{"id":254033,"date":"1977-03-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-03-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977"},"modified":"2016-04-16T20:34:29","modified_gmt":"2016-04-16T15:04:29","slug":"indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977","title":{"rendered":"Indian Performing Right Society … vs Eastern India Motion Pictures … on 14 March, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Indian Performing Right Society … vs Eastern India Motion Pictures … on 14 March, 1977<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1443, 1977 SCR (3) 206<\/div>\n
Author: J Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Singh, Jaswant<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nINDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nEASTERN INDIA MOTION PICTURES ASSOCIATION\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/03\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH, JASWANT\nBENCH:\nSINGH, JASWANT\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR 1443\t\t  1977 SCR  (3) 206\n 1977 SCC  (2) 820\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Copy  Right Act (Act 14 of 1957), 1957--Whether in\tview\n\tof the provisions of the Copy Right Act 1957 an existing and\n\tfuture\trights of music\t .... composer, lyricist is  capable\n\tof  assignment under s. 18 when he grants a licence or\tper-\n\tmission u\/s. 30 to an author (owner) of a cinematograph film\n\tfor its incorporation in the sound track of a  cinematograph\n\tfilm--Whether  the  producer  of a  cinematograph  film\t can\n\tdefeat the same by engaging in the same person: Scope of ss.\n\t2(d),  (f), (j), (m), (p), (q), (r), (v), (y),\t13,14,17,18,\n\t19  22, 26, 30 and 34 of the Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t  The appellant society was incorporated in terms of section\n\t2(r)<\/a>  of  the Copyright Act. 1957 (Act 14 of 1957),  in\t the\n\tState of Maharashtra on August 23, 1969 as a company limited\n\tby  guarantee  for the purpose of carrying  on\tbusiness  in\n\tIndia  of  issuing or granting licences for  performance  in\n\tpublic\tof all existing and future Indian musical  works  in\n\twhich  copyright  within  the meaning of s. 13<\/a>\tsubsists  in\n\tIndia.\t The appellant company has amongst its\tmembers\t the\n\tcomposers of musical works, authors of literary and dramatic\n\tworks  and artistes.  In accordance with the  provisions  of\n\tsection 33<\/a> of the Copyright Act, the appellant published  on\n\tSeptember 27, 1969 and November 29, 1969 in the\t \"Statesman\"\n\tand  the Gazette of India respectively a tariff laying\tdown\n\tthe fees, charges and royalties that it proposed to  collect\n\tfor the grant of licences for performance in public of works\n\tin  respect of which it claimed to be an assignee  of  copy-\n\trights\tand  to have authority to grant\t the  aforesaid\t li-\n\tcences.\t A number of persons including various\tassociations\n\tof  producers  of cinematograph films  including  the  sound\n\ttrack  thereof and the Cinematograph Exhibitors\t Association\n\tof  India filed objections in respect of the  tariff  before\n\tthe  Copyright Board in accordance with the  provisions\t  of\n\tsection 34<\/a> of the Act, repudiating the rights of the  appel-\n\tlant.\tThe  Copyright Board held  : (1) In the\t absence  of\n\tproof  to  the contrary, the composers of lyrics  and  music\n\tretained  the copyright in their musical works\tincorporated\n\tin  the\t sound track of cinematograph  films  provided\tsuch\n\tlyrical\t and musical works were printed on written and\tthat\n\tthey  could  assign the performing right in  public  to\t the\n\tappellant.  (2) The tariff as published by the appellant was\n\treasonable.   (3) The appellant had the right to  grant\t li-\n\tcences\tfor  the public performance of music  in  the  sound\n\ttrack  of copyrighted Indian cinematograph films and (4)  It\n\tcould  collect\tfees, royalties and charges  in\t respect  of\n\tthose  films  w.e.f. the date on which the tariff  was\tpub-\n\tlished in the Gazette of India.\t The High Court allowed\t the\n\tappeal\tpreferred by the respondents under s. 72<\/a> of the\t Act\n\tand held: (i) Unless there is a contract to the contrary   a\n\tcomposer  who composes a lyric or music for the\t first\ttime\n\tfor valuable consideration for a cinematograph film does not\n\tacquire\t any   copyright either in respect of  film  or\t its\n\tsound  track  which he is capable of assigning.\t (ii)  Under\n\tproviso (b) to section 17<\/a> of the Act, the owner of the\tfilm\n\tat whose instance the composition is made becomes the  first\n\towner of the copyright in the composition. (iii) The compos-\n\ter  can claim a copyright in his work only if  there  is  an\n\texpress agreement between him and the owner of the cinemato-\n\tgraph film reserving his copyright.  (iv) Though section  18<\/a>\n\tof  the Act confers power to make a contract of\t assignment.\n\tthe power can be exercised only when there is an existing or\n\tfuture right to be assigned and that in the circumstances of\n\tthe  present case, assignment, if any, of the  copyright  in\n\tany future work is of no effect.