Music licensing disputes in India- Roles of IPRS and PPL in Copyright Litigation.

This article has been written by Khushi Singh BBA.LLB student, SNDT University, Mumbai while she was interning with Le droit India.

Keywords:

• Music Licensing
• Copyright Litigation
• IPRS
• PPL
• Royalty rights
• Copyright society
• Copyright violation
• Copyright Act

Abstract:

The difficulties experienced by artists and copyright holders in the face of expanding internet access and pervasive illegal usage of creative work are reflected in the rise of music licensing disputes in India. Online platforms’ quick growth has simplified music distribution, but it has also raised worries about copyright lawsuits, illicit streaming, and unlawful public performances. Though disagreements over overlapping rights and royalties have become common, organizations like the Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) and the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) are essential in regulating and upholding licensing procedures. Even though the Copyright Act of 1957 established a legal framework, particularly following the changes in 2012, enforcement gaps still exist, especially when it comes to dealing with issues of multiple rights and digital piracy. Because of legal complications and a lack of information, many artists, particularly independent producers, find it difficult to enforce their royalty rights. The duties of users and the licensing authority of copyright societies have been clarified by a number of recent and historic court decisions. The statutory duties, the function of regulatory agencies, case law interpretations, and the necessity of standardized licensing systems are all critically examined in this article. It provides a thorough grasp of the legal environment surrounding music rights in India and the continuous attempts to ensure just recompense for creators by combining examples and court observations.

Introduction:

The Indian music industry stands as one of the most vibrant and culturally significant arms of the country’s entertainment ecosystem. From traditional classical ragas to globally trending Bollywood tracks and indie creations, Indian music has evolved into a diverse, multi-billion-dollar sector. However, with the proliferation of digital platforms and the ease of internet access, this growth has also ushered in an era of widespread copyright violations, significantly impacting creators’ rights and revenues.

Peer-to-peer sharing networks, content-sharing platforms, and mobile applications have all contributed to the rise in illegal streaming, downloads, and public performances in recent years. These violations diminish the economic worth of creative work in addition to depriving producers and artists of their royalties. Although the Copyright Act, 1957, which was significantly revised in 2012, attempts to protect intellectual property in the music industry, enforcement is still lagging behind because of ineffective procedures, a lack of knowledge, and technical flaws.

The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), two significant copyright societies, are at the center of this intricate licensing landscape. These groups act as a bridge between users and rights holders. IPRS administers the rights to the literary and musical elements of songs on behalf of lyricists, composers, and music publishers. Conversely, PPL oversees the rights pertaining to the actual sound recording, usually on behalf of producers and record companies. Although both organizations are in charge of granting licenses and collecting fees, some well-known copyright litigation cases in Indian courts have arisen as a result of overlapping jurisdictions and licensing issues.

Deeper scholarly and policy-level interaction is required in light of the increasing number of legal conflicts surrounding music licensing, particularly those involving multiple rights, public performance licenses, and statutory compliance. The purpose of this article is to examine the legislative framework that governs music rights in India, as well as the changing functions of IPRS and PPL, significant rulings, and the wider ramifications of enforcement deficiencies, technological difficulties, and institutional obligations. It provides a thorough overview of the situation of music licensing issues in the Indian legal system through statutory examples and judicial observations.

The role of copyright societies in music licensing: IPRS and PPL

The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), two specialized collective-management organizations, are essential to the country’s copyright ecosystem because they convert abstract statutory rights into actual income for thousands of music producers and owners. Although their purpose, organization, and restrictions are based on a comprehensive legal framework, their everyday importance is best appreciated in terms of the useful advantages they provide to musicians, record companies, and music consumers.

1. Why collective licensing is indispensable

For most lyricists, composers, or record companies, licensing each radio station, restaurant, OTT platform, or wedding DJ separately would be unaffordable; conversely, acquiring track-by-track permission would devastate firms that require prompt, reliable rights clearance. Therefore, when individual transactions are “impractical or uneconomic,” “copyright societies” are authorized by Chapter VII of the Copyright Act, 1957—read with Chapter XI of the Copyright Rules, 2013—to administer rights on a pooled basis. Section 2(ffd) defines a society as one registered under Section 33(3), and Section 34 empowers it to issue licences, collect fees and distribute royalties after deducting an administrative charge capped at 15 per cent.

