This Article Is Written By Anushka Singh, 3rd Year BA.LLB, D.E.S Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune during Her Internship at Ledroit India
ABSTRACT:
This article provides a practical guide for Indian Content Creators to legally register their content and provides information regarding intellectual property licensing. Creators should have licenses as the main driver for continuous creative revenues. Licensing allows the creator to exploit their work multiple times which is much more profitable than doing a one-off deal. The guide relies on one very important point: if assignment transfers ownership, licensing gives only certain rights to the user while the owner retains the rest of the rights. This change determines to a large extent the creator’s control, income, and career span.
The present study is dealing with the following questions: first of all, it is about the very basics of copyright in India as well as “work-for-hire” traps; Second, it explains “two-layer cake” of music rights (composition vs. master); visual arts, photography, and design deal structures; influencer content pricing with the frequently misunderstood “whitelisting” rights being one of them. Moreover, it unravels the contributions of collecting societies like IPRS, PPL, and ISAMRA and elaborates on the influence of statutory broadcasting rules.
The information covered is also perfect for independent musicians, illustrators, designers, photographers, podcasters, filmmakers, and influencers who would like to negotiate more efficiently, safeguard their rights, and establish a business of creativity that will last.
Keywords: Indian Content Creators, Intellectual Property, Licensing, Ownership, Work-For-Hire, Two-Layer Cake, Music Rights, Visual Arts, Photography, Design, Whitelisting, IPRS, PPL, ISAMRA, Musicians, Illustrators, Designers, Photographers, Podcasters, Filmmakers, And Influencers
INTRODUCTION:
India’s modern creative industry is like the intricate web of a spider, changes are happening at a lightning pace, and the components are highly interdependent. The track of an independent musician is not simply sold; rather, it is streamed on an OTT platform, gets used as an Instagram Reel, gets featured in a D2C brand’s paid advertisement, and played at a live event simultaneously. An illustrator creates a work that is then used on product packaging, and an influencer’s video is “whitelisted” in order to get more views for a global digital campaign. The novel use-cases of content create huge monetary potentials, but at the same time, they are the major places from which the creators lose their value.
Most frequently, the main pitfalls are hidden deep inside contracts that look like golden opportunities at the first glance. Creators who are full of enthusiasm to close a deal very often put their signature under the clause that allows “all rights, perpetually, worldwide” to be given for a merger one-time sum without a second thought. This “buyout” trap is something that can destroy your entire career. Value is taken away when a musician does not know the difference between their composition rights and their master recording rights and thus only clears one.
It happens in a way that a photographer loses his/her entire copyright to the client by the India “commissioned work” rules in case there is no contract between them. Likewise, when an influencer stuffs money in his/her pocket for the making of a reel and forgets to charge the usage of that reel in paid ads separately, a loss happens too. More importantly, it happens quietly and uninterruptedly, in the case of creators not registering with the right societies, leaving a lifetime worth of performance royalties unclaimed in so-called “black box” accounts.
This manual was conceived with the aim of resolving such issues. The layout of the manual revolves around one core concept: Assignment is selling your house. Licensing is renting out a room. When a creator assigns their work, they are getting rid of it forever. On the other hand, if they license it, they retain ownership and merely grant the rights to certain people for a limited time, a certain place, and a certain purpose. This guide is a reference book. The first two chapters dealing with copyright and contract basics serve as the ground. After that, creators are free to choose the chapter that is most relevant to their next deal be it music, visual art, or digital content.
COPYRIGHT IN INDIA: WHAT YOU ACTUALLY NEED
To be a good negotiator, a creator should have just enough knowledge of the law to not be in doubt of his/her position. Copyright protection in India is automatic. As soon as an “original” work of a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic nature is created, or a film or sound recording is made, it is protected by law. There is no need for registration, but it can be useful as proof in a court case.
First Ownership: The General Rule
The general rule of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, is quite straightforward: the “author” of the work is the first owner of the copyright.
• For a literary or artistic work, the author is the writer or artist.
• For a musical work, the author is the composer.
• For a photograph, the author is the photographer.
• For a sound recording, the author is the producer.
