INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. EASTERN INDIAN MOTION PICTURES ASSOCIATION
LAWS(SC)-1977-3-54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
March 14,1977
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
EASTERN INDIAN MOTION PICTURES ASSOCIATION
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
COCONUT MEDIA BOX LLP VS. NOVEX COMMUNICATION PVT.LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-277] [REFERRED TO]COCONUT MEDIA BOX LLP VS. NOVEX COMMUNICATION PVT.LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-277] [REFERRED TO]
FORTUNE FILMS INTERNATIONAL VS. DEV ANAND [LAWS(BOM)-1978-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
FORTUNE FILMS INTERNATIONAL VS. DEV ANAND [LAWS(BOM)-1978-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
THIAGARAJAN VS. CAPITAL FILM WORKS [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-141] [REFERRED TO]
THIAGARAJAN VS. CAPITAL FILM WORKS [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-141] [REFERRED TO]
SAREGMA INDIA LTD VS. PUNEET PRAKASH MEHRA [LAWS(CAL)-2010-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
SAREGMA INDIA LTD VS. PUNEET PRAKASH MEHRA [LAWS(CAL)-2010-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
RADIO TODAY BROADCASTING LTD VS. INDIAN PERORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY [LAWS(CAL)-2006-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD VS. ADITYA PANDEY [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-70] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD VS. ADITYA PANDEY [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-70] [REFERRED TO]
RADIO TODAY BROADCASTING LTD VS. INDIAN PERORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY [LAWS(CAL)-2006-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE VENKATESH FILMS PVT LTD VS. VIPUL AMRUTLAL SHAH [LAWS(CAL)-2009-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISIHING VS. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY [LAWS(KER)-2011-2-367] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE VENKATESH FILMS PVT LTD VS. VIPUL AMRUTLAL SHAH [LAWS(CAL)-2009-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISIHING VS. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY [LAWS(KER)-2011-2-367] [REFERRED TO]
RADIO TODAY BROADCASTING LTD. VS. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2008-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISIHING VS. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY [LAWS(KER)-2011-2-557] [REFERRED]
MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISIHING VS. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY [LAWS(KER)-2011-2-557] [REFERRED]
RADIO TODAY BROADCASTING LTD. VS. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2008-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. VS. TRIMURTI FILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-173] [REFERRED TO]
EASTERN INDIA MOTION PICTURES VS. PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1978-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
SUPER AUDIO MADRAS PVT LTD VS. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK [LAWS(MAD)-2010-11-424] [REFERRED TO]
EASTERN INDIA MOTION PICTURES VS. PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1978-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD VS. BRANCH MANAGER MUTHOOT FINANCE PVT LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2009-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
SUPER AUDIO MADRAS PVT LTD VS. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK [LAWS(MAD)-2010-11-424] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD VS. BRANCH MANAGER MUTHOOT FINANCE PVT LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2009-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. VS. TRIMURTI FILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-173] [REFERRED TO]
PERIYAR SELF RESPECT PROPAGANDA INSTITUTION VS. PERIYAR DRAVIDAR KAZHAGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-274] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDIAN WOMEN TAMIL NADU COUNCIL VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-279] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDIAN WOMEN TAMIL NADU COUNCIL VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-279] [REFERRED TO]
PERIYAR SELF RESPECT PROPAGANDA INSTITUTION VS. PERIYAR DRAVIDAR KAZHAGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-274] [REFERRED TO]
MISS KAJAL AGGARWAL VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S V V D AND SONS P LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-186] [REFERRED TO]
INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF SOCIETIES OF AUTHORS AND COMPOSERS (CISAC) VS. ADITYA PANDEY & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2016-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
MISS KAJAL AGGARWAL VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S V V D AND SONS P LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-186] [REFERRED TO]
INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF SOCIETIES OF AUTHORS AND COMPOSERS (CISAC) VS. ADITYA PANDEY & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2016-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
Lark Book Publishers, Bhubaneswar VS. Girija Nandini Praharaj [LAWS(ORI)-2007-6-67] [REFERRED TO]
G V FILMS LIMITED VS. GAYATHRI HOLDINGS P LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-74] [REFERRED TO]
Lark Book Publishers, Bhubaneswar VS. Girija Nandini Praharaj [LAWS(ORI)-2007-6-67] [REFERRED TO]
G V FILMS LIMITED VS. GAYATHRI HOLDINGS P LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-74] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHOOTH FINANCE LTD VS. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-100] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHOOTH FINANCE LTD VS. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-100] [REFERRED TO]