\n\t     In\t appeal by certificate to this Court, the  appellant\n\tcontended (1) The author (composer) of a literary or musical\n\twork has copyright which includes. inter alia. the exclusive\n\tright (a) to perform the work in public and\n\t207\n\t      (b)  to  make any cinematograph film or  a  record  in\n\trespect\t of  the work. (2) That copyright in a\tliterary  or\n\tmusical work is infringed by any person if without a licence\n\tgranted\t to  him by the owner of the copyright, he  makes  a\n\tcinematograph  film  in respect of the work or\tperform\t the\n\twork  in public by  exhibiting the cinematograph film.\t (3)\n\tIf  a person desires to exhibit in public   a  cinematograph\n\tfilm  containing a musical work,  he has to take  the\tper-\n\tmission not only of the owner of the copyright in the  cine-\n\tmatograph  film but also the permission of the owner of\t the\n\tcopyright in the literary or musical   work which is  incor-\n\tporated in the cinematograph film, as according to s. 13(4)<\/a>\n\tof  the\t Act,  the copyright in a cinematograph\t film  or  a\n\trecord does not effect\t  the separate copyright in any work\n\tin respect of which or a substantial part  of which the film\n\tor  as the case may be, the record is made (4).\t The  provi-\n\tsions  of section 17(b)<\/a> of the Act have no application to  a\n\tliterary  or musical work or the separate copyright  therein\n\tand do not take away the copyright in  a literary or musical\n\twork  embodied\tin  a cinematograph  film.   (5)   The\tonly\n\tmodes in which the author of a literary work or musical work\n\tceases to be  the owner of copyright in the work are (a)  by\n\tassigning  under s. 18(b)<\/a> by relinquishment under s. 21<\/a>\t and\n\t(c) by the composer composing the work\tin the course of his\n\temployment  under a contract of service with an employer  in\n\twhich  case the employer becomes the owner of the  copyright\n\tin  the\t musical work.\t(6) In the case of an assignment  of\n\tcopyright in future work   and the employment of the  author\n\tto produce a work under a contract of  service, the question\n\tof  priorities will be decided according to  the  principles\n\t\"where equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail\".\n\tThe  respondent's  contentions were (i) Unless\ta  music  is\n\tnotationally  written, printed or graphically reproduced  it\n\tis  not a musical work within the meaning of  Copyright\t Act<\/a>\n\tand there is no copyright in songs or orchestral pieces sung\n\tor  played  directly   without its notation  being  written.\n\t(ii) Since a \"cinematograph film\" is defined in section 2(f)<\/a>\n\tof  the\t Act as including the sound track  and\tthe  \"cinema\n\ttograph\"  is  required to be construed to include  any\twork\n\tproduced  by  any  process analogous to\t cinematography\t the\n\towner  of the cinematograph film is  the first owner of\t the\n\tcopyright  therein  including the right of the\tcomposer  of\n\tthe literary or musical work incorporated in the sound track\n\tof the film. (iii) In the case of the film in which a  lyric\n\t(which literally means a short poem  directly expressing the\n\tpoet's\town  thoughts and sentiments  in  instances  failing\n\twithin\tthe  purview of the expression\t\"literary  work\"  as\n\tdefined\t in section 2(0)<\/a>  of the Act  has been\tplagiarised,\n\tthere  will be copyright in the film vesting\tin the\tpro-\n\tducer.\t (iv)  The  Act<\/a> confers a separate  copyright  of  a\n\tcinematograph film as a film, its author under s. 2(d)(v)<\/a> of\n\tthe  Act  being the owner  of the film at the  time  of\t its\n\tcompletion.  (v) In the case of a lyric or music incorporat-\n\ted  under the sound track of a cinematograph film, since  in\n\tsection\t 2(f)<\/a>  of the Act cinematograph\t film  includes\t its\n\tsound  track   and   section  13(1)(b)<\/a> of  the\tAct  confers\n\tcopyright on the cinematograph film and section\t 14(c)<\/a>\t(ii)\n\tof  the Act confers on the. owner of copyright the right  to\n\tcause the film in so far as it consists of visual images  to\n\tbe seen in public and in so far\t as it consists of songs  to\n\tbe  heard in public, it is not necessary for the owner\t  of\n\tthe  cinematograph  film  to secure the\t permission  of\t the\n\tcomposer of  the   lyric or of the music incorporated in the\n\tsound  track  of a cinematograph film\t for  exhibiting  or\n\tcausing\t the exhibition of the sound portion of the film  in\n\tpublic or for causing the records of the sound track of\t the\n\tfilm  to be heard in   public.\t(vii) It is not\t correct  to\n\tsay that under s. 17<\/a> proviso (b) in order that the  producer\n\tof  the\t cinematograph\tfilm should have  copyright  in\t the\n\tliterary  or musical work incorporated in it, the making  of\n\tthe entire film should be commissioned.