http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 19  

PETITIONER: INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: EASTERN INDIA MOTION PICTURES ASSOCIATION

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/03/1977

BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1443            1977 SCR  (3) 206  1977 SCC  (2) 820

ACT:             Copy  Right Act (Act 14 of 1957), 1957--Whether in  view         of the provisions of the Copy Right Act 1957 an existing and         future  rights of music  .... composer, lyricist is  capable         of  assignment under s. 18 when he grants a licence or  per-         mission u/s. 30 to an author (owner) of a cinematograph film         for its incorporation in the sound track of a  cinematograph         film--Whether  the  producer  of a  cinematograph  film  can         defeat the same by engaging in the same person: Scope of ss.         2(d),  (f), (j), (m), (p), (q), (r), (v), (y),  13,14,17,18,         19  22, 26, 30 and 34 of the Act.

HEADNOTE:           The appellant society was incorporated in terms of section         2(r)  of  the Copyright Act. 1957 (Act 14 of 1957),  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  within  the meaning of s. 13  subsists  in         India.   The appellant company has amongst its  members  the         composers of musical works, authors of literary and dramatic         works  and artistes.  In accordance with the  provisions  of         section 33 of the Copyright Act, the appellant 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  copy-         rights  and  to have authority to grant  the  aforesaid  li-         cences.  A number of persons including various  associations         of  producers  of cinematograph films  including  the  sound         track  thereof and the Cinematograph Exhibitors  Association         of  India filed objections in respect of the  tariff  before         the  Copyright Board in accordance with the  provisions   of         section 34 of the Act, repudiating the rights of the  appel-         lant.   The  Copyright Board held  : (1) In the  absence  of         proof  to  the contrary, the composers of lyrics  and  music         retained  the copyright in their musical works  incorporated         in  the  sound track of cinematograph  films  provided  such         lyrical  and musical works were printed on written and  that         they  could  assign the performing right in  public  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 19  

       appellant.  (2) The tariff as published by the appellant was         reasonable.   (3) The appellant had the right to  grant  li-         cences  for  the public performance of music  in  the  sound         track  of copyrighted Indian cinematograph films and (4)  It         could  collect  fees, royalties and charges  in  respect  of         those  films  w.e.f. the date on which the tariff  was  pub-         lished in the Gazette of India.  The High Court allowed  the         appeal  preferred by the respondents under s. 72 of the  Act         and held: (i) Unless there is a contract to the contrary   a         composer  who composes a lyric or music for the  first  time         for valuable consideration for a cinematograph film does not         acquire  any   copyright either in respect of  film  or  its         sound  track  which he is capable of assigning.  (ii)  Under         proviso (b) to section 17 of the Act, the owner of the  film         at whose instance the composition is made becomes the  first         owner of the copyright in the composition. (iii) The compos-         er  can claim a copyright in his work only if  there  is  an         express agreement between him and the owner of the cinemato-         graph film reserving his copyright.  (iv) Though section  18         of  the Act confers power to make a contract of  assignment.         the power can be exercised only when there is an existing or         future right to be assigned and that in the circumstances of         the  present case, assignment, if any, of the  copyright  in         any future work is of no effect.              In  appeal by certificate to this Court, the  appellant         contended (1) The author (composer) of a literary or musical         work has copyright which includes. inter alia. the exclusive         right (a) to perform the work in public and         207               (b)  to  make any cinematograph film or  a  record  in         respect  of  the work. (2) That copyright in a  literary  or         musical work is infringed by any person if without a licence         granted  to  him by the owner of the copyright, he  makes  a         cinematograph  film  in respect of the work or  perform  the         work  in public by  exhibiting the cinematograph film.   (3)         If  a person desires to exhibit in public   a  cinematograph         film  containing a musical work,  he has to take  the   per-         mission not only of the owner of the copyright in the  cine-         matograph  film but also the permission of the owner of  the         copyright in the literary or musical   work which is  incor-         porated in the cinematograph film, as according to s. 13(4)         of  the  Act,  the copyright in a cinematograph  film  or  a         record does not effect    the separate copyright in any work         in respect of which or a substantial part  of which the film         or  as the case may be, the record is made (4).  The  provi-         sions  of section 17(b) of the Act have no application to  a         literary  or musical work or the separate copyright  therein         and do not take away the copyright in  a literary or musical         work  embodied  in  a cinematograph  film.   (5)   The  only         modes in which the author of a literary work or musical work         ceases to be  the owner of copyright in the work are (a)  by         assigning  under s. 18(b) by relinquishment under s. 21  and         (c) by the composer composing the work  in the course of his         employment  under a contract of service with an employer  in         which  case the employer becomes the owner of the  copyright         in  the  musical work.  (6) In the case of an assignment  of         copyright in future work   and the employment of the  author         to produce a work under a contract of  service, the question         of  priorities will be decided according to  the  principles         "where equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail".         The  respondent’s  contentions were (i) Unless  a  music  is         notationally  written, printed or graphically reproduced  it         is  not a musical work within the meaning of  Copyright  Act         and there is no copyright in songs or orchestral pieces sung         or  played  directly   without its notation  being  written.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 19  

