This article is written by Amrta Singh, Alankar Girls Law College, Jaipur, B.A.LL.B., 5th Year during her internship at LeDroit India

Scope of the Article

• Meaning and rationale of collective management
• Legal framework under the Copyright Act, 1957 and Copyright Rules
• Registration, governance and functions of copyright societies
• Royalty collection, distribution and transparency
• Landmark and recent Indian judicial developments
• Relationship between copyright societies, individual licensing and agencies
• Digital platforms, metadata and technological challenges
• International perspective and WIPO
• Challenges, reforms and future of collective management
• Conclusion and recommendations

Abstract

Copyright is designed to reward creativity while enabling lawful access to protected works. In a modern creative economy, however, rights are exercised at enormous scale: a song may be streamed, broadcast, performed, reproduced and communicated to the public through thousands of outlets. Individual licensing can therefore become costly and practically difficult. Collective management addresses this problem by allowing copyright owners to authorize an organization to monitor uses, negotiate licences, collect remuneration and distribute royalties.

This article examines the Indian framework governing copyright societies, especially Sections 33 to 36 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the role of author and owner control, royalty protection, regulatory supervision and the relationship between registered societies and other licensing arrangements. It also considers important judicial developments, technological challenges and international practice. The article argues that effective collective management requires transparent governance, reliable repertoire data, fair distribution, accessible licensing and strong accountability so that creators receive meaningful economic returns without imposing unnecessary burdens on legitimate users.

Keywords

Copyright societies; collective management; royalties; licensing; Copyright Act, 1957; creators’ rights

1. Introduction

Copyright law gives creators and other right holders exclusive rights over protected works, but the practical exercise of those rights can be difficult when works are used repeatedly and across many locations. A composer, lyricist, performer, publisher or producer cannot realistically negotiate separately with every broadcaster, venue, business, digital service or other user that may lawfully exploit a repertoire. Collective management provides an institutional solution.

The World Intellectual Property Organization explains that collective management enables right holders to administer rights through collective management organizations (CMOs), which can monitor uses, negotiate licensing conditions, license works and collect and distribute fees. This is particularly useful where the number of uses and users makes individual administration impractical. 

Reference: WIPO – Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights

2. Meaning and Rationale of Collective Management

Collective management is the exercise or administration of copyright and related rights by an organization acting for and on behalf of right holders. The basic transaction is straightforward: a right holder entrusts specified rights to a collective organization; the organization licenses the relevant repertoire; users pay licence fees; and the organization distributes the collected amounts according to its rules and the applicable law.

The model reduces transaction costs for both sides. A restaurant, broadcaster or digital service can obtain a licence covering a repertoire instead of negotiating individually with every creator. At the same time, creators obtain monitoring and enforcement support that may be impossible for an individual to maintain.

Reference: WIPO – Collective Management

3. Statutory Framework in India

The Copyright Act, 1957 contains a dedicated framework for copyright societies. Section 33 regulates the business of issuing or granting licences through copyright societies and provides the statutory basis for registration. Section 34 deals with administration of rights by a copyright society, Section 35 establishes collective control by authors and other owners of rights, and Section 36 concerns returns and reports to the Registrar of Copyrights.

The statutory scheme reflects an important policy balance: collective administration is permitted because it improves practical licensing, but it is subject to registration, author/owner participation, transparency and governmental oversight. The Copyright Rules also prescribe requirements concerning applications and registration.

Reference: Copyright Act, 1957 – WIPO Lex text

Reference: Copyright Rules, 1958 – WIPO Lex

4. Registration and Governance of Copyright Societies

A copyright society is not merely a private licensing business operating without statutory oversight. The Act establishes a registration-based structure. The Copyright Rules historically contemplated an association of seven or more copyright owners applying for registration, with prescribed information concerning the members, works, category of rights, governing body and office. The modern framework must also be read with the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, which strengthened the position of authors and other right owners in collective administration.

Governance is central because a society holds and administers money generated from the use of other people’s intellectual property. Weak governance can produce delayed distributions, unexplained deductions, inaccurate repertoire claims or conflicts between creators and administrators. Consequently, transparency and meaningful participation of authors and owners are not merely administrative ideals; they are essential to the legitimacy of collective management.

Reference: Copyright Rules, 1958 – registration requirements

5. Control of Copyright Societies by Authors and Owners

Section 35 is particularly significant because it places a copyright society under the collective control of the authors and other owners whose rights it administers. The statutory framework requires approval concerning procedures for collection and distribution of fees, approval for specified uses of collected amounts and regular information about the society’s activities. Distribution is intended, as far as possible, to reflect actual use of works.

This mechanism addresses a recurring concern in collective management: the society exists to serve right holders rather than to become detached from them. Collective administration therefore should not mean loss of ownership or democratic accountability. Instead, it is an organized method of exercising rights while preserving the economic interests of the underlying owners.

Reference: Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 35 (WIPO Lex)

6. Licensing and Royalty Distribution

The economic function of a copyright society can be divided into four stages: identification of repertoire, licensing, collection and distribution. First, the society must know which works and rights it represents. Second, it negotiates licences with users. Third, it collects the agreed fees. Finally, it distributes the amounts to the appropriate right holders after permissible administrative deductions.

The quality of the fourth stage depends heavily on accurate data. A work may have multiple authors, publishers, assignees or contractual shares. Internationally, WIPO emphasizes the importance of accurate right-holder and work information for effective royalty collection and distribution. Technology can therefore improve collective management only when metadata and repertoire information are maintained carefully.

Reference: WIPO Connect – Collective Management Technology

7. Copyright Societies and Individual Licensing

Collective management should not be confused with a rule that every copyright must always be administered through a society. Copyright law permits different contractual arrangements depending upon the right, the owner and the nature of the exploitation. The important question is whether the person issuing a licence has the legal authority to do so and whether the statutory requirements governing copyright societies apply.