\t Section 17(b)<\/a>\twill\n\tequally apply if someone is commissioned to make any  compo-\n\tnent part of a cinematograph film such as a lyric or musical\n\t work  i.e. when such component of the film is made  at\t the\n\tinstance  of a film   producer for  valuable  consideration,\n\tthe copyright for such component shall as  well vest in\t the\n\tproducer.  (viii) As the Act<\/a> confers a separate copyright on\n\ta    cinematograph film as a film the producer can  exercise\n\tboth the rights conferred on him under s. 141(c)(ii)<\/a> of\t the\n\tAct and all that section 13(4)<\/a> of the Act (when\t applicable)\n\tprovides is that the rights created by section 14(1)(a)<\/a>\t and\n\t(b) shall coexist with those created by section 14(1)(e)<\/a> and\n\t(d) of the Act.\n\tDismissing the appeal the Court,\n\tHELD: (Per Krishna Iyer, J. concurring)\n\t208\n\t    (1) Copyright in a cinema film exists in law but section\n\t13(4)<\/a>  of  the Act preserves the separate  survival  in\t its\n\tindividuality  of a copyright enjoyed by any  work  notwith-\n\tstanding  its confluence in the film.  This  persistence  of\n\tthe  aesthetic\tpersonality  of\t the  intellectual  property\n\tcannot\tcut  down the copyright of the film qua\t film.\t The\n\texclusive  right, otherwise, called copyright, in the'\tcase\n\tof a musical work extends to all the sub rights spelt out in\n\tsection\t 14(1)<\/a>\t(a).  A harmonious construction, of  s.\t 14<\/a>,\n\twhich  is  the\tintegral yoga of copyright  shows  that\t the\n\tartiste enjoys his  copyright in the musical _work the\tfilm\n\tproducer    is\t the   master\tof   his   combination\t  of\n\tartistic .pieces and the two can. happily co-exist and\tneed\n\tnot conflict. [223 A-C]\n\t     (2) The boundaries of composite creations of art  which\n\tare  at\t once individual and collective may be\tviewed\tfrom\n\tdifferent  angles.   In\t a cosmic perspective,\ta  thing  of\n\tbeauty\thas no boundary and is humanity's property  but\t  in\n\tthe  materialist plane on which artistes thrive private\t and\n\texclusive  estate  inert subsists.  The enigmatic  smale  of\n\tMona  Lisa is the timeless heritage of\tmankind,  but,\ttill\n\tliberated  by  the prescribed passage of time,\tthe  private\n\tcopy right of the human maker says, \"hands off. [223 F-G]\n\t    (3)\t The  film producer has the sole right\tto  exercise\n\twhat  is  his entitlement under section 14(1)(c)<\/a>  qua  film.\n\tBut,  he cannot trench on the composer's copyright which  he\n\tdoes only if the 'music' is performed or produced  or repro-\n\tduced separately, in violation of section 14(1)(a)<\/a>.  A\tfilm\n\tmay   be caused to be exhibited as a film but the pieces  of\n\tmusic cannot be picked out of the sound track and played  in\n\tthe  cinema or the theatre.  To do that is the privilege  of\n\tthe  composer  and that right of his is not drowned  in\t the\n\tfilm' copyright except where there is special provision such\n\tas section 17<\/a>, proviso (c).  Beyond exhibiting the film as a\n\tcinema\tshow if the producer plays the songs  separately  to\n\tattract\t an audience or for other reasons he  infringes\t the\n\tcomposer's  copyright, the copyright of the composer or\t the\n\tPerforming   Act<\/a>s  Society comes into play, if\ta  music  is\n\tplayed,\t whether in a restaurant or aeroplane or radio\tsta-\n\ttion or cinema theatre. [223 C-E]\n\t    (4)\t Section  14<\/a> has in its careful arrangement  of\t the\n\tright\tbelonging  each copyright has a certain\t melody\t and\n\tharmony\t to music which is to loose the sense of  the  same.\n\tOur  copyright statute protects the composite  cinematograph\n\twork produced by lay out of heavy money and many talents but\n\tdoes  not  extinguish the copyrightable component  parts  in\n\ttoto.\tThe music which has merged through the sound  track,\n\tinto the motion picture is copyright by the producer but, on\n\taccount\t of  this monopoly, the music  composer's  copyright\n\tdoes not perish.  The twin rights can co-exist each  fulfil-\n\ting itself in its delectable distinctiveness. [224 A-B]\n\tObservation:\n\t    Apart  from\t the  music composed,  the  singer  must  be\n\tconferred  a   right. Copyrighted music is not\tthe  soulful\n\ttune, the superb singing, the glorious voice or the  wonder-\n\tful rendering.\tIt is the melody or harmony reduced to print\n\twriting or graphic form of musical works.  Author as defined\n\tin s.2(d) in relation to a musical work is only the composer\n\tand  section 16<\/a> confines copyright to those works which\t are\n\trecognised  by the Act, which means the composer  alone\t has\n\tcopyright  in a musical work and the singer has\t none.\tThis\n\tdisentitlement of the musician or group of musical  artistes\n\tto copyright is un-Indian because the major attraction which\n\tlends  monetary\t value to a musical performance is  not\t the\n\tmusic maker so much as the musician. Perhaps both deserve to\n\tbe recognised by the copyright law, because art in one sense\n\tdepends on the ethos and the aesthetic best of a people\t and\n\twhile  universal  protection of intellectual  and  aesthetic\n\tproperty of creators of \"works\" is an international  obliga-\n\ttion each country in its law must protect such rights  wher-\n\tever originally is contributed. [224 E-H]\n\tPer Jaswant Singh J.