       (ii) Since a "cinematograph film" is defined in section 2(f)         of  the  Act as including the sound track  and  the  "cinema         tograph"  is  required to be construed to include  any  work         produced  by  any  process analogous to  cinematography  the         owner  of the cinematograph film is  the first owner of  the         copyright  therein  including the right of the  composer  of         the literary or musical work incorporated in the sound track         of the film. (iii) In the case of the film in which a  lyric         (which literally means a short poem  directly expressing the         poet’s  own  thoughts and sentiments  in  instances  failing         within  the  purview of the expression  "literary  work"  as         defined  in section 2(0)  of the Act  has been  plagiarised,         there  will be copyright in the film vesting    in the  pro-         ducer.   (iv)  The  Act confers a separate  copyright  of  a         cinematograph film as a film, its author under s. 2(d)(v) of         the  Act  being the owner  of the film at the  time  of  its         completion.  (v) In the case of a lyric or music incorporat-         ed  under the sound track of a cinematograph film, since  in         section  2(f)  of the Act cinematograph  film  includes  its         sound  track   and   section  13(1)(b) of  the  Act  confers         copyright on the cinematograph film and section  14(c)  (ii)         of  the Act confers on the. owner of copyright the right  to         cause the film in so far as it consists of visual images  to         be seen in public and in so far  as it consists of songs  to         be  heard in public, it is not necessary for the owner    of         the  cinematograph  film  to secure the  permission  of  the         composer of  the   lyric or of the music incorporated in the         sound  track  of a cinematograph film    for  exhibiting  or         causing  the exhibition of the sound portion of the film  in         public or for causing the records of the sound track of  the         film  to be heard in   public.  (vii) It is not  correct  to         say that under s. 17 proviso (b) in order that the  producer         of  the  cinematograph  film should have  copyright  in  the         literary  or musical work incorporated in it, the making  of         the entire film should be commissioned.  Section 17(b)  will         equally apply if someone is commissioned to make any  compo-         nent part of a cinematograph film such as a lyric or musical          work  i.e. when such component of the film is made  at  the         instance  of a film   producer for  valuable  consideration,         the copyright for such component shall as  well vest in  the         producer.  (viii) As the Act confers a separate copyright on         a    cinematograph film as a film the producer can  exercise         both the rights conferred on him under s. 141(c)(ii) of  the         Act and all that section 13(4) of the Act (when  applicable)         provides is that the rights created by section 14(1)(a)  and         (b) shall coexist with those created by section 14(1)(e) and         (d) of the Act.         Dismissing the appeal the Court,         HELD: (Per Krishna Iyer, J. concurring)         208             (1) Copyright in a cinema film exists in law but section         13(4)  of  the Act preserves the separate  survival  in  its         individuality  of a copyright enjoyed by any  work  notwith-         standing  its confluence in the film.  This  persistence  of         the  aesthetic  personality  of  the  intellectual  property         cannot  cut  down the copyright of the film qua  film.   The         exclusive  right, otherwise, called copyright, in the’  case         of a musical work extends to all the sub rights spelt out in         section  14(1)  (a).  A harmonious construction, of  s.  14,         which  is  the  integral yoga of copyright  shows  that  the         artiste enjoys his  copyright in the musical _work the  film         producer    is   the   master   of   his   combination    of         artistic .pieces and the two can. happily co-exist and  need         not conflict. [223 A-C]              (2) The boundaries of composite creations of art  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 19  

       are  at  once individual and collective may be  viewed  from         different  angles.   In  a cosmic perspective,  a  thing  of         beauty  has no boundary and is humanity’s property  but   in         the  materialist plane on which artistes thrive private  and         exclusive  estate  inert subsists.  The enigmatic  smale  of         Mona  Lisa is the timeless heritage of  mankind,  but,  till         liberated  by  the prescribed passage of time,  the  private         copy right of the human maker says, "hands off. [223 F-G]             (3)  The  film producer has the sole right  to  exercise         what  is  his entitlement under section 14(1)(c)  qua  film.         But,  he cannot trench on the composer’s copyright which  he         does only if the ’music’ is performed or produced  or repro-         duced separately, in violation of section 14(1)(a).  A  film         may   be caused to be exhibited as a film but the pieces  of         music cannot be picked out of the sound track and played  in         the  cinema or the theatre.  To do that is the privilege  of         the  composer  and that right of his is not drowned  in  the         film’ copyright except where there is special provision such         as section 17, proviso (c).  Beyond exhibiting the film as a         cinema  show if the producer plays the songs  separately  to         attract  an audience or for other reasons he  infringes  the         composer’s  copyright, the copyright of the composer or  the         Performing   Acts  Society comes into play, if  a  music  is         played,  whether in a restaurant or aeroplane or radio  sta-         tion or cinema theatre. [223 C-E]             (4)  Section  14 has in its careful arrangement  of  the         right   belonging  each copyright has a certain  melody  and         harmony  to music which is to loose the sense of  the  same.         Our  copyright statute protects the composite  cinematograph         work produced by lay out of heavy money and many talents but         does  not  extinguish the copyrightable component  parts  in         toto.   The music which has merged through the sound  track,         into the motion picture is copyright by the producer but, on         account  of  this monopoly, the music  composer’s  copyright         does not perish.  The twin rights can co-exist each  fulfil-         ing itself in its delectable distinctiveness. [224 A-B]         Observation:             Apart  from  the  music composed,  the  singer  must  be         conferred  a   right. Copyrighted music is not  the  soulful         tune, the superb singing, the glorious voice or the  wonder-         ful rendering.  It is the melody or harmony reduced to print         writing or graphic form of musical works.  Author as defined         in s.2(d) in relation to a musical work is only the composer         and  section 16 confines copyright to those works which  are         recognised  by the Act, which means the composer  alone  has         copyright  in a musical work and the singer has  none.  This         disentitlement of the musician or group of musical  artistes         to copyright is un-Indian because the major attraction which         lends  monetary  value to a musical performance is  not  the         music maker so much as the musician. Perhaps both deserve to         be recognised by the copyright law, because art in one sense         depends on the ethos and the aesthetic best of a people  and         while  universal  protection of intellectual  and  aesthetic         property of creators of "works" is an international  obliga-         tion each country in its law must protect such rights  wher-         ever originally is contributed. [224 E-H]         Per Jaswant Singh J.             (1)  The  existing and future right of  music   ........         composer and lyrics in their respective works as defined  in         the  Act is capable of assignment subject to the  conditions         mentioned in section 18 of the Act as also in section         209         19 of the Act which requires an assignment to be in writing,         signed by the assigner or by his duly authorised agent. [215         D-E]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 19  