• For a cinematograph film, the author is the producer.
First Ownership: The Exceptions (The Traps)
The general rule is subject to exceptions which are the places where most creators lose their rights unintentionally.
1. Employment: If a creator is a salaried employee under a “contract of service” (like a 9-to-5 job), and the work made is in the course of that employment, the employer is by default the first owner of the copyright of the work unless the contract provides otherwise.
2. Commissioned Work: This is the most dangerous trap for freelancers. For photographs, paintings, portraits, and cinematograph films, if a person pays (“valuable consideration”) another person to create the work, the person who pays is the first owner of the copyright in the work. This is the “accidental assignment”. The photographer hired for a shoot should have a contract that clearly states that they (the photographer) retain the copyright and are only granting a license. Without that agreement, the law defaults ownership to the client.
Economic Rights vs. Moral Rights
Copyright is a “bundle of rights” that can be divided into two categories.
• Economic Rights: These are the rights that can be sold, licensed, and transferred. They are the rights to reproduce the work (e.g., printing a photo, pressing a CD), to distribute it, and to communicate it to the public. These rights constitute the basis of a licensing deal.
• Moral Rights: These rights belong personally to the author and cannot be sold or assigned, not even in a full buyout. They serve to protect the creator’s personal bond with his/her work and consist of:
1. Right of Paternity: The right to be credited as the author.
2. Right of Integrity: The right to stop any distortion, mutilation, or modification of the work that would result in the author’s reputation being harmed. This right is an effective weapon to prevent a client from distorting an artwork or associating it with a derogatory context.
The 2012 Amendments: Your Superpower
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 is the most significant one in favour of the creators in about a hundred years. It stipulated that the authors of literary and musical works (composers, lyricists) forming part of films or sound recordings shall have the right to receive royalties from most (except theatrical release) uses, which shall not be assigned or waived. This is the “inalienable right to royalty.” A film producer or a music label can purchase the copyright of a song but cannot buy the author’s right to get paid when that song is played on the radio, streamed online, or performed in public. This legislation is the legal firepower that empowers collecting societies such as IPRS.
The Act, at last, also serves as a safety net for careless contracts. In case an assignment agreement is vague:
- If no period (term) is indicated, the assignment is only valid for five years.
- If no territory is indicated, the assignment is valid only for India.
A brief guide to these works helps to understand their common pitfalls. With regard to literary work, the creator is the writer, and the trap is to assign all the rights instead of only the “first publication” rights. A musical work (Composition) is created by the composer and lyricist, the authors, and the familiar error is to confuse it with the sound recording or relinquish 2012 royalty rights. A sound recording (Master) is initially owned by the producer (usually the label) , who may attempt to take all of the non-royalty income without sharing it. Artistic works produced by artists are frequently the victims of the unintentional “buyout” trap or failure to reserve portfolio rights.
In the case of Photographs, the photographer is the author, but the main pitfall is the commissioning trap, whereby the client becomes the first owner if there is no contract. Lastly, in the case of Cinematograph Film, the producer is the first owner, and a common pitfall for writers or directors is that they are considered “employees” thus losing all their rights.
THE ANATOMY OF A LICENSE: FIVE SLIDERS
One should not view a license agreement as a “yes” or “no” document. The better analogy would be a control panel with five sliders which can be adjusted. Every negotiation is only a work-through exercise to discover the best settings for these sliders.
The Five Core Sliders
1. Rights Granted: What can the client do with the work? This has to be very detailed. “Display” is quite different from “adapt” or “modify.” “Reproduce” (e.g., on a t-shirt) is quite different from “publicly perform” (e.g., at an event). The less clear this provision is, the more the creator is giving away his/her rights.
2. Term: For how long is the license valid? It should be a definite period of time (e.g., “12 months from the date of signing,” or “From January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025”). Do not use “perpetuity” unless the fee is of an extraordinarily high value.
3. Territory: Where can the work be used? “India-only,” “SAARC,” or “Worldwide.” A local D2C brand asking for a “worldwide, perpetual” license for their website is definitely a cautionary signal. The territory should be consistent with the client’s real business footprint.