\n\t    (1)\t The  existing and future right of  music   ........\n\tcomposer and lyrics in their respective works as defined  in\n\tthe  Act is capable of assignment subject to the  conditions\n\tmentioned in section 18<\/a> of the Act as also in section\n\t209<\/a>\n\t19<\/a> of the Act which requires an assignment to be in writing,\n\tsigned by the assigner or by his duly authorised agent. [215\n\tD-E]\n\t     (2) The interpretation of clause (f) of section 2<\/a> which\n\tis  not\t exhaustive leaves no room for doubt  when  read  in\n\tconjunction with section 14(1)(c)(iii)<\/a>, that the term  cine-\n\tmatograph  film includes a sound track associated  with\t the\n\tfilm. [220 D]\n\t    (3)\t A  harmonious and rational  instead  of  mechanical\n\tconstruction of s. 34<\/a>, s. 14(1)(a)(iii)<\/a> and s.\t14(1)(c)(ii)<\/a>\n\twill be:\n\t    (A)\t Once the author of a lyric or a musical work  parts\n\twith  a portion of his copyright by authorising a film\tpro-\n\tducer  to make a cinematograph film in respect of  his\twork\n\tand  thereby  to have his work incorporated or\trecorded  in\n\tsound track of a cinematograph film, the latter.acquires  by\n\tvirtue\tof section 14(1)(c)<\/a> of the Act on completion of\t the\n\tcinematograph film a copyright\twhich  gives him the  exclu-\n\tsive  right,  inter alma, of performing the work  in  public\n\tthat  is,  to  cause the film in so far as  it\tconsists  of\n\tvisual\timages\tto  be seen in public and in so\t far  as  it\n\tconsists  of  the acoustic portion including a lyric  or   a\n\tmusical\t work  to be heard in public  without  securing\t any\n\tfurther\t permission  of\t the author (composer) of the  lyric\n\tor a musical work for the performance of the work in public.\n\tA  distinct copyright in the aforesaid\tcircumstances  comes\n\tto  vest in the cinematograph film as a whole which  relates\n\tboth to copying the film and to its performance in public.\n\t    (B)\t If  an author (composer) of a lyric  or  a  musical\n\twork   authorises  a cinematograph film producer to  make  a\n\tcinematograph film of his composition by recording it on the\n\tsound  track or a cinematograph film, he cannot complain  of\n\tthe  infringement of his copyright if the author (owner)  of\n\tthe cinematograph film causes the lyric or the musical\twork\n\trecorded  on  the sound track  of  the film to be  heard  in\n\tpublic\tand nothing contained in section 13(4)<\/a> of  the\t Act\n\tcan  operate  to affect the rights acquired  by\t the  author\n\t(owner)\t of  the film by virtue of section 14(1)(c)<\/a>  of\t the\n\tAct.\n\t    (C) The composer of a lyric or musical work retains\t the\n\tright  of performing it in public for profit otherwise\tthan\n\tas a part of cinematograph film and he cannot be  restrained\n\tfrom  doing so.\t In other words, the author (composer) of  a\n\tlyric  or  musical work who has authorised  a  cinematograph\n\tfilm  producer to make a cinematograph film of his work\t and\n\tthereby\t  permitted   him  to\tappropriate  his   work\t  by\n\tincorporating  or  recording  it on the\t sound\ttrack  of  a\n\tcinematograph film cannot restrain the author (owner) of the\n\tfilm  from  causing  the acoustic portion of the film to  be\n\tperformed  or projected or screened in public for profit  or\n\tfrom  making any record embodying the recording in any\tpart\n\tof  the\t sound track associated with the film  by  utilising\n\tsuch  sound track or from communicating or  authorising\t the\n\tcommunication  of  the film by radio diffusion,\t as  section\n\t14(1)(c)<\/a>  of  the  Act expressly permits the  owner  of\t the\n\tcopyright  of a cinematograph film to do all  these  things.\n\tIn such cases the author (owner)  of the cinematograph\tfilm\n\tcannot\tbe  said to wrongfully\tappropriate  anything  which\n\tbelongs to the composer of the lyric or musical work.\n\t    Any\t other construction would not only render  the\t ex-\n\tpress\tprovisions   of clause (f), (m), (y) of\t section  2<\/a>,\n\tsection 13(1)(b)<\/a> ,red section 14(1)(c)<\/a> of the Act otiose but\n\twould also defeat the intention of the legislature which  in\n\tview of the growing importance of the cinematograph film  as\n\ta  powerful  media  of expression and  the  highly  complex,\n\ttechnical  and scientific process and heavy  capital  outlay\n\tinvolved  in  its production has sought to  recognise  as  a\n\tseparate entity and to treat a record embodying the  record-\n\ting in any part of the sound track associated with the\tfilm\n\tby  utilising such sound track as something distinct from  a\n\trecord as ordinarily understood. [220 G-H; 221 A-G]\n\t    (4)Clauses (d), (v), (f), (m), (v) and (y) of section 2<\/a>,\n\tsection 13(1)<\/a> and 14(1)(c)<\/a>, provisos (b) and (c) to  section\n\t17<\/a>  and\t section 22<\/a> and 26<\/a> of the Act  abundantly  make\t  it\n\tclear  that protectable copyright  (comprising a  bundle  of\n\texclusive  rights mentioned in section 14(1)(c)<\/a> of  the\t Act\n\tcomes to\n\t210\n\tvest in a cinematograph film on its completion which is said\n\tto  take place when the visual portion and  audible  portion\n\tare synchronized. [221 H; 222 A]\n\t  (5)  The rights of music  ........  