For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn

Introduction

On 8 May 2026, the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court at Calcutta delivered an important judgment in Vodafone Idea Limited v. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited & Anr., A.O (COM) No. 17 of 2024 and APOT 300 of 2024. The dispute concerns whether telecom companies offering caller tunes and ringtones are required to obtain separate licenses and pay royalties to authors and composers whose works are embedded in sound recordings. The case primarily revolved around the interpretation of the Copyright Act, 1957 after the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012. The Court examined whether music companies such as Saregama India Limited could independently grant licenses for commercial exploitation of songs, or whether authors and composers retained separate royalty rights through The Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS).The judgment assumes significance in the digital era where songs are commercially exploited through streaming platforms, caller tunes, ringtones, and other online services. The Court clarified the extent of rights retained by authors and composers even after incorporation of their works into sound recordings.

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Vodafone Idea Limited, is a telecommunication service provider offering Value Added Services (VAS) such as caller tunes and ringtones to its customers. Vodafone entered into agreements with Saregama India Limited for use of its sound recordings and music catalogue. However, IPRS claimed that Vodafone was also required to obtain licenses for the underlying literary and musical works contained in those sound recordings, namely the lyrics and musical compositions created by authors and composers. 

Three separate suits arose between the parties. Vodafone filed an interpleader suit against Saregama and IPRS, while Saregama filed a suit seeking injunction against Vodafone. IPRS also instituted a suit alleging copyright infringement by Vodafone through commercial exploitation of musical and literary works without payment of royalties. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Court permitted Vodafone to continue its VAS operations subject to deposit of substantial amounts before the Registrar of the Court. The principal issue before the Court was whether Vodafone possessed a valid licence to commercially exploit the underlying literary and musical works incorporated within sound recordings. The Court also examined several provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 13 of the Act specifies the categories of works in which copyright subsists.

The Court explained that copyright independently exists in literary works, musical works, and sound recordings. Section 13(4) further clarifies that copyright in a sound recording does not affect the separate copyright existing in the underlying literary or musical works incorporated within it. Section 18 of the Copyright Act deals with assignment of copyright. The Court particularly discussed the 3rd and 4th provisos introduced through the 2012 amendment, which protect the right of authors and composers to receive royalties. Any agreement contrary to these provisos is void. Section 19 lays down the mode of copyright assignment and requires assignments to be in writing. The Court focused on Sections 19(8), 19(9), and 19(10), which preserve the rights of authors to claim equal royalties when their works are commercially exploited. Section 33 governs copyright societies such as IPRS and authorizes them to administer and collect royalties on behalf of authors and composers. 

Arguments in Favour

Vodafone argued that its agreements with Saregama were sufficient to permit commercial exploitation of songs through caller tunes and ringtones. According to Vodafone, no separate licence from IPRS was necessary. 

Vodafone contended that even after the 2012 amendments, sound recordings continued to remain independent copyrights and that licensing the sound recording itself automatically permitted use of the underlying literary and musical works. Vodafone also argued that IPRS merely functioned as a collecting society and disputes relating to royalties should be resolved between Saregama and IPRS themselves. Vodafone relied upon Indian Performing Rights Society v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, (1977) 2 SCC 820, where the Supreme Court held that producers of cinematograph films became the first owners of incorporated musical and literary works unless there existed a contract to the contrary.

Reliance was also placed upon Eastern India Motion Pictures Association v. IPRS, AIR 1974 Cal 257, to argue that composers and lyricists did not retain independent rights after incorporation into films. Vodafone further relied upon Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd., (2008) 13 SCC 30, to emphasize that sound recordings constitute separate copyrights under the Copyright Act. The decisions in The Indian Performing Rights Society v. Aditya Pande, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3113 and 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2645 were cited to argue that no separate licence was required from authors when sound recordings themselves had been licensed. Vodafone also relied upon International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (ICSAC) v. Aditya Pandey, (2017) 11 SCC 437 to contend that the law continued to recognize the distinction between assignment of copyright and licence to use copyrighted works. 

