines that
the denial of the license was unjustified, it directs the Registrar of Copyright to issue a
compulsory license to the complainant. This license enables the complainant to re-publish,
perform in public, or transmit the work to the public. Additionally, the Commercial Court
stipulates compensation to be awarded to the copyright holder and determines other terms
and conditions as deemed appropriate under the circumstances.
The license must outline the term of the license, the rate of royalty or amount of
compensation payable to the copyright holder, and any other relevant terms and conditions
deemed appropriate by the Court. The issuance of every license under Section 31 must be
promptly notified in the official gazette and on the website of the Copyright Office.
In the case of Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd., the
Supreme Court established that the grant of a compulsory license hinges on a prior
determination that the grounds for the copyright owner's refusal are unreasonable. Only upon
reaching this conclusion can the Registrar of Copyrights be instructed to issue a license to the
complainant for the specified purpose. Additionally, the compensation amount owed to the
copyright owner must be assessed. The Copyright Board is vested with the authority to
decide on other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Board.
In the case of Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.1 the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court noted that the Legislature intended to create a provision for
granting licenses to all individuals seeking the same, provided they were willing to offer
reasonable terms. The legislative framework itself reflected the wisdom of treating the field
of broadcast differently from other modes of public communication. The Court elaborated on
this by stating that Clause (b) of sub-section (1) can be considered akin to a proviso or
exception to Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 31. The enactment of Clause (b) in sub-
section (1) of Section 31 aimed to carve out the field of broadcasting from Clause (a) and
address it separately. The distinctive treatment accorded by the Legislature to the field of
broadcast lies in the fact that the refusal of the copyright holder to rebroadcast the work does
not necessarily lead to withholding the work from the public. In other words, even if the
copyright holder in a work personally rebroadcasts the work or allows others to broadcast it, a
complaint can still be filed.
Section 31A- Compulsory License in unpublished or [published works]
Section 31A enables any individual to acquire a compulsory license for a work whose author
is deceased, unknown, or untraceable, commonly referred to as orphan works. Itnow allows
obtaining a license for any work be it unpublished, published, or communicated to the public
provided it has been withheld from the public in India. Previously, the provision only covered
"unpublished Indian works" under specific conditions.
Orphan works, lacking a copyright owner, possess intrinsic value and are deemed worthy of
utilization. Interested parties can apply to the Commercial Court for a license to publish,
communicate, or translate such works in any language. Prior to the application, the applicant
must publish their proposal in a national daily in English, and if translation is intended, in a
daily newspaper in the relevant language. Following an inquiry, the Commercial Court directs
the Registrar of Copyrights to grant the license, contingent upon the payment of royalties and
other terms set by the Court. The determined royalty is to be deposited in the public account
of India or another specified account. In cases where the deceased author's work is deemed
desirable for publication in the national interest, the Central Government may require heirs or
representatives to publish within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply allows others to
seek permission for publication, paying the designated royalty.
The provision serves to recognize and utilize numerous valuable works that would otherwise
languish due to the absence of an owner.
Section 31B- Compulsory License for benefit of Disabled
The recently added provision, Section 31B, permits individuals working for the benefit of
profit-oriented or business-related enterprises, specifically for the disabled, to apply for a
compulsory license to publish copyrighted works benefiting disabled persons. This applies
when the provisions of Section 52(1)(zb) do not apply. Upon receiving an application under
Section 31B, the Commercial Court conducts an inquiry to verify the applicant's credentials.
The copyright owner, whose work is intended to be published for the benefit of the disabled,
is notified of the application via registered post. In cases where the owner is unknown or
untraceable, the application may be served to the publisher whose name appears on the work.
If, after providing the owner an opportunity to be heard and conducting a suitable inquiry, the
Commercial Court determines that a compulsory license is necessary, it may direct the
Registrar to grant the license to the applicant.
Each granted license specifies the publication period, medium, format, number of copies,
royalty rate, and the recipient of payments. When determining royalties, the Commercial
Court considers factors such as the proposed price of the work, prevailing royalty standards,
costs associated with accessible formats, and other relevant considerations. The Commercial
Court, through a subsequent application, may allow the extension of the compulsory license
period and permit the issuance of additional copies, provided the owners are given a
reasonable opportunity to express their views. The law emphasizes expeditious license grant,
urging the Commercial Court to dispose of applications promptly and make an effort to do so
within two months of receipt.