composer\tor  lyricist\n\tcan  be defeated by the producer of a cinematograph film  in\n\tthe manner laid down in proviso (b) and (c) of section 17<\/a> of\n\tthe  Act.  In both the. cases falling under clauses (b)\t and\n\t(c)  of\t s. 17<\/a>, a cinematograph film producer  becomes\tthe.\n\tfirst  owner of the copyright and no copyright\tsubsists  in\n\tthe composer of the lyric or music so  composed unless there\n\tis a contract to the contrary between the composer  of\t the\n\tlyric or music on one hand and the producer of the cinemato-\n\tgraph film on the other. [222 D-F]\n\t Wallerstein  v. Herbert (1867) Vol. 16, Law  Times  Reports\n\t453, quoted with approval.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 967  of
\n\t1975.\n<\/p>\n
\t (From the judgment and order dated 13-2-1974 of the Calcut-
\n\tta High Court in Copyright No. 2\/73).\n<\/p>\n
\t    A.K.  Sen, E.P. Skons James, J. 1. Mehta, J. Roy  Choud-
\n\thary,  S.K.  Mehta,  K.R. Nagaraja and P.N.  Puri,  for\t the
\n\tappellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t    S.\tChaudhury, R.K. Bachawat, D.K. Sinha, H.S.   Parihar
\n\tand I. N. Shroff, for respondents 1-5 and 12 and 22.
\n\tJ.C. Bhat, Atul Munim and B.R. Agarwala, for respondents  6-\n<\/p>\n
\t8.
\n\t    B. Sen, B.K. Bachawat, D.K. Sinha, H.S. Parihar  and  I.
\n\tN. Shroff, for respondents 12 and 22.\n<\/p>\n
\t    J.L.  Nain, Atul Munim and B.  R.  Agarwala,   for\t re-
\n\tspondent No. 19.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t Judgment  of  the Court was  delivered\t by  Jaswant
\n\tSingh, 3., V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. also gave a separate  opin-
\n\tion.\n<\/p>\n
\t    JASWANT  SINGH, J.\tThis appeal by\tcertificate  granted
\n\tunder Article 133(1)<\/a> of the Constitution by the\t High  Court
\n\tof   Judicature\t at Calcutta which is directed\tagainst\t its
\n\tjudgment  dated\t February  13, 1974,  raises  the  following
\n\tsubstantial question  of  law  of  general importance :–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t  “Whether in view of the provisions of\t the
\n\t\t      Copyright\t Act<\/a>, 1957, an existing\t and  future
\n\t\t      rights of music  ……  composer, lyricist is
\n\t\t      capable of assignment and whether the producer
\n\t\t      of a cinematograph film can defeat the same by
\n\t\t      engaging\tthe same person.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    The\t facts\tgiving rise to the appeal  are:\t The  Indian
\n\tPerforming  Right Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to\t for
\n\tthe sake of brevity as ‘the IPRS’), the appellant before us,
\n\twas  incorporated in the State of Maharashtra on August\t 23,
\n\t1959, as a company limited by guarantee, for the purpose  of
\n\tcarrying  on  business in India of issuing or  granting\t li-
\n\tcences for performance in public of all existing and  future
\n\tIndian\tMusical works in which copyright subsists in  India.
\n\tThe  incorporation of the IPRS was in terms of section\t2(r)<\/a>
\n\tof the Copyright  Act,
\n\t211<\/span>
\n\t1957 (Act 14 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)
\n\twhich was enacted after taking into consideration the Report
\n\tof  the (British) Copyright Committee,1952, the\t suggestions
\n\tof the various Ministries of the Government of India and the
\n\tState  Governments,   the  Indian Universities\tand  certain
\n\tinterested  industries and associations who were invited  to
\n\tsend  their comments on the subjects of copyright. The\tIPRS
\n\thas  amongst  its members the composers\t of  musical  works,
\n\tauthors\t of  literary and dramatic works  and  artists.\t  In
\n\taccordance with the provisions of section 33<\/a> of the Act, the
\n\tIPRS  published on September 27, 1969 and November 29,\t1969
\n\tin  the ‘Statesman’ and the Gazette of India respectively  a
\n\ttariff\tlaying down the fees, charges and royalties that  it
\n\tproposed  to collect for the grant of licences far  perform-
\n\tance in public of works in respect of which-it claimed to be
\n\tan assignee of copyrights and to have authority to grant the
\n\taforesaid  licences.  A number of persons including  various
\n\tassociations of producers of cinematograph films who claimed
\n\tto  be\tthe owners of such films including the\tsound  track
\n\tthereof\t and  the Cinematograph\t Exhibitors  Association  of
\n\tIndia filed objections in respect of the aforesaid tariff in
\n\taccordance  with  the provisions of section 34<\/a> of-  the\t Act
\n\trepudiating  the claim of the IPRS that it had on behalf  of
\n\tits  members  authority\t to  grant licences for. performance
\n\tin  public of all existing and\tfuture\tmusical works  which
\n\tare incorporated in the sound track  of\t cinematograph films
\n\tin  which  copyright may subsist in India or  the  right  to
\n\tcollect in relation thereto any fees, charges or  royalties.