SELLAPPAPA KEERAN VS. S.VIJAYARAGHAVAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
SELLAPPAPA KEERAN VS. S.VIJAYARAGHAVAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
SELLAPPAPA KEERAN VS. S.VIJAYARAGHAVAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
SELLAPPAPA KEERAN VS. S.VIJAYARAGHAVAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
SAREGAMA LTD. VS. NEW DIGITAL MEDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-261] [REFERRED TO]
SAREGAMA LTD. VS. NEW DIGITAL MEDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-261] [REFERRED TO]
SAREGAMA INDIA LTD VS. VIACOM 18 MOTION PICTURES [LAWS(CAL)-2013-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
SAREGAMA INDIA LTD VS. VIACOM 18 MOTION PICTURES [LAWS(CAL)-2013-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
MEENAMBALAM SANTHOSH VS. SUNISH S ANAND [LAWS(KER)-2018-7-558] [REFERRED TO]
SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED VS. BALAJI MOTION PICTURES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
THE INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD VS. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2021-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD. VS. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2021-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRICES VS. GAJENDRA SINGH [LAWS(BOM)-2007-10-99] [REFERRED TO]
ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRICES VS. GAJENDRA SINGH [LAWS(BOM)-2007-10-99] [REFERRED TO]
MEENAMBALAM SANTHOSH VS. SUNISH S ANAND [LAWS(KER)-2018-7-558] [REFERRED TO]
SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED VS. BALAJI MOTION PICTURES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
THE INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD VS. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2021-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD. VS. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2021-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
AAMIR RAZA HUSAIN VS. CINEVISTAAS LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2002-9-143] [REFERRED TO]
AAMIR RAZA HUSAIN VS. CINEVISTAAS LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2002-9-143] [REFERRED TO]
MRF LIMITED VS. METRO TYRES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-147] [REFERRED TO]
MRF LIMITED VS. METRO TYRES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-147] [REFERRED TO]
MRF LIMITED VS. METRO TYRES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-147] [REFERRED TO]
MRF LIMITED VS. METRO TYRES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-147] [REFERRED TO]
SRUSHTI VISION VS. ULHAS BUYAO [LAWS(BOM)-1999-10-112] [REFERRED TO]
SRUSHTI VISION VS. ULHAS BUYAO [LAWS(BOM)-1999-10-112] [REFERRED TO]
SHOLAY MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD VS. VODAFONE ESSSAR MOBILE SERVICES LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
SHOLAY MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD VS. VODAFONE ESSSAR MOBILE SERVICES LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
MUSIC BROADCAST PRIVATE LIMITED VS. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2011-7-151] [REFERRED TO]
SALIM KHAN VS. SUMEET PRAKASH MEHRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
MUSIC BROADCAST PRIVATE LIMITED VS. INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2011-7-151] [REFERRED TO]
SALIM KHAN VS. SUMEET PRAKASH MEHRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
THE INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD. VS. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-116] [REFERRED TO]
V T THOMAS VS. MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD [LAWS(KER)-1988-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
EVENT AND ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-235] [REFERRED TO]
EVENT AND ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-235] [REFERRED TO]
V T THOMAS VS. MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD [LAWS(KER)-1988-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
THE INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD. VS. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-116] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD VS. ADITYA PANDEY [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-213] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD VS. ADITYA PANDEY [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-213] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD VS. ADITYA PANDEY [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-213] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD VS. ADITYA PANDEY [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-213] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-126] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-126] [REFERRED TO]
PVR PICTURE LTD VS. STUDIO 18 [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU VS. RAMESAN [LAWS(KER)-1987-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
PVR PICTURE LTD VS. STUDIO 18 [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU VS. RAMESAN [LAWS(KER)-1987-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Jaswant Singh, J. -
(1.) This appeal by certificate granted under Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta which is directed against its judgment dated February 13, 1974, raises the following substantial question of law of general importance:-"Whether in view of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, an existing and future right of music ..........composer, lyricist is capable of assignment and whether the producer of a cinematograph film can defeat the same by engaging the same person."