However, two key issues remain unaddressed. Firstly, a disabled person cannot independently
obtain a compulsory license for publishing a work for personal benefit; a next friend must
obtain the license on their behalf. Secondly, the provision lacks a stringent time limit for
license grant, with the Commercial Court only urged to dispose of applications promptly
within a suggested two-month period. Additionally, the provision lacks specific criteria
guiding the Commercial Court in deciding whether to grant a license.
Despite these shortcomings, Section 31B is a welcomed provision meeting the long-standing
demands of disabled persons. The expansion of its scope allows anyone working for the
benefit of the disabled on a profit basis to apply for a compulsory license to publish
copyrighted works for the disabled.
c) Statutory Licenses
Section 31C-Statutory License for Cover Versions
Section 31C establishes a statutory license for cover versions, which are essentially fresh
renditions of existing songs performed by new artists and musicians, maintaining the original
lyrics and melody. This provision allows any person to create a cover version of a sound
recording of a literary, dramatic, or musical work, provided the previous recording was made
with the consent or license of the rights owner and complies with the conditions outlined in
Section 31C. The cover version can be made in the same medium as the previous recording,
unless the latter is no longer in current commercial use. To create a cover version, an
individual must wait for five years after the initial sound recording was made and meet the
conditions specified in the Act. Before proceeding, the person must provide a prior notice of
their intention to the owner of the works and the Registrar of Copyrights at least fifteen days
in advance. This notice should include the royalties due for a minimum of fifty thousand
copies, determined by the Commercial Court.
To prevent confusion between the original and cover versions, the person creating the cover
version must ensure that the sound recordings are not packaged or labelled in a way that
misleads the public about their identity. The cover version's outer cover or label should not
contain the name or depiction of the original performer or film. Additionally, the cover
version must be labelled as such under Section 31C, and copies of these labels must be
provided in advance to the owner of rights for each work. During the creation of the sound
recording, the producer must maintain the integrity of the original literary, dramatic, or
musical works, making alterations only if technically necessary. The producer must keep a
record of the total number of copies made, sold, and remaining in stock at their principal
place of business. The owner of rights in the original sound recording or their authorized
agent has the right to inspect these records. If the Commercial Court receives a genuine
complaint from the owner of rights that their royalty has not been paid in full for any sound
recordings made under this section, it may issue an ex-parte order directing the person
creating the cover version to cease further copies and pay the outstanding royalty.
Section 52(1)(j) was a precursor to the present Section 31C, with differences in the conditions
imposed on cover version producers. Notably, the current provision introduces stricter
requirements, allowing alterations only if technically necessary and preventing misleading
packaging. The cover version must also be released in the original sound recording's medium,
and an advance payment is required for the first fifty thousand copies, a requirement absent in
Section 52(1)(j).
In the case of Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd, the
Delhi High Court provided a comprehensive justification for the existence of a distinct
copyright in version recordings, emphasizing that the production of such recordings does not
constitute an alteration of the original literary, dramatic, or musical works incorporated within
them. The Court meticulously analysed the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957,
particularly highlighting Section 13(4), which delineates that the copyright in primary works
persists separately from the sound recording in which they are utilized. The Court delved into
Section 52(1)(j) (now replaced with Section 31C), contending that it addresses the
exploitation of primary works whose authors have voluntarily permitted their incorporation in
a sound recording, thereby entering the public domain. The exclusive right to exploit such
works through sound recordings remains with the original author until the expiration of a
stipulated period. The decision establishes a robust framework that balances the rights of
original authors, sound recording owners, and consumers, providing clarity and guidance in
navigating the nuanced landscape of copyright law.
A mashup refers to the blending of two or more songs into a unified and coherent track,
creating a unique recording without altering the lyrics or melody significantly. Although the
term "mashup" is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Copyright Act, any rearrangement or
modification of a work is classified as its adaptation under Section 2(a)(v) of the Act. The
exclusive right to adapt a work is granted to the owner of the primary work (literary,
dramatic, musical) under Section 14(a)(vi). Therefore, only the owner of a musical or literary
work can adapt or authorize the adaptation of their work for creating a mashup. Additionally,
when a mashup is produced, it is recorded as a new sound recording, requiring the permission
of both the owners of the original works and the sound recording.