Transparency and public accountability must also be upheld in these cultures. Regulations enacted in 2013 require that their certificate of registration, governance documents, audited annual reports, license types, tariff schemes, and a formal Code of Conduct be posted on their official websites. This guarantees equitable treatment for members, consumer access to important licensing information, and preservation of public confidence in the collective management organization.

2. Statutory evolution: from performing-right bureaus to modern CMOs

At first, the Act only mentioned “performing-right societies,” restricting collective management to musical performances that were broadcast or performed live. A society can now license any right in any type of work thanks to the 1994 amendment, which expanded that scope. The 2012 amendment made governance even more stringent:

• According to Section 33(3A), registration is good for five years and can only be renewed following a review of the society’s books and governance record by the Union Government.
• Every society is required by Section 33A to publish an open Tariff Scheme; failure to do so may result in cancellation.

The society’s website must include its certificate of registration, charter, governing-council roster, audited accounts, license templates, and a member-facing Code of Conduct, according to rules drafted in 2013 that add a layer of digital openness.

3. Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS): guardian of lyrics and compositions

IPRS was established in 1969 and re-registered in 2017 to represent music publishers, composers, and songwriters. Its primary duties include:

1. grant permission for the use of song lyrics and melodies in public performances, broadcasts, and streaming services;

2. gather royalties from users, including nightclubs, FM broadcasters, OTT audio providers, and event planners;

3. disburse net receipts to its members, usually well below the 15% cap, after subtracting an administrative fee.

Because authors often assign sound-recording rights to film or music companies, IPRS is vital for safeguarding the residual royalty that Sections 18 and 19 guarantee to authors even after assignment. Recent judicial decisions, most notably IPRS v. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. (2023, Bombay HC) have reaffirmed that composers and lyricists are entitled to a share whenever their work is exploited, even when embedded in a sound recording.

4. Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL): steward of sound recordings

PPL India was established in 1941 and currently handles sound recording rights for over 400 Indian and foreign labels, mostly through its registered partner Recorded Music Performance Ltd., or RMPL. It emphasizes:

• granting broadcast and public performance licenses for the master recording itself, including for use in hotels, shopping centers, restaurants, discos, gyms, and terrestrial or internet radio;
• keeping an eye on usage with cue-sheet audits and on-site inspectors;
• paying featured artists in accordance with their contractual agreements after member labels get royalties.

In theory, a venue that plays recorded music needs to obtain two licenses: one from PPL/RMPL (for the recording) and one from IPRS (for the lyrics or composition), since the recording right is distinct from the underlying composition. This “dual licensing” architecture is the single most common source of confusion and litigation in Indian music copyright practice.

5. Unresolved Tensions: Section 30 versus Section 33

Section 30 permits an individual owner or assignee to license their own catalogue by a straightforward written deed, even if Section 33 requires registration for anybody “carrying on the business of issuing licenses.” The copyright owner may even “continue to grant licences in respect of their own works,” according to the first proviso of s. 33. Opponents contend that by allowing extensive catalogs to evade private agency agreements, this overlap impairs collective management. Courts have tried to find a middle ground: systematic, repertoire-wide licensing is considered collective and must adhere to s. 33, but one-time or limited-scope licenses by a single owner are covered by s. 30.

6. Why IPRS and PPL Remain Indispensable

• They provide users with a safe, dependable route to full rights clearance.
• In the areas of monitoring, litigation, and royalty distribution, they provide scale economies to creators and labels.
• By using reciprocal obligations to redirect foreign wealth, they raise national revenue.
• They support the creation of culture: steady royalties promote ongoing funding for new songs.

However, their efficacy in the future depends on:

• rigorous compliance with tariff transparency;
• adoption of technology for precise cue-sheet matching, such as blockchain ledgers and audio fingerprinting;
• clearer legislative guidance on the s. 30 / s. 33 divide and penalties for unregistered “shadow” societies.