            (2) The interpretation of clause (f) of section 2 which         is  not  exhaustive leaves no room for doubt  when  read  in         conjunction with section 14(1)(c)(iii), that the term  cine-         matograph  film includes a sound track associated  with  the         film. [220 D]             (3)  A  harmonious and rational  instead  of  mechanical         construction of s. 34, s. 14(1)(a)(iii) and s.  14(1)(c)(ii)         will be:             (A)  Once the author of a lyric or a musical work  parts         with  a portion of his copyright by authorising a film  pro-         ducer  to make a cinematograph film in respect of  his  work         and  thereby  to have his work incorporated or  recorded  in         sound track of a cinematograph film, the latter.acquires  by         virtue  of section 14(1)(c) of the Act on completion of  the         cinematograph film a copyright  which  gives him the  exclu-         sive  right,  inter alma, of performing the work  in  public         that  is,  to  cause the film in so far as  it  consists  of         visual  images  to  be seen in public and in so  far  as  it         consists  of  the acoustic portion including a lyric  or   a         musical  work  to be heard in public  without  securing  any         further  permission  of  the author (composer) of the  lyric         or a musical work for the performance of the work in public.         A  distinct copyright in the aforesaid  circumstances  comes         to  vest in the cinematograph film as a whole which  relates         both to copying the film and to its performance in public.             (B)  If  an author (composer) of a lyric  or  a  musical         work   authorises  a cinematograph film producer to  make  a         cinematograph film of his composition by recording it on the         sound  track or a cinematograph film, he cannot complain  of         the  infringement of his copyright if the author (owner)  of         the cinematograph film causes the lyric or the musical  work         recorded  on  the sound track  of  the film to be  heard  in         public  and nothing contained in section 13(4) of  the   Act         can  operate  to affect the rights acquired  by  the  author         (owner)  of  the film by virtue of section 14(1)(c)  of  the         Act.             (C) The composer of a lyric or musical work retains  the         right  of performing it in public for profit otherwise  than         as a part of cinematograph film and he cannot be  restrained         from  doing so.  In other words, the author (composer) of  a         lyric  or  musical work who has authorised  a  cinematograph         film  producer to make a cinematograph film of his work  and         thereby   permitted   him  to   appropriate  his   work   by         incorporating  or  recording  it on the  sound  track  of  a         cinematograph film cannot restrain the author (owner) of the         film  from  causing  the acoustic portion of the film to  be         performed  or projected or screened in public for profit  or         from  making any record embodying the recording in any  part         of  the  sound track associated with the film  by  utilising         such  sound track or from communicating or  authorising  the         communication  of  the film by radio diffusion,  as  section         14(1)(c)  of  the  Act expressly permits the  owner  of  the         copyright  of a cinematograph film to do all  these  things.         In such cases the author (owner)  of the cinematograph  film         cannot  be  said to wrongfully  appropriate  anything  which         belongs to the composer of the lyric or musical work.             Any  other construction would not only render  the   ex-         press   provisions   of clause (f), (m), (y) of  section  2,         section 13(1)(b) ,red section 14(1)(c) of the Act otiose but         would also defeat the intention of the legislature which  in         view of the growing importance of the cinematograph film  as         a  powerful  media  of expression and  the  highly  complex,         technical  and scientific process and heavy  capital  outlay         involved  in  its production has sought to  recognise  as  a         separate entity and to treat a record embodying the  record-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 19  

       ing in any part of the sound track associated with the  film         by  utilising such sound track as something distinct from  a         record as ordinarily understood. [220 G-H; 221 A-G]             (4)Clauses (d), (v), (f), (m), (v) and (y) of section 2,         section 13(1) and 14(1)(c), provisos (b) and (c) to  section         17  and  section 22 and 26 of the Act  abundantly  make   it         clear  that protectable copyright  (comprising a  bundle  of         exclusive  rights mentioned in section 14(1)(c) of  the  Act         comes to         210         vest in a cinematograph film on its completion which is said         to  take place when the visual portion and  audible  portion         are synchronized. [221 H; 222 A]           (5)  The rights of music  ........  composer  or  lyricist         can  be defeated by the producer of a cinematograph film  in         the manner laid down in proviso (b) and (c) of section 17 of         the  Act.  In both the. cases falling under clauses (b)  and         (c)  of  s. 17, a cinematograph film producer  becomes  the.         first  owner of the copyright and no copyright  subsists  in         the composer of the lyric or music so  composed unless there         is a contract to the contrary between the composer  of   the         lyric or music on one hand and the producer of the cinemato-         graph film on the other. [222 D-F]          Wallerstein  v. Herbert (1867) Vol. 16, Law  Times  Reports         453, quoted with approval.

JUDGMENT:               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 967  of         1975.          (From the judgment and order dated 13-2-1974 of the Calcut-         ta High Court in Copyright No. 2/73).             A.K.  Sen, E.P. Skons James, J. 1. Mehta, J. Roy  Choud-         hary,  S.K.  Mehta,  K.R. Nagaraja and P.N.  Puri,  for  the         appellant.             S.  Chaudhury, R.K. Bachawat, D.K. Sinha, H.S.   Parihar         and I. N. Shroff, for respondents 1-5 and 12 and 22.         J.C. Bhat, Atul Munim and B.R. Agarwala, for respondents  6-         8.             B. Sen, B.K. Bachawat, D.K. Sinha, H.S. Parihar  and  I.         N. Shroff, for respondents 12 and 22.             J.L.  Nain, Atul Munim and B.  R.  Agarwala,   for   re-         spondent No. 19.             The  Judgment  of  the Court was  delivered  by  Jaswant         Singh, 3., V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. also gave a separate  opin-         ion.             JASWANT  SINGH, J.  This appeal by  certificate  granted         under Article 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                       rights 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."             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,         1959, as a company limited by guarantee, for the purpose  of         carrying  on  business in India of issuing or  granting  li-         cences for performance in public of all existing and  future

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 19  

       Indian  Musical works in which copyright subsists in  India.         The  incorporation of the IPRS was in terms of section  2(r)         of the Copyright  Act,         211         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 subjects of copyright. The  IPRS         has  amongst  its members the composers  of  musical  works,         authors  of  literary and dramatic works  and  artists.   In         accordance with the provisions of section 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 far  perform-         ance 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 section 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 averted 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  mem-         bers-producers  of  the  cinematograph  films--having   been         utilised and incorporated in the sound track of the cinemat-         ograph  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  sub-         sisted  in  the  composers which they could  assign  to  and         become  the basis of the claim of the IPRS under section  33         of  the Act; that their members i.e. the producers of  cine-         matograph  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 track of the films produced         by  them (including any musical work  incorporated  therein)         and to cause the said records to be beard 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 through-         out the  world; that having regard to the provisions of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 19  

       Act the’ copyright in the case of         212         a  cinematograph  film  vests in the owner of  the  film  as         defined  in  section 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 incapa-         ble  of  conferring any rights whatsoever  in  such  musical         works on the IPRS.             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  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.             On  the  aforesaid objections being referred to  it  for         determination  under  section 35 of the Act,  the  Copyright         Board expressed the view that in the absence of proof to the         contrary,  the  composers of lyrics and music  retained  the         copyright  in their musical works incorporated in the  sound         track  of  cinematograph films provided  such  lyrical   and         musical  works were printed or written and that  they  could         assign  the  performing right in public to  the  IPRS.   The         Copyright Board further held that the tariff as published by         the IPRS was reasonable and the IPRS had the right to  grant         licences for the  public  performance  of music in the sound         track of copyrighted Indian cinematograph films and it could         collect  fees,  royalties and charges in  respect  of  those         films  with  effect from the date on which  the  tariff  was         published  in  the Gazette of India.             Aggrieved  by the decision of the Copyright  Board,  the         objectors preferred an appeal under section 72 of the Act to         the  High  Court which allowed the same holding that  unless         there is a contract to the contrary, a composer who composes         a lyric or music for the first time for valuable  considera-         tion for a cinematograph film does not acquire any copyright         either  in  respect of film or its sound track which  he  is         capable of assigning and that under proviso. (b) to  section         17 of the Act, the owner of the film at whose instance,  the         composition  is made, becomes the first owner of  the  copy-         right  in   the  composition.  The High Court  further  held         that  "the composer can claim a copyright  in his work  only         if there is an express agreement between him  and  the owner         of  the  cinematograph film reserving his  copyright".   The         High  Court  also held that "though section 18  of  the  Act         confers  power to make a contract of assignment,  the  power         can be exercised only when         213         there  is  an ’existing or future right to be  assigned  and         that  in the circumstances of the present case,  assignment,         if  any,  of  the  copyright in any future  work  is  of  no         effect".   Dissatisfied with this decision, the IPRS  has,as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 19  