Similarly, a remix, traditionally characterized by alterations in beats, tempo, and minor
variations to the melody and lyrics of a song, is considered an adaptation under the Indian
Copyright Act. This involves rearranging or altering the literary and musical elements of the
song without completely recreating or reperforming it. Hence, obtaining permission from
both the copyright owners of primary works and the original sound recording is essential to
avoid legal consequences for infringement.
In many instances, companies creating remixes or mashups acquire the songs from the
original music company holding the rights by paying a royalty. However, this practice had
previously disadvantaged music composers and lyricists who had assigned their rights for a
lump-sum payment, as they did not receive a share in the royalties when their work was
transformed. The (Amendment) Act of 2012 addressed this issue by introducing a proviso to
Section 18, stipulating that the author of a literary or musical work incorporated in a sound
recording not forming part of a cinematograph film cannot assign the right to receive
royalties without equal sharing with the assignee of copyright for any utilization of the work.
While obtaining permission from the relevant copyright owners is imperative for creating a
mashup or remix, a cover version follows a different path. Instead of seeking individual
permissions, it must adhere to statutory conditions outlined in Section 31C and Copyright
Rules, 2013. Both mashups and remixes, when created following the necessary procedures,
result in the formation of a new sound recording, entailing its own set of rights as granted
under Section 14(e) of the Act.
Is ‘Consent’ necessary under Section 31C of the Copyright Act
Since the time it turned out to be evident that there existed a productive market for cover
versions, various makers for version recording developed as the statutorily recommended
order under past Section 52(1)(j) needed them to send just notice and pay the decided royalty
to the writers of original works when a sound recording of a same original work had just been
allowed to be in open space.
However, there were a series of suits under Section 52(1)(j) from where Section 31C has
been replaced, challenging whether the section requires seeking an express assent or simply a
notice to be sent to the creator of basic works.
While in the case of Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.
the Hon’ble Court mandated assent, the Karnataka High Court choice of Gramophone Co. of
India Ltd. v. Mars Recording Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., properly concluded that what the section
thinks about is just accommodation of the notice and the assent need not be acquired. This
was put aside by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v.
Mars Recording Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., yet on the absence of factual foundation and not by
varying based on what was held by the High Court.
In the case of Super Cassette Industries Ltd. v. Bathla Cassette Industries Pvt. Ltd., the
basis was somewhat rough wherein it was expressed that a change in the artist in a vocal
recording is a change in the most essential constituent of the recorded song and it is
impossible without the past assent of the proprietor of the original recording. Nonetheless, the
decision has been held to be per incuriam in the case of Gramophone Company Of India
Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd., which explained that for getting a statutory licence,
the assent of the proprietor need not be acquired.
As a matter of fact, assent, whenever ordered, would make the very idea behind statutory
licencing worthless and would draw in Section 30 which accommodates voluntary licences.
Further, applying the tenet of ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius’, since notice is explicitly
referenced and assent is avoided, it might be securely reasoned that assent isn’t required
under section 31C. In any case, this has stayed a disrupted proposition and the entire
commotion around it could have been perpetually settled if the governing body had expressly
stated its intention either under Section 31C or in the principles.
Section 31D- Statutory Licenses for broadcasting of literary and musical work and
sound recording
Section 31D, is crafted for broadcasting organizations, allowing them to communicate literary
or musical works and sound recordings to the public through broadcast or performance.
While Section 31(1)(b) of the Act does offer a compulsory licensing provision for broadcast
purposes, the statutory licensing scheme introduced by Section 31D streamlines the process,
reducing transaction costs and time consumption. This holds particular significance for radio
broadcasters, who rely on access to numerous copyrighted works simultaneously to operate a
successful radio station. A scenario where a major sound label refuses to license its work at a
reasonable cost could disrupt the requirements of a radio broadcaster and potentially trigger a
cascading effect, causing other labels to await more favourable deals. Under Section 31D,
any broadcasting organization desiring to communicate published literary or musical works
and sound recordings to the public through broadcast or performance can obtain a statutory
license. The organization must send a notice of its intention to broadcast the works to the
owner of copyright and the Registrar of Copyright five days in advance. Alongside the notice,
the broadcasting organization is obligated to pay royalties in advance to the copyright owner
for each work. Separate notices are mandated for television broadcast, radio broadcast, or
performance of literary or musical works and sound recordings, depending on the medium of
communication to the public.
