OWNERSHIP, ASSIGNMENT & LICENSING – DETAILED ANALYSIS (LLB EXAM PERSPECTIVE)
1. OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT
Ownership means who is the first owner of the copyright in a creative work.
This is governed mainly by Sections 17–21 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
A. General Rule – Author is the First Owner
The person who creates the work is the first copyright owner.
Examples:
– Writer of a book → owner
– Painter of a painting → owner
– Composer of music → owner
– Filmmaker → owner of cinematograph film
B. Exceptions to General Rule (Important for exams)
1. Works made under employment (Section 17(c))
If a person creates a work in the course of employment, the employer becomes the first owner, unless there is an agreement saying otherwise.
Example:
A journalist writes an article for a newspaper → newspaper company is the owner.
2. Commissioned works (Section 17(b))
If you pay someone to make a photograph, portrait, painting, or film, then the person who pays becomes the owner, unless agreed otherwise.
3. Government works (Section 17(d))
Government becomes the first owner for works made under government control or direction.
4. Public undertaking works (Section 17(dd))
Government companies or corporations become owners for works created under their direction.
5. Works created during course of business
If a person creates a work by using employer’s resources, copyright often belongs to the employer.
C. Joint Ownership
When two or more persons create a work together, and individual contribution cannot be separated, they are joint authors.
Example:
Two people co-write a book → joint owners.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS ON OWNERSHIP
1. Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association (1977)
Facts
Dispute about ownership of songs used in films.
Held
Film producer becomes owner of the music used in the film (unless there is an agreement). Music composers do not retain full rights.
Importance
Shows how producers become owners in “composite works”.
2. CIT v. Prodip Kumar (2006)
Court held that the person who initiates and controls the creation of a work may be considered the owner, depending on facts.
3. Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman (1988)
A person who only provided material but did not contribute creatively is not an author.
2. ASSIGNMENT OF COPYRIGHT
(Sections 18–21)
Assignment means the transfer of ownership of copyright from the owner to another person.
Example:
Author sells copyright of a book to a publishing house.
A. Essential Requirements of a Valid Assignment (Sec 19)
-
Must be in writing
Oral assignment is not valid. -
Must be signed by the assignor (owner)
-
Must specify –
– Type of work
– Rights assigned (reproduction, publishing, adaptation etc.)
– Duration of assignment
– Territorial extent
– Royalty or consideration -
If duration not mentioned → 5 years (default rule)
-
If territory not mentioned → valid only within India
B. Reversion of Assignment
If the assignee fails to exercise assigned rights within 1 year, the assignment may lapse.
C. Partial Assignment
Owner can assign only a particular right (e.g., only publishing right).
D. Assignment does NOT affect moral rights
Author always retains the right to:
– claim authorship
– oppose distortion of work (Section 57)
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS ON ASSIGNMENT
1. Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Crosslands Research Laboratories (1996)
Court held that assignment must be clear, written, and specific.
Ambiguous agreements cannot transfer copyright.
2. Pine Labs v. Gemalto (2016)
Court emphasized that copyright in software must be assigned expressly.
Employment alone does not prove assignment.
3. Saregama India Ltd. v. Next Radio Ltd. (2021)
Court held that any assignment must comply with Section 19—clear terms, duration, and territory.
Broadcasting without proper assignment violates rights.
3. LICENSING OF COPYRIGHT
(Section 30)
A license does NOT transfer ownership.
It only gives permission to use the work in certain ways.
Example:
A musician gives a license to Spotify to stream her songs.
A. Types of Licenses
1. Exclusive License (Sec 2(j))
Only the licensee can use the work; even the owner cannot use it.
2. Non-exclusive (ordinary) License
Owner can give the same license to others also.
3. Compulsory Licenses (Sections 31–31C)
Court or copyright board can grant license in public interest.
Examples:
– If the owner refuses to republish a work
– For disabled persons
– For cover versions of songs
4. Statutory License (Section 31D)
Radio/TV broadcasters can use works by paying fixed royalties.
B. Requirements of a Valid License
Must be:
– In writing
– Signed by owner
– Clearly specify rights, period, and conditions
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS ON LICENSING
1. Entertainment Network India Ltd. (ENIL) v. Super Cassettes Industries (2008)
Court explained statutory licensing for radio broadcasting.
Even if the owner refuses, radio stations can play songs by paying royalties.
**2. Shreedhar Govinda Prabhu v. Gopal Sadashiv Pandit (1940)
(Old but still relevant)**
Court held that a license does not transfer ownership; it only gives permission to use.
3. Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Hotel Gold Regency (2011)
Hotels must obtain a license to play music publicly.