4. Media/Channels: How does the client intend to use the work? “Digital-only (website and social media),” “Print (OOH billboards, in-store posters),” “Packaging,” or “All media.” A creator should be extremely cautious with the phrase “all media now known or hereafter devised” because it means giving away rights to future technological developments.
5. Money: How much is the payment, and in what way? It might be a one-time flat fee, a continuous royalty (% of sales), or an advance against royalty, which is the most common way the creator is given an upfront payment that is “recouped” from future royalty earnings.
The “Premium” and “Safety” Sliders
Besides the five core ones, there are other very important add-ons.
- Premium: Exclusivity: Is the client the only one who can use this work (either totally, or in their specific industry)? Exclusivity prevents the creator from granting the same rights to others and thus the client should pay quite a bit more because of this.
- Premium: Sublicensing: Can the client grant the license to someone else (e.g., an international distributor)? This causes the situation to become more complicated and riskier. The answer should be either “no” or allow it only with the permission of the creator and for a share of the revenue.
- Safety: Approvals: How does the process whereby the client approves the work take place? The agreement should indicate this so as to avoid an unlimited number of revision cycles (e.g., “Client gets two rounds of reasonable revisions”).
- Safety: Credit Line: In what way and where will the creator be acknowledged? This definitely needs to be indicated in the contract.
- Safety: Audit Rights: In any royalty agreement, this provision grants the Creator the right to have his/her accountant check the Client’s records for verification of correct royalty payments.
- Safety: Takedown Obligations: It is very important and, often, this clause is overlooked. It directly indicates that the licensee is obliged to actively remove the content from all platforms (websites, ad libraries, social media) upon the expiry of the Term.
Just as an example, a grant that is simple and clear might be represented by the following sentence: “Creator grants Brand a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable license to display the Illustration on Brand’s India-facing website and Instagram handle for a Term of 12 months, for no paid advertising use.”
MUSIC LICENSES: THE TWO-LAYER CAKE
Music is the most complex area of licensing because a single song is not one piece of property; it is two, existing in layers.
- Layer 1: The Composition: This is the song itself—the underlying melody and lyrics. It is owned by the songwriter(s) and lyricist(s), or their music publisher. In India, this layer is primarily represented by the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS).
- Layer 2: The Sound Recording (Master): This is the specific recorded version of that song. For example, the composition is “Kal Ho Naa Ho”; the master is the specific recording of that song sung by Sonu Nigam and produced by Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy. The master is typically owned by the producer or the record label. In India, this layer is represented by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL India).
To use an existing song in a piece of media (like an ad or a film), a user needs to clear both layers. The “Kal Ho Naa Ho” example is perfect. To use that song, a filmmaker needs two separate licenses:
- A Synchronization (Sync) License from the composition owners (Javed Akhtar, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy, and their publisher) to “sync” the music to their visuals.
- A Master Use License from the master owner (Sony Music) to use that specific, famous recording.
Common License Types
- Synchronization (Sync) License: This is the license to use the composition in “timed relation” with moving visuals (films, ads, TV shows, video games).
- Master Use License: This is the license to use the sound recording in “timed relation” with visuals. A sync deal always requires both a sync license and a master use license.
- Public Performance License: This is the license required to play music in a public space, whether at a cafe, a wedding, a retail store, or on radio/TV. These are typically “blanket” licenses that the venue or broadcaster buys from IPRS (for the compositions) and PPL (for the masters).
Practical Situations
- An Ad Agency: To use a popular song in an ad, the agency must negotiate a Sync license with the publisher and a Master Use license with the label.
- A Cafe Owner: To play music (even Spotify) in their cafe, the owner must buy annual Public Performance licenses from both IPRS and PPL.
- A Cover Band: To release a recording of a cover song, the band needs a Mechanical License for the composition. They do not need a master use license because they are creating their own new recording, not using the original.
The 2012 Copyright Amendment added another layer: the performer’s royalty right. This means the singers and musicians on the track also have a right to royalties. This right is managed by a third society.
Who Collects What:
- IPRS: Collects for Composers & Lyricists (Layer 1).