Section 31D(3) stipulates that the rates of royalty, distinct for television and radio
broadcasting, are to be determined by the Commercial Court immediately upon its
constitution or upon request from an interested party. To facilitate transparency and input, the
Commercial Court must issue public notices inviting suggestions for royalty rates,
considering input from interested parties before determining separate rates for radio and
television broadcasting. These royalty rates are subject to periodic revisions, occurring at
least once a year. To protect the interests of copyright owners, broadcasting organizations
seeking a statutory license are obliged to fulfil certain obligations. These include announcing
the names of authors and principal performers during the broadcast, unless the work is
communicated to the public through a performance. The broadcasting organization is
prohibited from altering the work being broadcasted, except to the extent necessary for
technical broadcasting purposes, such as shortening a work for convenience. Furthermore,
Section 31D(7) in conjunction with Rule 30 of Copyright Rules 2013 mandates broadcasting
organizations to maintain records and books of accounts at their principal place of business,
containing details such as the total number of works broadcasted, their time slots, and
durations. These records must be made available for inspection upon prior notice by the
copyright owner or their authorized agent, who may obtain copies of relevant extracts at their
expense.
Section 31D stands as a self-contained provision, encompassing all necessary safeguards for
the effective broadcast of works to the public by compliant broadcasting organizations. The
explicit mention of literary or musical works and sound recordings in Section 31D suggests a
constrained utility for television broadcasters, excluding cinematograph films from its ambit.
Consequently, television broadcasters may, at most, secure synchronization licenses for music
to synchronize with other content like television serials. For broadcasting cinematograph
films, television broadcasters must still resort to voluntary licenses or compulsory licenses
under Section 31(1)(b). An apprehension raised by stakeholders that Section 31D might
enable broadcasters to evade existing agreements is dispelled by Section 31D(8), preserving
the legal sanctity of agreements made before the 2012 Amendment Act. Upon scrutinizing
Section 31D and the governing Copyright Rules, it becomes apparent that its application is
limited to radio and television broadcasting. This interpretation aligns not only with the
provision's literal reading but also with the legislative intent evident in parliamentary debates.
Including internet broadcasting under Section 31D would result in anomalous consequences,
considering the Act's definitions of terms like "broadcast" and "communication to the public."
In internet streaming, service providers make copies of sound recordings on their servers,
selling or renting them to users.
In 2016, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion issued an office memorandum,
suggesting the inclusion of internet broadcasting organizations alongside television and radio
under Section 31D. However, the Bombay High Court, in the Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk
Media Ltd. case, resolved the controversy by ruling that Section 31D's scope remains
confined to television and radio broadcasting. The judgment, dated April 23, 2019,
thoroughly analyzed the scope of Section 31D and the procedural rules for obtaining a
statutory license.
A recent twist in the Section 31D controversy involves Spotify, a Swedish music-streaming
company, invoking the provision to launch its services in India. Despite negotiations with
music production houses, including Warner Chappel Music Ltd. (WCM), Spotify faced a
setback when the court, on February 26, 2019, ruled that Section 31D couldn't be used for
obtaining a statutory license for streaming sound recordings.20 However, the court allowed
Spotify, without a voluntary or statutory license, to use the music in which WCM held rights
by depositing a sum of 6.5 Crores with the High Court until a remuneration is fixed. This
decision, lacking legal sanction without a voluntary or statutory license, raises concerns, but
the outcome may be influenced by the Bombay High Court's reasoning in the Tips case,
excluding internet streaming from Section 31D, delivered on April 23, 2019.
d) Non- Voluntary License after the expiry of specified periods
Section 32-License to produce and publish translations
Section 32 of the Copyright Act outlines provisions for obtaining a license to produce and
publish translations of literary or dramatic works after specific periods from the first
publication. After seven years from the initial publication, anyone can apply to the
Commercial Court for a license to produce and publish a translation. In the case of non-
Indian works, this applies after three years for translations in languages commonly used in
India for teaching, scholarship, or research. However, for translations into languages not
commonly used in developed countries, the application period is reduced to one year. The
Commercial Court may issue license after conducting the enquiry and making sure that
royalties in respect of copies, as decided by the court, is paid to the owner of the copyright.
The applicant has to prove that no translation of the work was made by the copyright owner
within the specified period. The license can be granted only after verifying that the applicant
has approached the Copyright owner and he has been denied by the person. An opportunity of
being heard should be given to the owner of the copyright to present his case.