       already stated, come up in appeal to this Court.             The copyright law in our country being fairly complicat-         ed  because  of the involved language in which some  of  its         provisions are  couched and the case being of first  impres-         sion,  learned counsel for the  parties have tried  hard  to         help  us in solving the knotty points by  advancing  copious         and able arguments.  Appearing on behalf of the   appellant,         Mr.  Ashok  Sen has urged that the author  (composer)  of  a         literary or musical work has copyright which includes  inter         alia  the  exclusive right (a) to perform the work in public         ’and  (b)  to  make any cinematograph film or  a  record  in         respect  of  the  work; that copyright  in   a  literary  or         musical work is infringed by any person if without a licence         granted  to  him by the owner of the copyright, he  makes  a         cinematograph  film in respect of the work or  performs  the         work in public by exhibiting the cinematograph film; that if         a  person desires to exhibit in public a cinematograph  film         containing  a musical work, he has  to take  the  permission         not only of the owner of the copyright in the  cinematograph         film but also the permission of the owner of the   copyright         in the literary or musical work which is incorporated in the         cinematograph film, as according to section 1. 3 (4) of  the         Act, the copyright in a cinematograph film or a record  does         not affect the separate copyright in any work i.n respect of         which or a substantial part of  which,  the film, or as  the         case  may  be, the record is made; that  the  provisions  of         section  17(b) of the Act have no application to a  literary         or musical work or the separate copyright therein and do not         take  away the copyright in a literary or musical  work  em-         bodied in a cinematograph film; that the only modes in which         the  author of a literary or musical work ceases to  be  the         owner of copyright m the work are (a) by assignment, ’(b) by         relinquishment and (c) by the composer composing the work in         ’the  course of his employment under a contract of   service         with   an employer in which case, the employer  becomes  the         owner of the copyright in the musical work; that in the case         of an assignment of copyright in future work and the employ-         ment  of the author to produce  a work under a  contract  of         service,  the question of priorities  will  be  decided  ac-         cording  to  the principle "where equities  are  equal,  the         first in time shall prevail".             Mr. Sachin Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondents 1,         2  and  3,  as well as Mr. J.C. Bhat,  learned  counsel  for         respondents  6, 7 and 8, and Mr. J.L. Nain, learned  counsel         for  respondent 19, who followed Mr. Chaudhary have  on  the         other  hand submitted that the dispute in the instant  case,         according  to  the petition of appeal, the judgment  of  the         Copyright Board and the judgment of the Calcutta High  Court         is  confined to the sound track associated with a  cinemato-         graph  film  (which expression, according  to  Copinger  and         Skone James on COPYRIGHT, means "any record of sounds  which         is incorporated in any print, negative, tape or other  arti-         cle  on which the film or part of it, in so far as  it  con-         sists  of visual images, is recorded, or which is issued  by         the maker         214         Of  the film for use in conjunction with such an  article");         that the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that         copyright in a literary or musical work incorporated in  the         sound track of a cinematograph film vests in the composer of         literary or musical work and when the cinematograph film  is         performed i.e. exhibited in public, the composer is entitled         to fee or royalty in that  behalf  and  since  the appellant         is the assignee of the copyright from the composers, it has         the right to collect the fee or royalty is entirely unfound-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 19  

       ed;  that  unlike (the law) in England, in  India  unless  a         music is notationally written, printed or graphically repro-         duced,  it  is not musical work within the  meaning  of  the         Copyright Act and there is no copyright ’in songs or orches-         tral  pieces  sung or played directly without  its  notation         being written’ that since a ’cinematograph film’ is  defined         in  section  2(f) of the ’Act as including the  sound  track         and  the  ’cinematograph’  is required to  be  construed  to         include any work produced by any process analogous to  cine-         matography,  the  owner  of  the cinematograph film  is  the         firt  owner of the copyright therein including the right  of         the composer of the literary or musical work incorporated in         the sound track of the film; that in the case of the film in         which a lyric (which literally means a short  poem  directly         expressing the poet’s own thoughts and sentiments in   stan-         zas  falling within the purview of the expression  "literary         work"   as   defined in section 2(0) of the  Act)  has  been         plagiarised, there will be copyright in the film vesting  in         the producer; that the Act confers a separate copyright on a         cinematograph  film  as  a film, its  author  under  section         2(d)(v)  of the Act being the owner of the film at the  time         of  its  completion; that in the case of a  lyric  or  music         incorporated  in  the  sound track of a cinematograph  film,         since  under  section 2(f) of the  Act,  cinematograph  film         includes  its  sound track and section 13(1)(b) of  the  Act         confers copyright on the  cinematograph  film  and   section         14(c) (ii) of the Act confers on the owner of copyright the.         right  to cause the film in so far as it consists of  visual         images  to be  seen  in public and in so far as it  consists         of songs to be heard in public, it is not necessary for  the         owner of the cinematograph film to secure  the permission of         the  composer of the lyric or of the music  incorporated  in         the  sound track of a cinematograph film for  exhibiting  or         causing  the exhibition of the sound portion of the film  in         public or for causing the records of the sound track of  the         film to be heard in public.  They have further urged that it         is not correct to say that under section 17, proviso (b)  in         order  that the producer of the  cinematograph film   should         have copyright in the literary or musical work  incorporated         in  it,   the making of the entire film  should  be  commis-         sioned.   According to  counsel for respondents  section  17         proviso (b) will equally  apply  if someone is  commissioned         to make any component part of a cinematograph film such as a         lyric  or musical work i.e. when such component of the  film         is  made at the instance of a film  producer  for   valuable         consideration,  the  copyright for such component  shall  as         well  vest in the producer; that as the Act confers a  sepa-         rate  copyright on a cinematograph film as a film, the  pro-         ducer  can exercise both the rights conferred on  him  under         section 14(1).(c)(ii) of the Act and all that section  13(4)         of  the Act (when applicable) provides is that  the   rights         created  by  section 14(1)(a) and (b)  shall  co-exist  with         those  created by section 14(1)(c) and (d) of the Act,  e.g.         under clause (a),  the         215         copyright  in a literary work such as a novel  entitles  its         author to make a cinematograph film in respect of the  work,         and  to  exercise the remaining rights  created  by  section         14(1)(a)  of the Act.  But once he has licensed  someone  to         make  a  cinematograph  film, the licensee  shall  have  the         rights  provided in clauses (c) and (d) of section 14(1)  of         the Act in respect of the film.             We  have given our earnest consideration to the  submis-         sions  made by learned counsel for the parties.  So  far  as         the  first  part of the question reproduced  above  is  con-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 19  