Judicial Approach and Landmark Case Laws on Music Licensing Disputes in India

Indian courts have been essential in shaping the nation’s music licensing environment, frequently intervening to balance the conflicting goals of commercial viability, public access, and copyright protection. The judiciary has gradually defined when licenses must be negotiated voluntarily, when collective societies like IPRS and PPL/RMPL may act, and when exceptional remedies like compulsory licensing can be invoked by interpreting important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 (ICA), particularly Sections 17 to 19, 30, 31, 33, 51, and 52. Particularly noteworthy for their lasting impact are five rulings:

1. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (1977) 2 SCC 820

The doctrinal foundation for dual rights in Indian music was established by this Supreme Court ruling. Film producers contended that composers lost their independent performing rights as soon as a song was incorporated into a cinematograph film. The Court disagreed, ruling that composers and lyricists nonetheless have separate performing and technical rights under Section 14(1)(a), even though producers own the movie under Section 14(1)(c). The decision both upheld IPRS’s mandate and made it clear that assignment terms must specifically address each right in order to eliminate the authors’ independent claims. In actuality, this ruling supports the current mandate that venues get two licenses: one from IPRS for underlying works and another from PPL or its successor society, RMPL, for sound recordings.

2. Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (1998) 6 SCC 549

When this case got to the Bombay High Court, remix culture had just begun to take hold, but the ideas it revealed are still relevant today. Without permission, Super Cassette used Gramophone’s masters in their devotional compilations. Gramophone filed a lawsuit for infringement, citing Section 52(1)(j), which allows cover versions following a two-year moratorium if royalties are paid and notice is given. The Court determined that the legislative exemption is strictly conditional, requiring a royalty deposit and advance notice; in the absence of these, the usage would violate Section 51. The ruling upheld the need for a transparent license trail for even transformative or derivative works, protecting original creators while maintaining a legal path for fresh artistic expression.

3. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (2004) 39 PTC 583 (Del)

This case, also known as the “Radio Mirchi case,” established the standard for Section 31 compulsory licensing. Despite their best efforts, Radio Mirchi was unable to get a voluntary agreement to air Bollywood tunes held by T-Series (SCIL). Mirchi petitioned the Copyright Board for a compulsory license, claiming that a refusal to provide one hampered public access, whereas SCIL filed a lawsuit for infringement. According to the Court, Section 31 is a remedy of last resort and should only be used in cases when the public is being unjustly denied access to the work. The “denial” requirement was not fulfilled since SCIL had already granted licenses for its catalog to All India Radio and a competitor station (Radio City). The ruling emphasized that mandatory licenses are not intended to equalize commercial bargaining strength, but rather to end monopolistic deadlocks.  In effect, it safeguards voluntary licensing as the default norm while keeping Section 31 as an exceptional public-interest valve.

4. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. & Music Broadcast Ltd. (2023) Bom HC

Authors now have an unalienable royalty entitlement even after assignment thanks to the 2012 ICA changes. Music Broadcast Ltd. and Rajasthan Patrika, a newspaper group with FM stations, argued that after they had paid recording labels, they were not entitled to any more royalties. The Bombay High Court disagreed, ruling that IPRS enforces lyricists’ and composers’ statutory rights to fair compensation under Sections 18 and 19. By affirming that royalties for underlying works cannot be waived through contracts of adhesion, the ruling reinforces collective licensing and realigns Indian jurisprudence with the global trend towards acknowledging authors’ “making available” and communication rights.

5. Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (2022–2025) Del HC (Division Bench)

Azure Hospitality contested PPL’s ability to provide public performance licenses in this instance, claiming that PPL was no longer a Section 33-registered copyright society. PPL asserted that Section 30 permitted them to continue licensing as an assignee. The Division Bench ruled that granting licenses as a business necessitates appropriate registration under Section 33, despite one judge siding with PPL. The judiciary’s emphasis on legal conformity and openness in collective licensing is demonstrated by this case.

• Evolving Judicial Themes

1. Dual-Rights doctrine:

Courts have often upheld the dual-rights doctrine, which states that sound recordings and musical compositions are distinct subjects deserving of respect and payment.