- PPL India: Collects for Labels/Producers (Layer 2).
- ISAMRA (Indian Singers’ and Musicians’ Rights Association): Collects for Performers (singers, musicians) on the track.
For musicians, a simple checklist includes: getting split sheets (agreements on who owns what percentage of the composition) signed by all collaborators, registering all works with IPRS and ISAMRA, getting unique ISRC/ISWC codes for tracking, and ensuring cue sheets are submitted for any broadcast use, as this is how IPRS tracks and pays royalties.
VISUAL ART, ILLUSTRATION, PHOTOGRAPHY, AND DESIGN
One vast problem of visual artists is the “buyout” avoidance. Compared to music deals which are complex, contracts for visual arts are usually straightforward and, in many cases, misleading, thus the artists end up giving away their full copyright for a one, time payment. In general, the default stance of any visual artist ought to be that of licensing rather than assigning.
Common Usage and Pricing Controls
The work of a visual artist can be licensed for different purposes, each of which has a different price:
- Product Packaging
- Merchandise (T, shirts, mugs, phone cases)
- Digital Use (Websites, apps, social media)
- Out, of, Home (OOH) Advertising (Billboards)
The “five sliders” are the most effective means of putting a price on these usages. A t, shirt (merchandise) license can be limited by:
- Term: License for 2 years.
- Territory: Only India.
- Exclusivity: Non, exclusive or exclusive only for “apparel” category, thus the artist is able to license the same design for “stationery” by another user.
- Quantity: 5, 000 units limited with the “overage fees” (additional payments) charged if the client sells more than that.
Adaptations Identification and Integrity Safeguarding
The agreement should specify adaptation rights. What can the customer do? Crop the picture? Change the colours? Put a brand logo? The creator should have the right to approve all significant changes. This is an example of the creator’s moral right of integrity.
Photography, Specific Traps
Photographers are caught in a trap that is very different and quite harmful in Indian copyright law. As it was noted in Section 1, if a client pays for a “commissioned” photo and there is no agreement, the client is the first owner of the copyright. A single agreement or even an email confirmation that the photographer keeps the copyright and only grants a license is the sure way of avoiding this unintentional and complete forfeiture of rights.
Moreover, photographers need to get a signed model release (from any identifiable person) and a location release (for private or recognizable property). By signing the contract with the client, the photographer “warrants” (promises) that he has those releases.
Keep Rights in Your Portfolio
In the end, the contract of every visual artist should have a “portfolio rights” provision. This single sentence makes sure that the artist will still be able to exhibit his/her works even in the case of exclusive licensing. The typical provision goes like this: “Creator hereby reserves the right to employ the Work for self, promotional as well as portfolio purposes (i.e., on Creator’s website, social media, and in print portfolios)”
DIGITAL CREATORS AND INFLUENCERS: CONTENT AND USAGE
The most fundamental error digital creators and influencers commit is mixing up their creation fee with their usage fee.
- Creation Fee: This is the payment for the creator’s labor, the time, talent, and production costs to script, shoot, edit, and post one reel or video.
- Usage Fee (License): This is the payment for the intellectual property, the brand’s right to use that content for a certain period, in a certain area, and on certain media.
The majority of influencers only impose the creation fee on their clients. They are, in effect, handing over the usage license gratis.
Owned vs. Paid vs. Whitelisting
Influencer content usage rights are hierarchical:
- Owned Post: This is the lowest, level arrangement. The brand pays the creation fee for the content to be shared on the influencer’s own feed. Use is generally limited to “in, feed” and is often time, bound (e.g., 30, 60 days).
- Paid Ad (“Boosting”): This is when the brand pays to put advertising money behind the influencer’s existing post to show it to more people. Since this is a different kind of use, a separate, additional measure is required.
- Whitelisting (or Allow, Listing): This is the most valuable and the most misunderstood right. The creator provides the brand direct advertising access to their social media handle. The brand is then able to run the content as a “dark post” (an ad that doesn’t show on the creator’s feed) from the creator’s account. Thus the brand can A/B test captions, target specific audiences, and continue the campaign long after the original post has been removed.