       cerned,  there  is no dispute between   the  parties.   Both         sides  are agreed that in view of the provisions of  section         18  of  the  Act, the material portion of  which  lays  down         that--"(1) the owner of the copyright in an existing work-or         the prospective owner of the copyright in a future work  may         assign to any person the copyright either wholly or partial-         ly and either generally or subject to limitations and either         for  the whole term of the copyright or any  part   thereof;         provided that in the case of the assignment of copyright  in         any future work, the assignment shall take effect only  when         the  work comes into existence, (2)where the assignee  of  a         copyright  becomes  entitled to any right comprised  in  the         copyright, the assignee as respects the rights so  assigned,         and the assignor as respects the rights not assigned,  shall         be  treated  for the purposes of this Act as  the  owner  of         copyright  and the provisions of this Act shall have  effect         accordingly",  the  first  part of the  question  should  be         answered  in the affirmative.  It is  accordingly held  that         an existing and future right of music  ......  composer  and         lyricist  in their respective ’works’ as defined in the  Act         is capable of assignment subject to the conditions mentioned         in  section 18 of the Act, as also in section 19 of the  Act         which requires an assignment to be in writing, signed by the         assignor or by his duly authorised agent.             It  is the second part of the question which has been  a         hot bed  of controversy between the parties that has got  to         be  tackled.  The main point for determination in regard  to         this  part of the question is whether the composer of  lyric         or  musical work (which in terms of section 2(p) of the  Act         means  only a notationally written, printed  or  graphically         produced  or  reproduced music) retains a copyright  in  the         lyric  or musical work if he grants a licence or  permission         to an author (owner) of a cinematograph film for its  incor-         poration in the sound track  of  a cinematograph film.   For         a  proper appreciation and determination of the  contentions         raised  before us, it is necessary to notice certain  provi-         sions of the Act.             The  terms  ’author’, ’Cinematograph  film’,  ’exclusive         licence’,  ’infringing copy’, ’musical work’,  ’performance’         performing   rights  society’, ’radio-diffusion’ and  ’work’         are  defined in clauses (d), (f), (j), (m), (p),  (q),  (r),         (v)  and (y) respectively of section 2 of the Act  as  under         :--                       "(d) author means,--                          (i)  in relation to a literary or  dramatic                       work, the author of the work;                       5--240SC I / 7 7                       216                       (ii)  in relation to a musical work, the  com-                       poser;                       (iii) **        **        **                       (iv)  **        **        **                       (v)  in relation to a cinematograph film,  the                       owner  of the film at the time of its  comple-                       tion; and                       (vi) in relation to a record, the owner of the                       original plate from which the record is  made,                       at the time  of  the making of the plate".                           "(f) cinematograph film includes the sound                       track,  if any, and "cinematograph"  shall  be                       construed as  including  any work produced  by                       any process analogous to cinematography."                           "(j)  exclusive  licence means  a  licence                       which confers on the licensee or on the licen-                       see  and  persons authorised by  him.  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 19  

                     exclusion of all other persons (including  the                       owner  of the copyright), any right  comprised                       in  the copyright in  a work,  and  "exclusive                       licensee" shall be construed  accordingly."                       "(m) infringing copy means,--                       (i)  in  relation  to  a  literary,  dramatic,                       musical  or  artistic  work,  a   reproduction                       thereof  otherwise  than  in  the  form  of  a                       cinematograph film;                       (ii)  in relation to a cinematograph  film,  a                       copy  of  the film or a record  embodying  the                       recording  in  any  part of  the  sound  track                       associated with the film;                       (iii) **        **        **                       (iv) **             **             **"                           "(p) musical work means any combination of                       melody and harmony or either of them, printed,                       reduced  to writing or  otherwise  graphically                       produced or reproduced".                           "(q)  performance includes any   mode   of                       visual or acoustic presentation including  any                       such  presentation  by  the  exhibition  of  a                       cinematograph film, or by means of   radiodif-                       fusion,  or by the use of a record, or by  any                       other  means  and, in relation to  a  lecture,                       includes the delivery  of  such lecture".                           "(r)  performing  rights society  means  a                       society,  association or other  body,  whether                       incorporated or not, which carries on business                       in India of issuing or granting licences   for                       the performance in India of any works in which                       copyright subsists".                       217                           (v) radio-diffusion includes communication                       to the public by any means of wireless  diffu-                       sion whether in the form  of  sounds or visual                       images or both".                       "(y)  work means any of the  following  works,                       namely--                       (i)  aliterary, dramatic, musical or  artistic                       work;                       (ii) a cinematograph film;                       (iii) a record".                       Section 13 of the Act provides as follows :--                           "13.    Works    in    which     copyright                       subsists.--(1)  Subject to the  provisions  of                       this section-and the other provisions of  this                       Act, copyright shall subsist throughout  India                       in the following classes of works, that is  to                       say,--                        (a)  original literary, dramatic musical  and                       artistic works;                        (b) cinematograph films; and                        (c) records.                       (2) **       **       **                       (3) Copyright shall not subsist--                       (a) in any cinematograph film if a substantial                       part  of  the film is an infringement  of  the                       copyright in any other work;                        (b) in any record made in respect of a liter-                       ary,  dramatic or musical work, if  in  making                       the  record, copyright in such work  has  been                       infringed.                           (4) The copyright in a cinematograph  film                       or  a  record shall not  affect  the  separate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 19  