\n\tThe  association  of producers averted inter alia that their
\n\tmembers engaged\t composers and sound writers under contracts
\n\tof  service  for  composing songs to be\t utilised  in  their
\n\tfilms;\tthat the musical works prepared by the composers  of
\n\tlyric  and music under contract of service with\t their\tmem-
\n\tbers-producers\tof  the\t cinematograph\tfilms–having\tbeen
\n\tutilised and incorporated in the sound track of the cinemat-
\n\tograph\tfilms produced by the latter, all the  rights  which
\n\tsubsisted  in  the composers and their works  including\t the
\n\tright  to perform them in public became the property of\t the
\n\tproducers  of the cinematograph films and no copyright\tsub-
\n\tsisted\tin  the\t composers which they could  assign  to\t and
\n\tbecome\tthe basis of the claim of the IPRS under section  33<\/a>
\n\tof  the Act; that their members i.e. the producers of  cine-
\n\tmatograph  films being the authors and\tfirst owners of\t the
\n\tcopyright  in the cinematograph films produced by  them\t had
\n\tthe exclusive right inter alia to cause the said films in so
\n\tfar  as the same consisted of sounds (which include  musical
\n\tworks)\tto be heard in public as also the exclusive right to
\n\tmake records embodying the sound track of the films produced
\n\tby  them (including any musical work  incorporated  therein)
\n\tand to cause the said records to be beard in public; that in
\n\tthe  making of a cinematograph film as contemplated  by\t the
\n\tAct a composer composes a lyric or music under a contract of
\n\tservice or for valuable consideration which is substantial a
\n\tmusic director sets it to tunes and imparts music to it\t and
\n\ta  singer  sings the same but none of them nor\tany  one  of
\n\ttheir aforesaid works can and have any separate\t copyrights;
\n\tthat motion picture is the combination of all arts and music
\n\tin  the sound track which cannot be detached from  the\tfilm
\n\titself;\t that the purpose of making a motion picture is\t not
\n\tonly to complete it but also to publicly exhibit it through-
\n\tout the\t world; that having regard to the provisions of\t the
\n\tAct the’ copyright in the case of
\n\t212<\/span>
\n\ta  cinematograph  film\tvests in the owner of  the  film  as
\n\tdefined\t in  section 2(d)<\/a> (v) of the Act; and  that  in\t the
\n\tpremises  any  assignment purporting to have  been  made  in
\n\tfavour of the IPRS was void and of no effect and was incapa-
\n\tble  of\t conferring any rights whatsoever  in  such  musical
\n\tworks on the IPRS.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t Cinematograph Exhibitors Association of India\talso
\n\tfiled objections challenging the right of the IPRS to charge
\n\tfees  and royalties in respect of performance in  public  of
\n\tthe  musical  works incorporated in the sound track  of\t the
\n\tfilms.\t Besides  raising  contentions\tidentical  to  those
\n\traised\tby  various associations of producers  they  averred
\n\tthat  copyright in a cinematograph film which vested in\t the
\n\tproducers meant copyright in the entirety of the film as  an
\n\tintegrated  unit including the musical work incorporated  in
\n\tthe  sound  track of the film and the right to\tperform\t the
\n\twork  in public; that in accordance with the agreement\twith
\n\tthe distributors of films the exhibition  of   cinematograph
\n\tfilm includes the right to play in public the music which is
\n\tan integral part and parcel of the film; that the  producers
\n\tlease  out  copyrights of public performance  of  the  films
\n\tvested in them to the distributors who give those rights  to
\n\tthe  exhibitors\t an agreement and that\twhen   an  exhibitor
\n\ttakes  a  licence  for exhibition, it  is  complete  in\t all
\n\trespects  and a third party like the IPRS cannot  claim\t any
\n\tlicence fee  from  the exhibitors.\n<\/p>\n
\t    On\tthe  aforesaid objections being referred to  it\t for
\n\tdetermination  under  section 35<\/a> of the Act,  the  Copyright
\n\tBoard expressed the view that in the absence of proof to the
\n\tcontrary,  the\tcomposers of lyrics and music  retained\t the
\n\tcopyright  in their musical works incorporated in the  sound
\n\ttrack  of  cinematograph films provided\t such  lyrical\t and
\n\tmusical\t works were printed or written and that\t they  could
\n\tassign\tthe  performing right in public to  the\t IPRS.\t The
\n\tCopyright Board further held that the tariff as published by
\n\tthe IPRS was reasonable and the IPRS had the right to  grant
\n\tlicences for the  public  performance  of music in the sound
\n\ttrack of copyrighted Indian cinematograph films and it could
\n\tcollect\t fees,\troyalties and charges in  respect  of  those
\n\tfilms  with  effect from the date on which  the\t tariff\t was