Whitelisting is not “boosting.” What the brand receives from the creator is the identity, trust, and reputation that come with the creator, not just a simple boost to the brand. It is a lot more valuable and hence, it should be priced accordingly, most often as a significant monthly fee for the duration of the ad campaign.
Some of the key contract points for influencers are clear takedown dates (e.g., “Brand must cease all paid media and remove content from ad libraries by”), approval rights on all edits, and clarifying music rights. The music one can find in the Instagram or YouTube library is usually only for personal, organic posts and not for paid advertising. The brand has to either provide already cleared music or pay for clearing the sync and master licenses for the song used in the ad.
COLLECTING SOCIETIES AND ROYALTY PIPES
There are quite a few misconceptions among creative people, that once a contract is signed and the initial amount is paid, the deal is over. But in the case of musicians, it is just the beginning. The 2012 Copyright Amendment granted authors and performers a “non, transferable right to royalty”. The money that comes through this is what one could compare collecting societies to the “plumbing”.
India is home to three major, different societies that are distinct and separate from each other.
IPRS (Indian Performing Right Society):
- Represents: Composers, lyricists, and music publishers (the “authors” of the composition).
- Collects: Public performance and broadcast royalties for the composition (Layer 1).
PPL India (Phonographic Performance Limited):
- Represents: Record labels and producers (the “owners” of the sound recording).
- Collects: Public performance and broadcast royalties for the sound recording (Layer 2).
ISAMRA (Indian Singers’ and Musicians’ Rights Association):
- Represents: Performers (singers, session musicians).
- Collects: Royalties for the use of their performance in a commercial, a right granted by the 2012 amendments.
Once a creator signs themself and their works (songs) up with these societies, they are essentially connecting to an international network. The money generated from annual blanket license fees paid to these societies by a hotel in Delhi, a radio station in Mumbai, or a streaming service is pooled together. The societies then distribute those royalties to their members by using data from broadcast logs, TV/film “cue sheets, ” and event “setlists.”
A self, produced singer, songwriter, for instance, is a composer, a performer, and a producer. They may be eligible to join all three societies to collect all three streams of revenue. The most important things to do are to register and to make sure that all metadata (legal names, ISRC/ISWC codes) is accurate, as this is the way that the money reaches its rightful owner.
BROADCASTING AND PUBLIC PERFORMANCE: SPECIAL INDIAN RULES
India’s Copyright Act contains a very distinctive and a highly debated feature: Section 31D. This part provides for a statutory license for the broadcasting organizations. In other words, the traditional radio and television broadcasters can utilize any published musical work and sound recording merely by giving a notice and paying a royalty rate fixed by a government board. It is a “compulsory” license, implying that the copyright owner cannot refuse.
During the period, the issue of whether the term “broadcasting” covers internet streaming or not has been litigated in courts. Companies such as Spotify and Wynk Music maintained that they were broadcasters and thus should be allowed to enjoy this cheap, compulsory rate.
The truth was unveiled in a landmark decision of the Bombay High Court, Tips Industries v. Wynk Music. The court replied with a categorical NO. The court in its opinion stated that in 2012 Parliament had knowledge about the existence of the internet and decided to limit Section 31D only to traditional radio and TV. In August 2024, the government (DPIIT) supported this view by officially withdrawing its 2016 memorandum, which had been trying to extend Section 31D to internet services.
This is a huge win for the creators. The ruling affirms that online streaming services have to obtain the necessary licenses from the copyright owners, record labels, and publishers by negotiation. They cannot impose a low rate set by the government.
An important practical point: Section 31D is limited to the broadcast of the song itself. It does not refer to the use of that song in the broadcaster’s advertisements or show promos. Such use requires a separate sync license and therefore should be negotiated and paid for.
MONEY, TAXES, AND AUDITS
Negotiating the “Money” slider is the most vital element of any talks. Equally as the money, the modalities of the payment are of utmost importance.
Payment Structures
- Flat Fee: A single payment. The best solution for straightforward, non, exclusive licenses of a short period. It allows for immediate cash without any tracking, but the creator is not rewarded for the success of the project.