Section 32A- License to reproduce and publish works for certain purposes
Section 32-A of the Copyright Act pertains to obtaining a license for the reproduction and
publication of literary, scientific, or artistic works. An individual can apply to the Commercial
Court for such a license after the expiration of specific periods from the date of the first
publication of an edition if copies of that edition are unavailable in India, or if they haven't
been offered for sale to the general public or for instructional purposes at a reasonable price
for a specified period. The prescribed periods are as follows:
• Seven years for works related to fiction, poetry, drama, music, or art.
• Three years for works related to natural science, physical science, mathematics, or
technology.
• Five years for any other work.
The Commercial Court has the authority to issue a license after conducting an inquiry,
ensuring that the designated royalties, as determined by the court, are duly paid to the
copyright owner. For the license to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that, within
the specified period, the copyright owner did not produce a translation of the work.
Furthermore, the court can only issue the license after confirming that the applicant made a
legitimate attempt to obtain permission from the copyright owner and was denied. Crucially,
before granting the license, the Commercial Court is obligated to provide an opportunity for
the copyright owner to present their case. This ensures a fair and balanced assessment of the
situation, allowing the owner of the copyright to voice any concerns or objections related to
the issuance of the license. This procedural step emphasizes the importance of due process
and a comprehensive examination of the circumstances before the court makes a decision
regarding the issuance of a license.
Section 32B stipulates that if, at any time after the granting of a license, the owner of the
copyright in the work or any person authorized by the owner publishes a translation of such
work in the same language and substantially the same content, at a price reasonably related to
the price normally charged in India for translations of works of the same standard on the
same or similar subject, the license that was granted shall be terminated.
The Court in South Indian Music Companies v. Union of India, affirmed the legitimacy of
Section 31 and 31D, emphasizing that these sections establish a mechanism for addressing
the balance between public interest and private rights. The court acknowledged that Section
31 and 31D serve to reconcile the concerns of the public and the rights of owners.
Assignment of Copyright
Assignment of copyright refers to exclusive transfer of certain or all rights of the copyright
owner, meaning thereby that it could be with respect to all or any of the rights of the
copyright owner. It could be temporary or permanent. An assignment serves two purposes.
 As far as the assignee is concerned, it confers on him the right of exploitation of work
for a specified territory or period.
 For the assignor, it confers the right to receive royalty or other consideration. Section
18 of the Act deals with assignment of copyright.
Section 18(1) state that the owner of the copyright in an existing work or the prospective
owner of the copyright in a future work may assign to any person the copyright either wholly
or partially and either generally or subject to limitation and either for the whole of the
copyright or any part thereof. However, in the case of assignment of copyright in any future
work the assignment shall take effect only when the work comes into existence. It was held in
Saregama India Ltd v. Suresh Jindal that the owner of the copyright in a future work may
assign the copyright to any person for the whole or part of the copyright and that once the
assignment is made, the assignee is treated as the owner of the copyright for the purposes of
this Act.
Unless a medium of exploitation was available at the time of transfer or is expressly specified
in the agreement, the assignment will not apply to those mediums. With respect to rights
which are not specified in the assignment, the assignor retains the ownership for them.
By the Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012, three provisos were added to section 18.:
 The first proviso deals with rapidly developing ways of exploiting the copyrighted
work in this era of rapid technological development. As per this proviso, assignment
of copyright will not include assignment to use the copyright in any method which
was evolved after the assignment of the work. Such rights should be expressly given
to the assignee by term of the agreement. This amendment does not deal with license,
so there is a possibility that the proposed amendment could be circumvented by the
grant of an exclusive licence rather than the grant of an assignment.
 This second proviso talks specifically about the literary or musical work included in a
cinematograph film. This proviso is mainly for the benefit of author of underlying
works used in cinematograph films and sound recordings.
 As per this proviso the author of literary or musical work included in a cinematograph
film shall not assign such work to any other person or waive his right to receive
royalties.
These provisions have been highly appreciated by the people in film and music industry but
is rarely made use of even after four years of amendment. In Video Master v. Nishi
Production, the Bombay High Court reviewed whether a video rights assignment would
include the right to broadcast through satellite as well. The Court agreed with the defendant's
assertions that there were various channels of public communication, including terrestrial
television transmission (Doordarshan), satellite broadcasting, and video television. In all of
those modalities, the film's owner owned distinct copyright, which he might assign to
multiple people.