2. Voluntary Licensing First, Compulsory Licensing Sparingly

Entertainment Network illustrates judicial caution: public-interest override is triggered only when access is truly blocked.

3. Transparency and Tariff Fairness

The judiciary uses the tariff-publication obligation of Section 33A to stop discriminatory pricing by assignees and societies alike.

4. Technological Neutrality

Recent rulings maintain the Act’s technologically agnostic but rights-holder-friendly nature by acknowledging that streaming and broadcasting both qualify as “communication to the public.

5. Global Alignment

Indian courts follow WIPO-compliant standards by examining collective-management governance (Azure Hospitality) and preserving inalienable author royalties (Rajasthan Patrika case).

Conclusion

India’s experience with music licensing shows how inconsistent enforcement, fragmented laws, and poor awareness can slow down a rapidly expanding creative sector. Significant decisions, such as IPRS v. EIMPA, Entertainment Network, and the most recent Azure Hospitality ruling, have gradually made it clearer who owns what, when a mandatory license is appropriate, and why an unregistered organization cannot pretend to be a copyright society. Collectively, these rulings support a body of law that strikes a balance between creators’ rights to royalties and public access, and it has started to settle a number of protracted conflicts.

India’s licensing system still relies heavily on the twin collectives, IPRS for literary and musical works and PPL (formerly RMPL) for sound recordings. For songwriters, composers, producers, and labels, they turn statutory entitlements into actual income by providing a one-stop clearance window and transparent revenue distribution. Their legitimacy has been reinforced by judicial examination; courts now require that tariff schemes be publicized, that royalties be paid to writers even after they are assigned, and that only a properly registered copyright society engage in bulk licensing. To put it briefly, litigation has reduced market friction by forcing users and societies to professionalize their operations.

But problems still exist. The boundaries of current law are constantly being tested by the growth of digital streaming, short-form media, and remix culture. In order to stay up, India needs to:

• Update the law to eliminate the gray area created by Sections 30 and 33, formalize sanctions for unregistered “shadow” licensors, and improve the requirements for forced licensing;
• standardize licenses and reduce unintentional infringement by educating venues, broadcasters, and digital platforms on compliance;
• Use technology, such as AI cue-sheet matching, blockchain royalty ledgers, and audio fingerprinting, to provide producers with detailed usage information and expedited payments;
• Institutionalise swift dispute resolution, so that copyright litigation becomes the exception, not the rule.

India can create a licensing system that safeguards creators and promotes cultural innovation by putting these measures into place and encouraging cooperation between the government, business associations, and performing-rights organizations. A strong, tech-enabled structure will guarantee equitable royalties, expedite legal music licensing, and maintain a vibrant, inclusive music ecosystem for many years to come. It will be anchored by responsible organizations like IPRS and PPL and directed by progressive judges.

References

Landmark Judgments & recent case laws:

1. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, (1977) 2 SCC 820 – https://indiankanoon.org
   
2. Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., (1998) 6 SCC 549 – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1693854/

3. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd., (2004) – Delhi High Court; “Radio Mirchi” case – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1885590/
   
4. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. & Music Broadcast Ltd., (2023) – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44319083/
   
5. Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., (2022–2025) – Delhi High Court – https://www.barandbench.com/

Statutory & Legal text:

• Copyright Act, 1957, Sections 14, 17–19, 30, 31, 33, 33A, 34, 51, 52 – Government of India
• Copyright Rules, 2013, Chapter XI – Ministry of Commerce & Industry

Scholarly Articles & Reports:

• Verma, K. (2021). “Collective Management of Copyright in India: An Assessment.” Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 26(2).
• Singh, A. & Rao, S. (2020). “Compulsory Licensing and its Impact on Indian Music Industry.” The Copyright Review, 18(4).
• Mehta, P. (2023). “Transparency in Tariff Schemes under Section 33A: A Critical Study.” Indian Journal of Law & Technology, 19(1).

Industry Guidelines & Government Reports:

• Tariff Schemes published by IPRS and PPL/RMPL (2023–24) – available on their official websites
• Joint Committee Report on IPRS and PPL reform – Ministry of Commerce & Industry (2022)