                     copyright in any work in respect of which or a                       substantial part of which, the film, or as the                       case may be, the record is made.                       (5) **     **     **                        Section  14  of the Act  which  contains  the                       meaning  of the expression "copyright"  is  to                       the following effect :--                           "14.  Meaning of copyright."--(1) For  the                       purposes  of this Act: "copyright"  means  the                       exclusive right, by virtue of, and subject  to                       the provisions of, this Act,--                             (a) in the case of literary, dramatic or                       musical work, to do and authorise the doing of                       any of  the  following  acts, namely--                       (i)  to  reproduce the work  in  any  material                       form;                       (ii) to publish the work;                       (iii) to perform the work in public;                       218                       (iv) to produce, reproduce, perform or publish                       any translation of the work;                       (v) to make any cinematograph film or a record                       in respect of the work;                       (vi)  to communicate the work by  radio-diffu-                       sion  or   to communicate to the public  by  a                       loud-speaker  or any other similar  instrument                       the radio-diffusion of  the work;                       (vii) to make any adaptation of the work;                       (viii)  to do in relation to a translation  or                       an  adaptation  of the work any  of  the  acts                       specified  in relation to the work in  clauses                       (i) to (vi):                       (b) **       **       **                           (c)  in the case of a cinematograph  film,                       to  do  or authorise the doing of any  of  the                       following acts, namely-                       (i) to make a copy of the film;                       (ii)  to cause the film, in so far as it  con-                       sists  of  visual images, to be seen in public                       and, in so far as it consists of sounds, to be                       heard in public;                       (iii) to make any record embodying the record-                       ing in any part of the sound track  associated                       with the film  by utilising such sound track;                       (iv)  to communicate the film by  radio-diffu-                       sion;                           (d)  in  the case of a record,  to  do  or                       authorise  the doing of any of  the  following                       acts by utilising the record, namely--                        (i) to make any other  record  embodying  the                       same recording;                       (ii)  to cause the recording embodied  in  the                       record to be heard in public;                       (iii) to communicate the recording embodied in                       the record by radio-diffusion.                           (2)  Any reference in sub-section  (1)  to                       the doing of any act in relation to a work  or                       a  translation or an adaptation thereof  shall                       include  a reference to the doing or that  act                       in relation to a substantial part thereof".                           Section  17  of the Act which  relates  to                       ownership  of copyright provides as under :--                           "17.  First owner of  copyright.---Subject                       to the provisions of this Act, the author of a                       work shall be the first owner of the copyright

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 19  

                     therein;                       Provided that--                       219                       (a)  in  the case of a literary,  dramatic  or                       artistic   work  made  by the  author  in  the                       course of his employment by the proprietor  of                       a  newspaper, magazine or  similar  periodical                       under a contract of service or apprenticeship,                       for the purpose of publication in a newspaper,                       magazine  or  similar  periodical,  the   said                       proprietor shall, in the absence of any agree-                       ment  to the contrary. be the first  owner  of                       the  copyright  in the work in so far  as  the                       copyright  relates to the publication  of  the                       work  in  any newspaper, magazine  or  similar                       periodical, or to the reproduction of the work                       for the purpose of its being so published, but                       in all other respects the author shall be  the                       first owner of the copyright in the work;                       (b)  Subject to the provisions of clause  (a),                       in the case of a photograph taken, or a paint-                       ing  or portrait drawn, or an engraving  or  a                       cinematograph film made. for valuable  consid-                       eration  at the instance of any  person,  such                       person shall, in the absence of any  agreement                       to  the contrary, be the first owner  of   the                       copyright therein;                       (c)  in the case of a work made in the  course                       of  the                          author’s  employment  under a  contract  of                       service or                          apprenticeship,  to  which  clause  (a)  or                       clause (b)                          does not apply, the employer shall, in  the                       absence of                          any agreement to the contrary, be the first                       owner of                          the copyright therein;                       (d) **       **    **                       (e) **    **       **                           Sections  22 and 26 of the Act which  deal                       with  the  term of copyright  in  musical  and                       other works and cinematograph films are to the                       following effect :--                           "22. Term of copyright in published liter-                       ary,    dramatic    musical    and    artistic                       works.--Except  as otherwise hereinafter  pro-                       vided,  copyright shall subsist in any  liter-                       ary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (other                       than a photograph) published within the  life-                       time of the author until fifty years from  the                       beginning  of the calendar year following  the                       year in which the author dies.                           Explanation.--In this section, the  refer-                       ence  to  the author shall, in the case  of  a                       work  of Joint authorship, be construed  as  a                       reference to the author who dies last .                           "26.  Term of copyright  in  cinematograph                       films.   In the case of a cinematograph  film,                       copyright shall subsist until fifty years from                       the  beginning of the calendar year next  fol-                       lowing  the  year in which the  film  is  pub-                       lished".                       220                           Section  30  of the Act which  deals  with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 19  

                     grant of licences by owners of copyright  runs                       thus :--                           "30. Licences by owners of copyright.--The                       owner of the copyright in any existing work or                       the prospective owner of the copyright in  any                       future  work  may grant any  interest  in  the                       right  by licence in writing signed by him  or                       by his duly authorised agent:                           Provided  that  in the case of  a  licence                       relating to copyright in any future work,  the                       licence shall take effect  only when the  work                       comes into existence.                           Explanation.--When  a  person  to  whom  a                       licence  relating to copyright in  any  future                       work is granted under this section dies before                       the  work  comes  into  existence,  his  legal                       representatives  shall, in the absence of  any                       provision  to the contrary in the licence,  is                       entitled to the benefit of the licence".             The  interpretation clause (f) of section  2  reproduced         above,  which  is not exhaustive, leaves no room  for  doubt         when read in conjunction with section 14(1)(c)(iii) that the         term "cinematograph film" includes a sound track  associated         with the film.  In the light of these provisions, it  cannot         be  disputed that a "cinematograph film" is  to be taken  to         include the sounds embodied in a sound track which is  asso-         ciated with the film.  Section 13 recognises  ’cinematograph         film’  as  a distinct and separate class of ’work’  and  de-         clares  that  copyright  shall  subsist  therein  throughout         India.  Section 14 which enumerates the fights that  subsist         in various classes of works mentioned in section 13 provides         that  copyright in case of a literary or musical work  means         inter alia (a) the right to perform or cause the performance         of  the  work  in public and (b) to make  or  authorise  the         making of a cinematograph film or a record in respect of the         work.  It also provides that copyright in case of  cinemato-         graph film means. among other rights, the right of  exhibit-         ing or causing the exhibition m public of the  cinematograph         film  i.e. of causing the film in so far as it  consists  of         visual images to be seen in public and in so far it consists         of sounds to be heard in public. Section 13(4) on which  Mr.         Ashok  Sen has leaned heavily in support of his  contentions         lays  down that the copyright in a cinematograph film  or  a         record  shall not affect the separate copyright in any  work         in  respect  of which or a substantial part of  which,   the         film,  or as the case may be, the record is made.  Though  a         conflict  may at first sight seem to exist  between  section         13(4)  and section 14(1) (a) (iii) on the one hand and  sec-         tion  14(1)  (c) (ii) on the other, a close scrutiny  and  a         harmonious and rational instead of a mechanical construction         of  the said provisions cannot but lead to the  irresistible         conclusion that once the author of a lyric or a musical work         parts with a portion of his copyright by authorising a  film         producer to make a cinematograph film in respect of his work         and  thereby to have, his work incorporated or  recorded  on         the sound track of a cinematograph film, the latter acquires         by  virtue of section 14(1)’(e) of the Act on completion  of         the cinematograph film a copyright which gives         221         him the exclusive right inter alia of performing the work in         public  i.e. to cause the film in so far as it  consists  of         visual  images  to  be seen in public and in so  far  as  it         consists  of  the acoustic portion including a  lyric  or  a         musical  work  to be heard in public  without  securing  any         further permission of the author (composer)  of  the   lyric