Section 19 of the Copyright Act discusses the mode of assignment of copyright. Section 19
(1) states that assignment of copyright is valid only when it is in writing and signed by the
assignor or his duly authorised agent. Further, it is required that the assignment of copyright
in any work shall identify such work and should also specify the rights assigned. The duration
and territorial extent to which the rights of the assignee exist should also be specified in the
assignment. Further this section provides that the assignment shall also specify the amount of
royalty and any other consideration payable to the authors or his legal heirs during the
currency of the assignment. The terms “royalty and any other consideration” was added by
the Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012 in place of “royalty payable, if any”. The
assignment is also subject to revision, extension or termination on the terms mutually agreed
upon by the parties.
Section 18 makes it clear that the assignee has to exercise his rights provided under any of the
sub- section of this sections, within a period of one year. If the assignee fails to do this, his
rights will be lapsed unless otherwise mentioned in the assignment. The period of assignment
if not stated shall be deemed to be for a period of 5 years and the territorial extent if not
specified will be presumed to extend to whole of India. These provisions, however, will not
be applicable to assignments made before the Copyright Amendment Act 1994. The above
said provisions are mostly for the benefits of the assignee, to protect him from any
malpractice used by the author of the copyright work to earn more profit.
Section 19 (8) was added wide the amendment of 2012. This sub- section states that the
assignment of copyright in any work contrary to the terms and conditions of the rights
already assigned to a copyright society in which author of the work is a member shall be
void. Assignments can be classified in two categories:
a. Legal assignment: The legal assignment of copyright in existing works means transfer
of right, title and interest of the copyrighted work, either absolutely or partially. This
assignment will be subject to covenants entered into by parties. It may be an absolute
assignment or partial one.
b. Equitable assignment: The equitable assignment result when there is an agreement to
assign the present work or an agreement to assign future work. The Delhi High Court
while discussing the effect of negative covenants in agreement in Chancellor Master
and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Orient Longman Private Limited and
Others, held that the negative covenant in the agreement whereby defendant
undertook not to publish or cause to be published any work on the same subject at or
about the price the sale of which might reasonably be regarded as conflicting or likely
to conflict with the sale of copyrighted work without consent in writing of plaintiff in
the agreement, can be legally enforced being not in restraint of trade.8 If there is any
dispute with respect to assignment of any copyright, then the Copyright Board on
receipt of the aggrieved party may pass any order as it deem fit after holding suitable
enquiry. Such order may include order to recover royalty also. This provision is
appended with certain provisos. The first proviso to Section 19A mandates the
 Copyright Board to first satisfy that the terms of assignment are not harsh on the
assignor before passing any order to revoke the assignment.
Assignment by Operation of Law (Section 20)
If the owner of the copyright dies without leaving a will, the copyright will pass to his
personal representative as part of his estate. Section 20 states that if a person is entitled to
copyright under bequest and the work has not been published before the testator's death
unless the testator's will or any codicil thereto expressly states otherwise, such person is
considered to have copyright in the work to the extent that the testator was the owner of
copyright immediately before his death.
Difference between Licensing and Assignment
1. Assignment involves a transfer of copyright ownership. But licensing involves
granting permission to use the work without transferring ownership.
2. In assignment, the assignee becomes the new owner of the copyright. In licensing, the
copyright owner retains ownership.
3. Assignment typically involves a broader transfer of rights. Licensing specifies the
limited rights granted to the licensee.
The terms assignment and licensing are not interchangeable. An assignment is different from
license. The difference between two are important for various reasons. For example, failure to
pay royalties under the original agreement may in the case of license enable a license to be
revoked but in case of assignment it does not lead to revocation of the copyright which has
been assigned.
In Deshmukh & Co. (Publishers) Pvt. Ltd. v. Avinash Vishnu Khandekar & Ors., the
Bombay High Court stated: “An assignment may be general i.e. without limitations or an
assignment may be subject to limitations. It may be for the whole term of the copyright or
any part thereof. An assignment transfers an interest in, and deals with the copyright itself as
provided under section 14 of the Act, but license does not convey the copyright but only
grants a right to do something, which in the absence of license would be unlawful. An
assignment transfer’s title in the copyright, a license merely permits certain things to be done
by the licensee. The assignee being vested title in the copyright may reassign it to any other
person. The license is personnel and therefore not transferable or not assignable without the
grantor’s consent. Furthermore, the assignee can sue for infringement without joining the
assignor. The licensee cannot sue in his own name for infringement of the copyright, since
copyright belongs to the licenser.”