\n\tpublished  in  the Gazette of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Aggrieved  by the decision of the Copyright\t Board,\t the
\n\tobjectors preferred an appeal under section 72<\/a> of the Act to
\n\tthe  High  Court which allowed the same holding that  unless
\n\tthere is a contract to the contrary, a composer who composes
\n\ta lyric or music for the first time for valuable  considera-
\n\ttion for a cinematograph film does not acquire any copyright
\n\teither\tin  respect of film or its sound track which  he  is
\n\tcapable of assigning and that under proviso. (b) to  section
\n\t17<\/a> of the Act, the owner of the film at whose instance,\t the
\n\tcomposition  is made, becomes the first owner of  the  copy-
\n\tright  in   the\t composition.  The High Court  further\theld
\n\tthat  “the composer can claim a copyright  in his work\tonly
\n\tif there is an express agreement between him  and  the owner
\n\tof  the\t cinematograph film reserving his  copyright”.\t The
\n\tHigh  Court  also held that “though section 18<\/a>\tof  the\t Act
\n\tconfers\t power to make a contract of assignment,  the  power
\n\tcan be exercised only when
\n\t213<\/span>
\n\tthere  is  an ‘existing or future right to be  assigned\t and
\n\tthat  in the circumstances of the present case,\t assignment,
\n\tif  any,  of  the  copyright in any future  work  is  of  no
\n\teffect”.   Dissatisfied with this decision, the IPRS  has,as
\n\talready stated, come up in appeal to this Court.
\n\t    The copyright law in our country being fairly complicat-
\n\ted  because  of the involved language in which some  of\t its
\n\tprovisions are\tcouched and the case being of first  impres-
\n\tsion,  learned counsel for the\tparties have tried  hard  to
\n\thelp  us in solving the knotty points by  advancing  copious
\n\tand able arguments.  Appearing on behalf of the\t  appellant,
\n\tMr.  Ashok  Sen has urged that the author  (composer)  of  a
\n\tliterary or musical work has copyright which includes  inter
\n\talia  the  exclusive right (a) to perform the work in public
\n\t‘and  (b)  to  make any cinematograph film or  a  record  in
\n\trespect\t of  the  work; that copyright\tin   a\tliterary  or
\n\tmusical work is infringed by any person if without a licence
\n\tgranted\t to  him by the owner of the copyright, he  makes  a
\n\tcinematograph  film in respect of the work or  performs\t the
\n\twork in public by exhibiting the cinematograph film; that if
\n\ta  person desires to exhibit in public a cinematograph\tfilm
\n\tcontaining  a musical work, he has  to take  the  permission
\n\tnot only of the owner of the copyright in the  cinematograph
\n\tfilm but also the permission of the owner of the   copyright
\n\tin the literary or musical work which is incorporated in the
\n\tcinematograph film, as according to section 1<\/a>. 3 (4) of\t the
\n\tAct, the copyright in a cinematograph film or a record\tdoes
\n\tnot affect the separate copyright in any work i.n respect of
\n\twhich or a substantial part of\twhich,\tthe film, or as\t the
\n\tcase  may  be, the record is made; that\t the  provisions  of
\n\tsection\t 17(b)<\/a> of the Act have no application to a  literary
\n\tor musical work or the separate copyright therein and do not
\n\ttake  away the copyright in a literary or musical  work\t em-
\n\tbodied in a cinematograph film; that the only modes in which
\n\tthe  author of a literary or musical work ceases to  be\t the
\n\towner of copyright m the work are (a) by assignment, ‘(b) by
\n\trelinquishment and (c) by the composer composing the work in
\n\t‘the  course of his employment under a contract of   service
\n\twith   an employer in which case, the employer\tbecomes\t the
\n\towner of the copyright in the musical work; that in the case
\n\tof an assignment of copyright in future work and the employ-
\n\tment  of the author to produce\ta work under a\tcontract  of
\n\tservice,  the question of priorities  will  be\tdecided\t ac-
\n\tcording\t to  the principle “where equities  are\t equal,\t the
\n\tfirst in time shall prevail”.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Mr. Sachin Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondents 1,
\n\t2  and\t3,  as well as Mr. J.C. Bhat,  learned\tcounsel\t for
\n\trespondents  6, 7 and 8, and Mr. J.L. Nain, learned  counsel
\n\tfor  respondent 19, who followed Mr. Chaudhary have  on\t the
\n\tother  hand submitted that the dispute in the instant  case,
\n\taccording  to  the petition of appeal, the judgment  of\t the
\n\tCopyright Board and the judgment of the Calcutta High  Court
\n\tis  confined to the sound track associated with a  cinemato-
\n\tgraph  film  (which expression, according  to  Copinger\t and
\n\tSkone James on COPYRIGHT, means “any record of sounds  which
\n\tis incorporated in any print, negative, tape or other  arti-