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 19  

       or   a musical work for the performance of the work in  pub-         lic.  In other  words, a distinct copyright in the aforesaid         circumstances comes to  vest in the cinematograph film as  a         whole which in the words of  British Copyright Committee set         up  in  1951  relates both to copying the film  and  to  its         performance  in public.  Thus if an author (composer)  of  a         lyric  or musical work authorises a cinematograph film  pro-         ducer  to  make a cinematograph film of his  composition  by         recording it on the sound track of a cinematograph film,  he         cannot complain of the infringement of his copyright if  the         author (owner) of the cinematograph film causes the lyric or         musical  work recorded on the sound track of the film to  be         heard  in public and nothing contained in section  13(4)  of         the  Act  on  which Mr. Ashok Sen has  strongly  relied  can         operate to affect the rights acquired by the author (owner)         of  the film by virtue of section 14(1)(c) of the Act.   The         composer of a lyric or a musical work, however, retains  the         right  of performing it in public for profit otherwise  than         as  a  part of the cinematograph film and he cannot  be  re-         strained  from doing so.  In other words, the author   (com-         poser)   of lyric  or musical work  who  has   authorised  a         cinematograph film producer to. make  a  cinematograph  film         of his  work  and  has  thereby permitted  him to  appropri-         ate  his   work  by   incorporating  or   recording  it   on         the  sound track of a cinematograph  film  cannot   restrain         the   author (owner) of the film from causing  the  acoustic         portion of the film to be performed or projected or screened         in public for profit or from making any record embodying the         recording in any part of the sound track associated with the         film by utilising such sound track or from communicating  or         authorising  the communication  of the film by  radio-diffu-         sion,  as section 14(1)(c) of the Act expressly permits  the         owner  of the copyright of the cinematograph film to do  all         these  things.  In  such cases, the author  (owner)  of  the         cinematograph film cannot be said to wrongfully  appropriate         anything  which  belongs to  the composer of  the  lyric  or         musical work.  Any other construction would not only  render         the  express provisions of clauses (f), (m), (y) of  section         2,  section 13(1)(b) and section 14(1)(c) of the Act  otiose         but  would  also defeat the intention  of  the  Legislature,         which in view of the growing  importance  of the   cinemato-         graph  film as  a  powerful media  of expression,  and   the         highly  complex  technical  and scientific process and heavy         capital  outlay  involved in its production, has  sought  to         recognise  it  as a separate entity and to  treat  a  record         embodying  the  recording  in any part of  the  sound  track         associated  with the film by utilising such sound  track  as         something distinct from  a record as ordinarily understood.                On a conspectus of the scheme of the Act as disclosed         in  the  provisions reproduced  above  particularly  clauses         (d)(v), (f) (m), (v)and (y) of section 2, sections 13(1) and         14(1)(c), provisos (b)and (c) to section 17 and sections  22         and 26 of the Act, it is, therefore, abundantly clear that a         protectable copyright  (comprising  a         222         bundle of exclusive rights mentioned in section 14(1)(c)  of         the  Act) comes to vest in a cinematograph film on its  com-         pletion which is said to take place when the visual  portion         and audible portion are synchronized.             This takes us to the core of the question namely, wheth-         er the producer of a cinematograph film can defeat the right         of the composer of music  ....  or lyricst by engaging  him.         The  key to the solution of this question lies  in  provisos         (b) and (c) to section 17 of the Act reproduced above  which         put  the  matter beyond doubt.  According to  the  first  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 19  

       these  provisos viz. proviso (b) when a  cinematograph  film         producer  commissions a composer of music or a  lyricst  for         reward  or valuable consideration for the purpose of  making         his cinematograph  film, or composing music or lyric  there-         fore i.e. the sounds for incorporation or absorption in  the         sound  track  associated with the  film,  which  as  already         indicated, are included in a cinematograph film, he  becomes         the first owner of the copyright therein ’and no  copyright         subsists in the composer of the lyric or music  so  composed         unless  there  is  a contract to the  contrary  between  the         composer  of  the  lyric or music on the one  hand  and  the         producer of the  cinematograph film on the other.  The  same         result  follows  according to aforesaid proviso (c)  if  the         composer  of music or lyric is employed under a contract  of         service  or  apprentice.ship to compose the work.   It   is,         therefore, crystal clear that the rights of a music composer         or ....lyricst Can be defeated by the producer of a cinemat-         ograph film in the manner laid down in provisos (b) and  (c)         of  section 17 of the Act. We are fortified in this view  by         the  decision in Wallerstein v. Herbert (1867) Vol. 16,  Law         Times Reports 453, relied upon by Mr. Sachin Chaudhary where         it was held that the music composed for reward by the plain-         tiff  in pursuance of his engagement to give effect to  cer-         tain  situations  in  the  drama  entitled  "Lady   Andley’s         Secret",  which was to be put on the stage was not an  inde-         pendent  composition  but was merely an accessory to  and  a         Fart and parcel of the drama and the plaintiff did not  have         any right in the music.         For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any  justification         to  interfere  with the order of  the High   Court.   Conse-         quently,  the   appeal  fails and is dismissed  but  in  the         circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.             KRISHNA  IYER,  J.---The judgment just delivered  is  on         behalf of the Court, which makes this footnote, in a  sense,         otiose.   But I do append the abbreviated opinion solely  to         belight a slightly penumberal area of the law and to voice a         need  for legislative exploration to protect a category  now         left in the cold.             A  cinematograph  is  a felicitous  blend,  a  beautiful         totality,  a  constellation  of stars, if I  may  use  these         lovely  imageries to drive home my point, slurring over  the         rule  against  mixed metaphor.  Cinema is  more.  than  long         strips of celluloid, more than miracles in photography, more         than song, dance and dialogue and indeed, more than dramatic         story,  exciting  plot, gripping situations  and  marvellous         acting.  But it is that         223         ensemble  which  is the finished  product  of   orchestrated         performance  by each of the several  participants,  although         the   components  may, sometimes, in themselves  be  elegant         entities.  Copyright in a cinema film exists in law, but  s.         13(4)   of the Act preserves the  separate survival, in  its         individuality, of a copyright enjoyed by any ’work’ notwith-         standing  its confluence in the film.  This  persistence  of         the  aesthetic ’personality’ of the  intellectual   property         cannot  cut  down the copyright of the film qua  film.   The         latter right is, as explained earlier in my learned   broth-         er’s  judgment,  set out indubitably in s. 14(1)(c).   True,         the exclusive right, otherwise called copyright, in the case         of a musical work extends to all the sub-rights spelt out in         s.  14(1)(a).  A harmonious construction of s. 14, which  is         the integral yoga of copyrights in creative works, takes  us         to the soul of the subject.  The artist enjoys his copyright         in  the musical work, the filmproducer is the master of  his         combination  of artistic pieces and the two can happily  co-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 19  