- Royalty, Only: The artist receives a share of revenues (e.g., 5% of net sales of a t, shirt). The royalty, only model is very risky (no upfront cash) but can be very profitable, resulting in a long, term passive income source.
- Advance + Royalty: The most usual format for big deals such as publishing or sync licenses. The client pays an “advance” (e.g., ₹50, 000) in advance. This advance is then “recouped” from the creator’s future royalties. The creator will not get any extra royalty payments until the earnings have exceeded the advance.
- Minimum Guarantee: It is like an advance but a guaranteed minimum payment irrespective of product sales.
Taxes (GST)
Intellectual property licensing is a “supply of service” as per Indian law. It means that creators whose total turnover of the year crosses the GST limit (₹20 lakhs for service providers in most states) are required to register for GST and charge it on their bills.
Audit Rights
It is a must, to, have clause for any royalty or “advance + royalty” pact. It allows the creator (typically once a year) to send an accountant to check the licensee’s sales records to confirm the royalty statements. A poorly prepared audit clause doesn’t serve to much; a well thought one even provides a “penalty” for the licensee. For instance, the clause stating that if the underpayment exposes 5% or more, then the licensee not only has to pay the full audit cost but also the shortage amount gives this clause considerable influence and thus discourages “creative” accounting.
Each of these structures is designed for different purposes. The Flat Fee is good for small projects, non, exclusive use, or limited terms; the advantages are that it is very simple and that the money is received immediately, but the disadvantage is that there is no upside if the project turns out to be successful. Royalty, only is the most suitable for merchandise, books, and music, particularly with trustworthy partners; it provides an immense upside potential as well as a source of income without any effort on the part of the creator, however, an absence of upfront cash and a partner not doing market activities can cause problems.
The Advance + Royalty is a norm in publishing, sync, and major brand deal which thus offers both the upfront cash as well as the long, term upside. The main things to watch for are “cross, collateralization” (where an advance for one project is recouped from another) and unclear royalty bases.
CONTRACT CLAUSES THAT PUNCH ABOVE THEIR WEIGHT
Aside from the “five sliders, ” some legal clauses have an enormously significant impact on the rights and safety of a creator.
- Grant of Rights: This is the major point of the contract. It should be very clear. “Non, exclusive right to display” is alright. “All rights” is terrible.
- Approvals: In order to avoid the “feedback loop” nightmare, the approval process should have a set time. For instance: “The creator submits the work for approval. The licensee has three working days to respond with the written feedback, after which, if there is no response, the work is deemed approved.”
- Credit/Attribution: This is supposed to be your specifying. “The Licensee shall provide a credit line close to the Work in all digital uses….”
- Moral Rights & Integrity: Incorporating a clause that supports the artist’s moral rights is always beneficial. “The Licensee shall refrain from using the Work in any manner that insults, or in association with pornography, gambling, or political causes, without getting the prior written permission of the Creator.”
- Warranties & Indemnities: This is a two, way street. The creator “warrants” (promises) that their work is original and does not infringe on anyone else’s rights. The client, however, in return, has to “indemnify” (protect) the creator against any lawsuits that may be brought against them as a result of their provided materials (for example, their logo, or infringing music) or the use of the work beyond the license.
- Sublicensing: The agreement shall provide the following statement: “The Licensee shall not sublicense the rights granted hereunder without the prior written consent of the Creator and an appropriate share of the sublicensing revenue.”
- Termination & Takedown: This is the “off, ramp.” It lays down the rules of how the tie, up ends. Among other things, it should have a “cure period” (e.g., “In case a party breaches the agreement, the other party may terminate the contract if the breach is not ‘cured’ (repaired) within 30 days”). What is more, it must feature the takedown obligation foremost: “Once the agreement is terminated or the Term has expired, the Licensee is obliged to, within 10 working days, remove the Work from all digital platforms and refrain from any further use thereof.”
WORKFLOWS AND CHECKLISTS BY DIFFERENT TYPES OF CREATORS
Theory can be turned into practice by using simple, repeatable workflows.