(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal are:The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the IPRS), the appellant before us, was incorporated in the State of Maharashtra on August 23 1969, as a company limited by guarantee, for the purpose of carrying on business in India of issuing or granting licences for performance in public of all existing and future Indian Musical works in which copyright subsists in India. The incorporation of the IPRS was in terms of S. 2(r) of the Copy right Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was enacted after taking into consideration the Report of the (British) Copyright Committee, 1952, the suggestions of the various Ministries of the Government of India and the State Governments, the Indian Universities and certain interested industries and associations who were invited to send their comments on the subject of copyright. The IPRS has amongst its members the composers of musical works, authors of literary and dramatic words and artistes. In accordance with the provisions of S. 33 of the Act, the IPRS published on September 27, 1969 and November 29, 1969 in the 'statesman and the Gazette of India respectively a tariff laying down the fees, charges and royalties that it proposed to collect for the grant of licences for performance in public of works in respect of which it claimed to be an assignee of copyrights and to have authority to grant the aforesaid licences. A number of persons including various associations of producers of cinematograph films who claimed to be the owners of such films including the sound track thereof and the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association of India filed objections in respect of the aforesaid tariff in accordance with the provisions of S. 34 of the Act repudiating the claim of the IPRS that it had on behalf of its members authority to grant licences for performance in public of all existing and future musical works which are incorporated in the sound track of cinematograph films in which copyright may subsist in India or the right to collect in relation thereto any fees, charges or royalties. The association of producers averred inter alia that their members engaged composers and sound writers under contracts of service for composing songs to be utilised in their films:that the musical works prepared by the composers of lyric and music under contract of service with their member - producers of the cinematograph films - having been utilised and incorporated in the sound track of the cinematograph films produced by the latter, all the rights which subsisted in the composers and their works including the right to perform them in public became the property of the producers of the cinematograph films and no copyright subsisted in the composers which they could assign to and become the basis of the claim of the IPRS under S. 33 of the Act; that their members i.e. the producers of cinematograph films being the authors and first owners of the copyright in the cinematograph films produced by them had the exclusive right inter alia to cause the said films in so far as the same consisted of sounds (which include musical works) to be heard in public as also the exclusive right to make records embodying the sound trak of the films produced by them (including any musical work incorporated therein) and to cause the said records to be heard in public; that in the making of a cinematograph film, as contemplated by the Act, a composer composes a lyric or music under a contract of service or for valuable consideration which is substantial, a music director sets it to tunes and imparts music to it and a singer sings the same but none of them nor any one of their aforesaid works can and have any separate copyrights; that motion picture is the combination of all arts and music in the sound track which cannot be detached from the film itself; that the purpose of making a motion picture is not only to complete it but also to publicly exhibit it throughout the world; that having regard to the provisions of the Act, the copyright in the case of a cinematograph film vests in the owner of the film as defined in S. 2 (d) (v) of the Act; and that in the premises any assignment purporting to have been made in favour of the IPRS was void and of no effect and was incapable of conferring any rights whatsoever in such musical works on the IPRS.