In Hole v. Bradbury, it was observed that in the agreements between authors and publishers
of theatrical products, it is, often difficult to distinguish between sole and exclusive licence
and an assignment of copyright. Where the agreement between the author and publisher
contains no express term as to the copyright, if consideration is paid to the author by the way
of royalties or a share of the profits instead of a sum of money paid down, the inference is
that the copyright is not assigned but that a sole and exclusive licence is conferred upon the
publisher.
In the case of TK.P. Sundaram v. Rattan Prakashan Mandir, the court held: "It is extremely
difficult sometimes to distinguish in case of agreement between authors and publishers and
sellers, whether it is an exclusive licence or partial assignment of the copyright to publish and
sell. If the agreement contains express words or terms as to copyright then inference can be
drawn. Where the agreement contains no such terms, but the consideration is the payment of
royalties or a share of profits instead of down right payment, then the copyright is not
assigned. It would be a case of conferment of an exclusive licence to publish and sell."
Assignment and licensing affect the right of the parties i.e., the assignors, assignee, licensor
and licensee in different manners, one transfers the title in copyright while the other grants
certain rights with respect to copyrighted works. In this situation, it becomes important to
distinguish between the two. Though the distinction is not always easy, as the dividing line is
very thin, the only way to decide is looking at the intention of the parties by referring to the
terms of the contract.
Role of Copyright Societies in the Administration of Copyright

The concept of collective copyright administration involves the management and protection
of copyright in various works by the authors and other owners of such works. A copyright
society in India is registered in accordance with Copyright Act, 1957, Section 33. Authors
and other copyright owners, such as licensing entities established through assignment from
the original author, comprise this kind of society. The sole organization authorized to issue or
grant licenses for literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works included in cinematograph
films or sound recordings is a copyright society that has been appropriately registered under
this Act. The Copyright Society is a legal entity dedicated to safeguarding the rights of those
who own copyrighted material. The Copyright Societies are covered in Sections 33 to 36A of
Chapter VII of the Copyright Act. The Copyright (Amendment) Act of 1994 expanded the
authority of Performing Rights Societies to grant licenses for performances in India, thereby
improving their working capacity.
A copyright society administers the rights of its members only i.e. rights of those that have
authorized the organization to act on their behalf.
Various functions performed by these organizations include: -
 licensing works in which they hold the copyright or for which they act as agent on
behalf of their members for specific uses;
 monitoring use of licensed works and collecting revenues;
 distributing revenues as royalties to members;
 entering into reciprocal arrangements with foreign collecting societies to collect and
distribute local royalties to foreign rights holders and to receive and distribute
royalties earned overseas to local rights holders.
The collective organizations, deduct a specified percentage from the fees paid by users of
work to meet their administrative costs.
Only copyright societies duly registered under this Act may engage in the business of issuing
or putting licenses in respect of literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works incorporated in
cinematograph films or sound recordings. This type of compulsory collective licensing is
used to manage performing rights.
A copyright society's registration is granted for a period of five years, and it may be renewed
periodically before the end of every five years upon request in the prescribed form. The
Central Government may renew the registration following review of the Registrar of
Copyrights' report on the society's working under section.
The renewal of a copyright society's registration is contingent upon the society's continued
collective control, which is shared with the authors of works in their individual capacities as
copyright or royalty-right owners. Within a year following the date the Copyright
(Amendment) Act, 2012 went into effect, any copyright society that was already registered
prior to the Act's creation must register under this Chapter.15
The Copyright Society has the authority to carry out the following acts to improve copyright
administration in India:
 To issue licenses under section 30. in respect of any rights under this Act;
 To collect fees in pursuance of such licenses;
 Distributing such fees among owners of rights after deducting its own expenses;16
 To pay remuneration to individual copyright owners;

 To submit returns and reports to the Registrar of Copyrights; and

 To perform any other functions consistent with the provisions of section 35 of the Act.
 Obtain approval of authors and owners of rights for its procedure for collection and
distribution of fees.
 Obtain their approval for utilisation of any amounts collected
 Provide them with regular, detailed and full information concerning all its activities.