Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

VODAFONE Must Secure IPRS License for Musical and Literary Exploitation of the SAREGAMA: Calcutta High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Calcutta High Court has mandated that Vodafone Idea Limited must obtain a license from the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (IPRS) and pay royalties for the commercial exploitation of musical and literary works integrated into sound recordings. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur on May 17, 2024, emphasizes the strengthened rights of authors under the amended Copyright Act of 2012, which includes mandatory royalty sharing for the public communication of these works.

Facts of the Case: The dispute involved Vodafone Idea Limited (Vodafone), Saregama India Limited (Saregama), and the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (IPRS). Vodafone, providing telecommunication services, included value-added services like pre-recorded Caller Ring Back Tones (CRBT) featuring musical works. Saregama, engaged in the production and distribution of sound recordings, had assigned the rights to these works to IPRS, a copyright society. The crux of the case was whether Vodafone needed to secure a separate license from IPRS and pay royalties for using these works.

Credibility of the IPRS Claim: The court recognized the statutory framework that mandates license procurement from IPRS. “Vodafone is statutorily obliged to procure licenses from IPRS and pay royalties, even if it has entered into agreements with Saregama for the exploitation of sound recordings,” Justice Kapur noted, emphasizing that Saregama had assigned the underlying musical and literary rights to IPRS.

Rights of Authors: The judgment detailed the strengthened legal protections for authors introduced by the 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act. “The amendments grant specific rights to authors of literary and musical works, including mandatory royalty sharing for public communication,” the court observed. These amendments prohibit authors from renouncing their rights to royalties and require commercial exploiters of such works to comply with these provisions.

Role of Saregama and Legal Limitations: The court examined Saregama’s role and limitations in licensing these works. Justice Kapur stated, “Saregama, having assigned its rights in musical and literary works to IPRS, cannot grant Vodafone rights to exploit these works. Any assignment by Saregama to Vodafone is void under the amended Copyright Act.” This highlighted that Saregama could not license what it no longer owned.

The court extensively reviewed the principles of copyright law, focusing on the amendments made in 2012 that protect the rights of authors. “The statutory changes prohibit authors from renouncing their rights to royalties, and commercial exploiters of such works are required to comply with these provisions,” the judgment noted. The court further clarified that these changes ensure authors receive royalties for the use of their works, independent of agreements between commercial entities like Vodafone and Saregama.

Justice Kapur remarked, “The corroboration provided by the statutory amendments is a significant factor that lends credibility to the IPRS’s claims, especially in ensuring the rights of authors are protected.” This underscored the court’s stance on upholding the legislative intent behind the amendments.

The Calcutta High Court’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing the strengthened copyright protections for authors under the 2012 amendments. By mandating Vodafone to obtain licenses from IPRS and pay royalties, the judgment reinforces the legal framework that ensures fair compensation for the use of musical and literary works. This decision is expected to set a significant precedent, impacting future cases and emphasizing the importance of complying with copyright regulations.

Date of Decision: May 17, 2024

Vodafone Idea Limited vs. Saregama India Limited & Anr.

Latest Legal News