Playing songs without a license is infringement.
Here are more case laws with detailed analysis specifically on Ownership, Assignment, and Licensing under the Copyright Act, 1957.
These are written in an LLB exam–friendly, clear, humanized format.
A. OWNERSHIP – IMPORTANT CASE LAWS (DETAILED ANALYSIS)
1. IPRS v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association (1977) – Supreme Court
Facts
Music composers and lyricists claimed copyright over songs used in films.
Producers argued that once songs are incorporated into a film, producers become owners.
Held
- The film producer becomes the owner of the copyright of the music in the film.
- The composer/lyricist only retains bare rights unless contract says otherwise.
Significance
- Clarified who is the first owner in composite works (films).
- Strengthened producers' rights in cinematograph films.
- One of the most cited cases in ownership disputes.
2. Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman (1988) – Delhi HC
Facts
A woman provided source material for a book and claimed authorship.
Held
Providing material is not equal to creation.
Only someone who contributes creatively is an author.
Significance
- Defines who is a real author.
- Important for determining initial ownership.
3. Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005) – Delhi HC
Facts
Government removed parts of a mural created by the artist.
Artist claimed violation of his moral rights.
Held
- Artist retains moral rights even after assignment.
- Destruction/distortion violates Section 57.
Significance
- Shows that ownership transfer does NOT remove moral rights.
- Landmark case protecting creators’ dignity.
4. CIT v. Prodip Kumar (2006) – Supreme Court
Facts
Dispute over authorship of a literary work created within employment.
Held
Work created in course of employment → employer is the first owner.
Significance
- Reinforces Section 17(c).
- Often used in "work made for hire" questions.
B. ASSIGNMENT – IMPORTANT CASE LAWS (DETAILED ANALYSIS)
1. Ciba-Geigy Ltd. v. Crosslands Research Laboratories (1996) – Bombay HC
Facts
Dispute over assignment of copyright in technical drawings.
Contract wording was unclear.
Held
- Assignment must be specific, written, and clear under Sec. 19.
- Vague clauses cannot transfer copyright.
Significance
- Shows the strict requirements for valid assignment.
- Courts will not assume assignment unless clearly stated.
2. Pine Labs v. Gemalto (2016) – Delhi HC
Facts
Software copyright was claimed by employer even though agreement was not clear.
Held
- Without written assignment, employer cannot claim copyright.
- Employee retains ownership unless contract states otherwise.
Significance
- Important for software ownership.
- Reinforces Sec. 19: assignment must be written.
3. Saregama India Ltd. v. Next Radio Ltd. (2021) – Madras HC
Facts
Radio stations streamed songs via internet radio claiming statutory license.
Saregama argued that copyright assignment was not properly done.
Held
- Assignment must follow strict Sec. 19 requirements.
- Without proper assignment, rights cannot be exploited.
Significance
- Modern case applying assignment rules to digital content.
4. Sholay Media v. Parag Sanghvi (2015) – Bombay HC
Facts
Dispute over assignment of rights in the film “Sholay.”
Held
Only the rights expressly assigned can be used.
Any extra rights not listed in the assignment are not transferred.
Significance
- Shows importance of specificity in assignment agreements.
C. LICENSING – IMPORTANT CASE LAWS (DETAILED ANALYSIS)
1. Entertainment Network India Ltd. (ENIL) v. Super Cassettes (2008) – Supreme Court
Facts
Radio stations wanted to play copyrighted songs under statutory license (Sec. 31D).
Music companies refused.
Held
- Radio stations can use works under statutory license by paying royalty.
- Owner’s refusal does not matter.
Significance
- Landmark case explaining compulsory/statutory licenses.
- Ensures public interest use of copyrighted works.
2. Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Hotel Gold Regency (2011) – Delhi HC
Facts
Hotel played music in its lobby without license.
PPL sued.
Held
Public performance without license = copyright infringement.
Significance
- Shows that public performance requires license.
- Important for hospitality industry, events, hotels.
3. Shreedhar Govinda Prabhu v. Gopal Sadashiv Pandit (1940) – Privy Council
Facts
Disagreement on whether the license transferred ownership.
Held
A license does not transfer ownership.
It merely grants permission.
Significance
- Classical judgment still cited today.
- Clear distinction between assignment and license.
4. Super Cassettes Industries v. Bathla Cassettes (2011) – Delhi HC
Facts
Dispute over licensing of sound recordings.
Held
License must be in writing and clear (Sec. 30).
Multiple licenses can be granted unless it is an exclusive license.
Significance
- Clarifies difference between exclusive and non-exclusive licenses.
Comments
Post a Comment