Arguments Against

IPRS argued that the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 fundamentally altered Indian copyright law and strengthened the rights of authors and composers. According to IPRS, Vodafone had no valid licence for exploitation of the underlying literary and musical works incorporated within sound recordings. It further argued that Saregama itself lacked authority to grant such licences. IPRS pointed out that agreements between Vodafone and Saregama themselves acknowledged that Vodafone may be required to procure separate licences from IPRS. It was also argued that Saregama had already assigned relevant rights to IPRS through assignment deeds executed in 1993 and 2017. 

IPRS further submitted that any agreement contrary to Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act would become void. IPRS relied upon International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (ICSAC) v. Aditya Pandey, (2017) 11 SCC 437 to show that the Supreme Court had acknowledged the legislative shift introduced through the 2012 amendments protecting royalty rights of authors and composers. Reliance was also placed upon Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC Online Bom 944, where the Bombay High Court recognized the requirement of obtaining licenses from IPRS for commercial exploitation of copyrighted works. 

The decision in Mangal Bhikaji Nagpase v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (2) MHLJ 55 was cited regarding the nature of interpleader suits and the inability of a plaintiff in such suits to deny the rights of rival claimants. 

Court’s Decision

The Calcutta High Court dismissed Vodafone’s appeals and upheld the rights of IPRS. 

The Court held that the 2012 amendments permit IPRS to claim royalties in respect of underlying literary and musical works incorporated within sound recordings. The Court further held that music companies such as Saregama do not possess legal authority to independently grant licences for those underlying works and that Vodafone did not possess a valid licence to commercially exploit such works without express permission from IPRS. The Court observed that the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 introduced a “paradigm shift” in Indian copyright law by protecting the royalty rights of authors and composers. The Bench held that literary works, musical works, and sound recordings are all independent copyrights recognized under Section 13 of the Act. The Court clarified that while producers may own sound recordings, authors and composers continue to retain independent royalty rights in the underlying works.

The Court carefully examined Sections 18 and 19 and held that agreements depriving authors of royalty rights would be void after the 2012 amendments. The Court also referred to the object and purpose behind the 2012 amendments and noted that the amendments were introduced to align Indian copyright law with international standards under the WIPO Internet Treaties and to protect creators in the digital age. The earlier decisions in Eastern India Motion Pictures Association and IPRS v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association were discussed because they represented the legal position before the 2012 amendments. The Court clarified that those decisions could not govern the present dispute arising under the amended statutory framework. 

The Court ultimately held that commercial exploitation of songs through caller tunes and ringtones required payment of royalties to authors and composers through IPRS. The Court directed that the money deposited by Vodafone during the litigation be released to IPRS subject to an undertaking to refund the amount if IPRS ultimately failed in the pending suits. 

Conclusion

The judgment in Vodafone Idea Limited v. IPRS is an important development in Indian copyright law concerning digital exploitation of music and royalty rights of authors and composers. The Calcutta High Court firmly recognized that the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 substantially altered the balance of rights between producers and creators by protecting the economic interests of authors and composers.

The Court clarified that ownership of a sound recording does not extinguish the separate rights that exist in the underlying literary and musical works. Through its interpretation of Sections 13, 18, 19, and 33 of the Copyright Act, the Court reaffirmed that authors and composers are entitled to continuous royalty participation whenever their works are commercially exploited beyond cinema hall exhibition. The judgment also highlights the increasing role of copyright societies such as IPRS in the modern digital economy. Telecommunication companies, streaming platforms, and digital service providers can no longer rely solely on licences obtained from music labels when commercially exploiting songs. Separate authorization relating to the underlying literary and musical works has now been judicially reaffirmed under the amended copyright regime.

The Court’s reasoning further demonstrates the legislative intent behind the 2012 amendments is to ensure fair compensation to creators in an age where copyrighted content is commercially disseminated through rapidly evolving digital technologies. The judgment therefore strengthens the position of lyricists and composers while recognizing that copyright law must continue to protect creators even in technologically advanced commercial environments.