       exist and need not conflict.  What is the modus vivendi ?           The  solution is simple.  The film  producer has the  sole         right to exercise what is his entitlement under s.  14(1)(c)         qua film, but he cannot trench on I the composer’s copyright         which  he does only if the ’music’ is performed or  produced         or reproduced separately,  in violation of s. 14(1)(a).  For         instance, a film may be caused to be exhibited as a film but         the pieces of music cannot be picked out of the sound  track         and  played in the cinema or other theatre.  To do  that  is         the  privilege of the composer and that right of his is  not         crowned in the film copyright except where there is  special         provision such as in s. 17, proviso (c).  So, beyond  exhib-         iting  the film as a cinema show, if the producer plays  the         songs separately to attract an audience or for other reason,         he  infringes  the  composer’s copyright.   Anywhere,  in  a         restaurant or aeroplane or radio station or cinema  theatre,         if a music is played, there comes into play the copyright of         the composer or the Performing Arts Society.  These are  the         boundaries  of composite creations of art which are at  once         individual  and  collective, viewed  from different  angles.         In ’a cosmic perspective, a thing of beauty has no  boundary         and  is humanity’s property but in the materialist plane  on         which  artists thrive, private and exclusive estate  in  art         subsists.   Man,  the noblest work of the  Infinite  Artist,         strangely enough, battles for the finite products of his art         and the secular law, operating on the temporal level, guard-         ians material works possessing spiritual values.  The  enig-         matic  small of Mona, Lisa is the timeless heritage of  man-         kind  but,  till liberated by the  prescribed   passage   of         time, the private copyright of the human maker says,  ’hands         off’.          The creative intelligence of man is displayed in  multiform         ways  of  aesthetic  expression but it  often  happens  that         economic  systems  so operate that  the  priceless  divinity         which  we  call artistic or literary creativity  in  man  is         exploited  and  masterS,  whose works  are  invaluable,  are         victims of piffling payments.  World opinion in defence   of         the human right to intellectual property led to internation-         al  conventions and municipal laws, commissions,  codes  and         organisations,  calculated to protect works of  art.   India         responded  to this universal need by enacting the  Copyright         Act, 1957.         224             Not the recommendations in conventions but provisions in         municipal laws determine enforceable rightS.  Our  copyright         statute  protects the composite cinematograph work  produced         by  lay-out  of heavy money and many talents  but  does  not         extinguish  the copyrightable component parts in toto.   The         music   which  has  merged,  through the sound  track,  into         the  motion picture, is copyrighted by the producer but,  on         account  of  this monopoly, the music  composer’s  copyright         does  not perish.  The twin rights can co-exiSt,  each  ful-         filling  itself in its delectable distinctiveness.   Section         14  has, in its careful arrangement of the rights  belonging         to each copyright, has a certain melody and harmony to  miss         which is to lose the sense of the Scheme.             A  somewhat un-Indian feature we noticed in  the  Indian         copyright  Act falls to be mentioned.  Of course, when’  our         law  is  intellectual ’borrowing from  British  reports,  as         admittedly  it  is, such exoticism  is  possible.   ’Musical         work’, as defined in s.2 ( p) reads:                                "(p) musical work means any  combina-                       tion of melody                          and harmony or either of them printed,  re                       duced  to  writing  or  otherwise  graphically

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 19  

                     produced or reproduced."         Therefore,  copyrighted music is not the  soulful tune,  the         superb singing, the glorious voice or the wonderful  render-         ing.  It is the melody or harmony reduced to print,  writing         or  graphic form.  The Indian music lovers throng to  listen         and be enthralled or enchanted by the nada brahma, the sweet         concord  of  sounds, the rags, the bhava, the lava  and  the         sublime  or  exciting  singing.  Printed music  is  not  the         glamour  or glory of it, by and large, although the  content         of  the  poem  or the lyric or the song  does  have  appeal.         Strangely  enough, ’author’, as defined in s.2(d), in  rela-         tion  to  a  musical work, is only the composer  and  s.  16         confies  ’copyright’ to those works which are recognised  by         the  Act.  This means that the composer alone has  copyright         in  a musical work.  The singer has none.  This  disentitle-         ment  of the musician or group of musical artists  to  copy-         right is un-Indian, because the major attraction which lends         monetary  value  to a musical performance is not  the  music         maker, so much as the musician.  Perhaps, both deserve to be         recognised  by the copyright law.  I make  this  observation         only because act in one sense, depends on the ethos and  the         aesthetic  best of a people; and while universal  protection         of  intellectual  and  aesthetic  property  of  creators  of         ’works’ is an international obligation, each country in  its         law  must protect such rights wherever originality  is  con-         tributed.   So  viewed, apart from the music  composer,  the         singer must be conferred a right.  Of course, law-making  is         the province of Parliament but the Court must communicate to         the lawmaker such infirmities as exist in the law extant.         S.R.                              Appeal dismissed.         225