Musicians/Producers
- Before Creating: Collaborators should all sign a split sheet. This document briefly explains who wrote what % of the song and thus prevents conflicts later on.
- After Creating: File the music (and yourself as author/publisher) with IPRS.
- After Creating: Register yourself as a musician at ISAMRA.
- After Releasing: If you are the owner of the master, submit the sound recording registration at PPL India.
- In Deals: Do not put your signature on a contract which alleges that it “waives” the inalienable royalties stipulated by the 2012 Act.
Visual Artists/Photographers
- Before a Shoot: Prepare a simple contract or get an email confirmation stating that you hold the copyright and are giving a license. This prevents the “commissioned work” trap.
- Check At the Shoot: Have the signed model and location releases ready.
- In Deals: Initially, agree on a non, exclusive license. Value exclusivity at a considerable premium.
- In Deals: Insert a “Portfolio Rights” clause to be able to display your work.
Influencers/Filmmakers
- Pricing: Your Creation Fee should always be separate from your Usage Fee.
- Pricing: “Whitelisting” should be charged as a distinct, recurring monthly fee that is considerably higher than a simple “boost”.
- In Deals: Be very clear about the number of postings, period of usage, and all media channels.
- Post, Deal: After the takedown date, set a calendar reminder and check with the brand to ensure all paid ads have been stopped.
PITFALLS AND SHORT CASE STUDIES
Real failures are what you learn from most
Pitfall 1: The Unintentional Buyout
Case: A photographer is hired by a startup for office pictures. Only the photographer gets a fee of ₹50, 000 and an invoice, but there is no contract.
Explanation: By default, as per most copyright laws, for commissioned works, the one who pays is the first owner of the copyright. The startup is the one that actually ends up holding the copyright of the pictures. Now, the photographer cannot re, license these photos.
Immediate method: Just put a line in the first email or on the invoice: “The fee is for a one, year license for use on the website only. The photographer retains all the copyright.”
Pitfall 2: Half a Music Clearance
Case: A D2C brand uses an indie track in an Instagram ad after a ₹20, 000 deal was made through direct messages.
Explanation: They only licensed the master. The composition, however, still needed a sync license from the writer/publisher or IPRS. In a legal notice, they are asked for the payment of a different fee.
Immediate method: Always clear both sides: a sync license for the composition and a master use license for the recording.
Pitfall 3: Free Whitelisting by Accident
Case: An influencer charges ₹1 lakh for a reel. The contract states that the brand can promote it for six months. They sign it.
Explanation: The cost of creation was mentioned, that of distribution was not. Through heavy paid ads, the brand is able to use the influencer’s handle and likeness and reach more people. There is no extra money coming in.
Immediate method: Dividing the fees. Content creation at ₹1 lakh and then a separate whitelisting/paid, usage fee (for example ₹50, 000 per month) with clear start and end dates.
CONCLUSION
Licensing has to be the norm if the creative career of the artists in India is to be sustainable, and blanket assignments should only be rare, expensive exceptions. The shift in the power dynamic happens when the creators no longer see themselves as mere service providers but instead as rights, holders. The “Five Sliders” (Rights, Term, Territory, Media, Money) should be the mental checklist for every single deal. If the client decides to move one slider (for example, from “India” to “Worldwide, ” or from “1 Year” to “Perpetual”), the creator should then move the “Money” slider accordingly.
The Indian legal landscape, though complicated, has given creators robust tools. The 2012 Copyright Amendments have guaranteed inalienable royalties to musicians, and the Tips v. Wynk decision has recognized the value of musical works in the digital age. Unfortunately, this power is of no use if it is not exercised.
Creativity is the power of a creator. They should be very specific about the scope of the license. In return for exclusivity and paid ad usage, they have to set the price right. They have to secure their moral rights, plan their takedowns, and avail themselves of the collecting societies (IPRS, PPL, ISAMRA) for the collection of the income they have made in the long run. Collaborators who maintain clean records and refuse to sign their life’s work away in exchange for a one, time “buyout” are the ones who can transition from deal, to, deal survival to the creation of valuable, lasting intellectual property catalogues.