This distinction became important in litigation involving licensing agencies and copyright societies. Courts have considered whether an entity acting on behalf of copyright owners is itself carrying on the business reserved to a registered copyright society, and how assignments, agency arrangements and statutory licensing provisions should be understood. Such disputes demonstrate why the legal status of the licensor must be examined before a user concludes that a particular licence is required.

8. Judicial Development: Novex Communications and Related Issues

The Novex line of litigation is significant for understanding the boundary between individual licensing and collective administration. The controversy involved licensing of copyrighted music and the argument that an entity administering rights for multiple owners could not circumvent the statutory framework applicable to copyright societies merely by describing itself as an agent. The judicial discussion highlights the need to distinguish genuine individual or owner-authorized licensing from systematic collective administration.

Reference: Indian Kanoon – Novex-related copyright litigation

9. Landmark Principles: IPRS and Author Royalties

Indian copyright jurisprudence has repeatedly emphasized the relationship between copyright ownership, authorship and contractual exploitation. The Supreme Court’s treatment of authors’ rights in cases involving literary and musical works is particularly important after the 2012 amendments. The legislative policy sought to strengthen authors’ entitlement to royalties in specified exploitations and to prevent contractual structures from completely eliminating the economic participation of creators.

For collective management, this principle matters because societies operate at the point where rights become monetized. If the system accurately identifies the creators and allocates revenue according to law and contractual entitlements, collective licensing can transform copyright from a nominal legal right into a practical source of income.

10. Illustrations

Illustration 1 – Public performance: A café regularly plays a repertoire of commercially released music for customers. Instead of approaching every composer, lyricist and other relevant right holder separately, the café may obtain the appropriate licence from the authorized rights administrator for the relevant repertoire.

Illustration 2 – Broadcasting: A broadcaster uses thousands of musical works over a year. Individual negotiations for each work would be burdensome. A collective licensing arrangement can reduce transaction costs, provided the society or licensing body actually has authority over the repertoire.

Illustration 3 – Digital exploitation: A streaming platform may generate millions of individual uses. Automated usage reporting and reliable metadata become essential to calculating and distributing royalties.

Illustration 4 – Repertoire dispute: If a licensing body claims rights in a song that it does not actually control, a user may pay the wrong entity. This demonstrates why repertoire verification and transparent mandates are essential.

11. Collective Management in the Digital Environment

Digital technologies have transformed the scale of copyright use. A single work may be accessed across jurisdictions through streaming services, social media, short-form video, podcasts and user-generated content. This makes collective management more necessary in some respects, but also more technically demanding.

Digital licensing requires granular data: title identifiers, creators, publishers, ownership shares, territories, licences and usage information. Errors in any of these fields can result in misallocation or delayed payments. WIPO Connect illustrates the direction in which collective management is evolving: technology can support the exchange and management of right-holder and work information across organizations.

Reference: WIPO Connect

12. Advantages of Collective Management

• Lower transaction costs for creators and users.
• Centralized licensing and simplified rights clearance.
• Improved monitoring of widespread uses.
• Greater bargaining capacity for individual creators.
• Regular royalty collection and distribution.
• Potential for reciprocal international arrangements.
• Professional record-keeping and enforcement support.

13. Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its benefits, collective management can create significant concerns. The first is transparency: members should be able to understand what was collected, from whom, what deductions were made and why a particular amount was distributed. The second is repertoire accuracy. The third is governance, particularly where creators have limited influence over decision-making. The fourth is licensing friction, especially where users face uncertainty about which entity controls which rights.

Digital exploitation also creates new problems. Massive volumes of usage data require interoperable systems, reliable identifiers and efficient dispute-resolution mechanisms. A modern collective management organization must therefore be both a legal institution and a data-management institution.

14. International Perspective

WIPO recognizes collective management as a practical mechanism for administering rights where individual licensing is unrealistic. International collective management also facilitates reciprocal arrangements, enabling societies in different jurisdictions to represent repertoires beyond national borders. Such cooperation is increasingly important for music, audiovisual content and other digital works that circulate globally.

Reference: WIPO – Collective Management

Further reading: WIPO – Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, 3rd ed.

15. Reform and Best-Practice Recommendations

• Publish clear and searchable repertoire information.
• Provide members with regular, understandable royalty statements.
• Use transparent and objectively justifiable distribution rules.
• Maintain accurate identifiers and ownership metadata.
• Create accessible procedures for licensing disputes and repertoire challenges.
• Minimize unreasonable administrative deductions.
• Strengthen meaningful participation of authors and other owners in governance.
• Adopt interoperable digital systems for usage reporting.
• Provide clear public information on the scope of each licence.

16. Conclusion

Copyright societies occupy an important position between creators and users of protected works. Their fundamental justification is practical: copyright is difficult to exercise effectively when works are used at massive scale. Collective management can reduce transaction costs, simplify licensing, improve monitoring and help creators receive remuneration. At the same time, the model carries fiduciary and governance responsibilities because societies administer rights and money belonging to creators and other owners.

India’s statutory framework, particularly Sections 33 to 36 of the Copyright Act, 1957, attempts to combine collective efficiency with author and owner control, regulatory supervision and reporting. The continuing judicial debate over licensing agencies and copyright societies further demonstrates that the legal authority behind a licence matters as much as the licence itself. In the digital economy, the future of collective management will depend increasingly on accurate metadata, transparent distribution, technology-assisted monitoring and accountable governance. A strong system should therefore pursue two goals simultaneously: making lawful licensing easier for users and ensuring that creators receive the economic value generated by their works.