(3.) The Cinematograph Exhibitors Association of India also filed objections challenging the right of the IPRS to charge fees and royalties in respect of performance in public of the musical works incorporated in the sound track of the films. Besides raising contentions identical to those raised by various associations of producers, they averred that copyright in a cinematograph film which vested in the producers meant copyright in the entirety of the film as an integrated unit including the musical work incorporated in the sound track of the film and the right to perform the work in public; that in accordance with the agreement with the distributors of films, the exhibition of cinematograph film includes the right to play in public the music which is an integral part and parcel of the film; that the producers lease out copyrights of public performance of the films vested in them to the distributors who give those rights to the exhibitors under an agreement and that when an exhibitor takes a licence for exhibition, it is complete in all respects and a third party like the IPRS cannot claim any licence fee from the exhibitors.;
(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal are:The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the IPRS), the appellant before us, was incorporated in the State of Maharashtra on August 23 1969, as a company limited by guarantee, for the purpose of carrying on business in India of issuing or granting licences for performance in public of all existing and future Indian Musical works in which copyright subsists in India. The incorporation of the IPRS was in terms of S. 2(r) of the Copy right Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was enacted after taking into consideration the Report of the (British) Copyright Committee, 1952, the suggestions of the various Ministries of the Government of India and the State Governments, the Indian Universities and certain interested industries and associations who were invited to send their comments on the subject of copyright. The IPRS has amongst its members the composers of musical works, authors of literary and dramatic words and artistes. In accordance with the provisions of S. 33 of the Act, the IPRS published on September 27, 1969 and November 29, 1969 in the 'statesman and the Gazette of India respectively a tariff laying down the fees, charges and royalties that it proposed to collect for the grant of licences for performance in public of works in respect of which it claimed to be an assignee of copyrights and to have authority to grant the aforesaid licences. A number of persons including various associations of producers of cinematograph films who claimed to be the owners of such films including the sound track thereof and the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association of India filed objections in respect of the aforesaid tariff in accordance with the provisions of S. 34 of the Act repudiating the claim of the IPRS that it had on behalf of its members authority to grant licences for performance in public of all existing and future musical works which are incorporated in the sound track of cinematograph films in which copyright may subsist in India or the right to collect in relation thereto any fees, charges or royalties. The association of producers averred inter alia that their members engaged composers and sound writers under contracts of service for composing songs to be utilised in their films:that the musical works prepared by the composers of lyric and music under contract of service with their member - producers of the cinematograph films - having been utilised and incorporated in the sound track of the cinematograph films produced by the latter, all the rights which subsisted in the composers and their works including the right to perform them in public became the property of the producers of the cinematograph films and no copyright subsisted in the composers which they could assign to and become the basis of the claim of the IPRS under S. 33 of the Act; that their members i.e. the producers of cinematograph films being the authors and first owners of the copyright in the cinematograph films produced by them had the exclusive right inter alia to cause the said films in so far as the same consisted of sounds (which include musical works) to be heard in public as also the exclusive right to make records embodying the sound trak of the films produced by them (including any musical work incorporated therein) and to cause the said records to be heard in public; that in the making of a cinematograph film, as contemplated by the Act, a composer composes a lyric or music under a contract of service or for valuable consideration which is substantial, a music director sets it to tunes and imparts music to it and a singer sings the same but none of them nor any one of their aforesaid works can and have any separate copyrights; that motion picture is the combination of all arts and music in the sound track which cannot be detached from the film itself; that the purpose of making a motion picture is not only to complete it but also to publicly exhibit it throughout the world; that having regard to the provisions of the Act, the copyright in the case of a cinematograph film vests in the owner of the film as defined in S. 2 (d) (v) of the Act; and that in the premises any assignment purporting to have been made in favour of the IPRS was void and of no effect and was incapable of conferring any rights whatsoever in such musical works on the IPRS.
(3.) The Cinematograph Exhibitors Association of India also filed objections challenging the right of the IPRS to charge fees and royalties in respect of performance in public of the musical works incorporated in the sound track of the films. Besides raising contentions identical to those raised by various associations of producers, they averred that copyright in a cinematograph film which vested in the producers meant copyright in the entirety of the film as an integrated unit including the musical work incorporated in the sound track of the film and the right to perform the work in public; that in accordance with the agreement with the distributors of films, the exhibition of cinematograph film includes the right to play in public the music which is an integral part and parcel of the film; that the producers lease out copyrights of public performance of the films vested in them to the distributors who give those rights to the exhibitors under an agreement and that when an exhibitor takes a licence for exhibition, it is complete in all respects and a third party like the IPRS cannot claim any licence fee from the exhibitors.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.