For more intellectual property updates, follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn
Written by Nasreen Serji, student at Government Law College, Thrissur.
AZURE HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED V. PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED (FAO(OS) (COMM) 41/2025).
A copyright society is an association of authors and other rights owners, registered by the Central Government to administer copyrights and issue licenses in the public interest. Only one copyright society is registered for each class of work. The business of issuing or granting licenses for literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works incorporated in cinematograph films or sound recordings must be carried out only through a copyright society registered under the Copyright Act. Examples of registered copyright societies include the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) for music composers and lyricists, and the Indian Singers Rights Association (ISRA) for performers.
Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) is a copyright collective rights organization that owns the public performance rights of over 400 music labels. Azure Hospitality Pvt Ltd, a creative food company, filed an appeal against the order of a single judge restraining them from using PPL’s copyrighted work.
BACKGROUND & SINGLE JUDGE ORDER
Phonographic Performance Limited acquired the copyright of sound recordings as an assignee under Section 18 of the Copyright Act. They hold public performance rights for over 4.5 million sound recordings, both domestic and international. PPL issued a notice to Azure Hospitality Pvt Ltd, directing them to discontinue using PPL’s music without a proper license. When Azure failed to comply, PPL sought a permanent injunction to restrain them from using any of its works.
In the order passed by the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, the court rejected Azure’s argument that only registered copyright societies can issue licenses as per Section 33(1) of the Act. It held that despite PPL not being a registered copyright society, it can grant licenses. PPL owns performance rights through assignment from music labels under Section 18 of the Act. The judge viewed that the provision for registration cannot override ownership of rights. Azure was directed to pay PPL and was restrained from using their works. An appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court against the impugned order of the Single Judge.
ARGUMENTS
The appellant, Azure, claimed that Section 33(1) of the Copyright Act, along with Section 33A, intends to regulate the business of bulk copyright owners. They argued that while a person can issue licenses individually, this must be consistent with their obligations as a member of a registered copyright society. Section 33(3) mandates that entities issuing licenses must register as copyright societies and publish their tariffs for public reference. Furthermore, Azure contended that PPL did not grant licenses for separate recordings, compelling individuals to obtain licenses for all their work at excessive rates. The counsel for the respondents, PPL, submitted that as the genuine owner of the copyright, Azure played their recordings without any payment. The appellants were forcing PPL to obtain a compulsory license for their copyrighted recordings.
FINDINGS
The Copyright Amendment Act, 2012, aimed to address the inequalities between film producers and composers and lyricists. Previously, lyricists and composers gave up their rights and royalties for a lump sum payment. The Act retained the rights of authors for the exploitation of recordings through technology, ensuring they could collect royalties. It barred actions that prevented authors from collecting royalties and recognized the use of musical works through cinematograph films or other mediums. For transparency, it mandated licensing only through registered copyright societies. The insertion of Section 33(3A) required all copyright societies registered before the amendment to re-register.
Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL) has been a registered copyright society since 2021 for the business of ‘sound recording works.’ Licenses issued by RMPL are conditional, non-exclusive, and for limited purposes and periods. Under the Copyright Act, only one copyright society can be registered for each class of works. Until 2014, Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) was the registered copyright society, but it did not obtain re-registration after the Amendment Act.
The court emphasized that PPL is not a registered copyright society under the Act. Being an assignee-owner under the Act is not sufficient to grant licenses. As the appellant contended, PPL failed to comply with Section 33(1), which requires entities issuing licenses to be registered copyright societies. Additionally, PPL was accused of monopolizing the licensing of their works in bulk at unreasonable tariffs.
The court interpreted Section 33(1) to mean that the “owner” of a copyright work must primarily be a member of a registered copyright society. Issuing a license in an individual capacity must align with the obligations to society. Being a member of a registered copyright society is inevitable. The contradictory interpretation by the single judge would defeat the purpose of the Amendment Act.
While agreeing that PPL is the rightful owner of the sound recordings, the court held that disregarding the status of the copyright society would render the statutory provision irrelevant. They emphasized the importance of interpreting a provision without rendering another insignificant.
The Division Bench, in its detailed 10-point inference, highlighted the necessity of registration under Section 33 to carry on the business of granting licenses. The central government is permitted to register only one society for each class of works, indicating that RMPL is the registered copyright society for sound recordings.
To license the sound recordings assigned to PPL, it must be a registered copyright society. However, in this instance, PPL would need to be a member of RMPL to issue licenses at the tariff rates available on RMPL’s site. Azure is obliged to pay for the works of PPL they use, provided it is at the rate published by RMPL. The case was referred back to the Single Judge for further adjudication and determination of the payment deposit.
CONCLUSION In this case, the court recognized Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) as the rightful owner of the sound recordings. However, it emphasized the necessity for PPL to be a registered copyright society or a member of one, such as Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL), to issue licenses. Azure Hospitality Pvt Ltd is required to pay for the use of PPL’s works at the tariff rates published by RMPL. This case is important because it clarifies that even if a company owns the rights to music, it must follow the rules and be part of a registered copyright society to issue licenses.