\n\tcle  on which the film or part of it, in so far as  it\tcon-
\n\tsists  of visual images, is recorded, or which is issued  by
\n\tthe maker
\n\t214<\/span>
\n\tOf  the film for use in conjunction with such an  article”);
\n\tthat the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that
\n\tcopyright in a literary or musical work incorporated in\t the
\n\tsound track of a cinematograph film vests in the composer of
\n\tliterary or musical work and when the cinematograph film  is
\n\tperformed i.e. exhibited in public, the composer is entitled
\n\tto fee or royalty in that  behalf  and\tsince  the appellant
\n\tis the assignee of the copyright from the composers, it has
\n\tthe right to collect the fee or royalty is entirely unfound-
\n\ted;  that  unlike (the law) in England, in  India  unless  a
\n\tmusic is notationally written, printed or graphically repro-
\n\tduced,\tit  is not musical work within the  meaning  of\t the
\n\tCopyright Act<\/a> and there is no copyright ‘in songs or orches-
\n\ttral  pieces  sung or played directly without  its  notation
\n\tbeing written’ that since a ‘cinematograph film’ is  defined
\n\tin  section  2(f)<\/a> of the ‘Act as including the\tsound  track
\n\tand  the  ‘cinematograph’  is required to  be  construed  to
\n\tinclude any work produced by any process analogous to  cine-
\n\tmatography,  the  owner\t of  the cinematograph film  is\t the
\n\tfirt  owner of the copyright therein including the right  of
\n\tthe composer of the literary or musical work incorporated in
\n\tthe sound track of the film; that in the case of the film in
\n\twhich a lyric (which literally means a short  poem  directly
\n\texpressing the poet’s own thoughts and sentiments in   stan-
\n\tzas  falling within the purview of the expression  “literary
\n\twork”\tas   defined in section 2(0)<\/a> of the  Act)  has\tbeen
\n\tplagiarised, there will be copyright in the film vesting  in
\n\tthe producer; that the Act confers a separate copyright on a
\n\tcinematograph  film  as\t a film, its  author  under  section
\n\t2(d)(v)<\/a>\t of the Act being the owner of the film at the\ttime
\n\tof  its\t completion; that in the case of a  lyric  or  music
\n\tincorporated  in  the  sound track of a cinematograph  film,
\n\tsince  under  section 2(f)<\/a> of the  Act,\t cinematograph\tfilm
\n\tincludes  its  sound track and section 13(1)(b)<\/a> of  the\t Act
\n\tconfers copyright on the  cinematograph\t film  and   section
\n\t14(c)<\/a> (ii) of the Act confers on the owner of copyright the.
\n\tright  to cause the film in so far as it consists of  visual
\n\timages\tto be  seen  in public and in so far as it  consists
\n\tof songs to be heard in public, it is not necessary for\t the
\n\towner of the cinematograph film to secure  the permission of
\n\tthe  composer of the lyric or of the music  incorporated  in
\n\tthe  sound track of a cinematograph film for  exhibiting  or
\n\tcausing\t the exhibition of the sound portion of the film  in
\n\tpublic or for causing the records of the sound track of\t the
\n\tfilm to be heard in public.  They have further urged that it
\n\tis not correct to say that under section 17<\/a>, proviso (b)  in
\n\torder  that the producer of the\t cinematograph film   should
\n\thave copyright in the literary or musical work\tincorporated
\n\tin  it,\t  the making of the entire film\t should\t be  commis-
\n\tsioned.\t  According to\tcounsel for respondents\t section  17<\/a>
\n\tproviso (b) will equally  apply\t if someone is\tcommissioned
\n\tto make any component part of a cinematograph film such as a
\n\tlyric  or musical work i.e. when such component of the\tfilm
\n\tis  made at the instance of a film  producer  for   valuable
\n\tconsideration,\tthe  copyright for such component  shall  as
\n\twell  vest in the producer; that as the Act confers a  sepa-
\n\trate  copyright on a cinematograph film as a film, the\tpro-
\n\tducer  can exercise both the rights conferred on  him  under
\n\tsection 14(1)<\/a>.(c)(ii) of the Act and all that section  13(4)<\/a>
\n\tof  the Act (when applicable) provides is that\tthe   rights
\n\tcreated\t by  section 14(1)(a)<\/a> and (b)  shall  co-exist\twith
\n\tthose  created by section 14(1)(c)<\/a> and (d) of the Act,\te.g.
\n\tunder clause (a),  the
\n\t215<\/span>
\n\tcopyright  in a literary work such as a novel  entitles\t its
\n\tauthor to make a cinematograph film in respect of the  work,
\n\tand  to\t exercise the remaining rights\tcreated\t by  section
\n\t14(1)(a)<\/a>  of the Act.  But once he has licensed\t someone  to
\n\tmake  a\t cinematograph\tfilm, the licensee  shall  have\t the
\n\trights\tprovided in clauses (c) and (d) of section 14(1)<\/a>  of
\n\tthe Act in respect of the film.\n<\/p>\n
\t    We\thave given our earnest consideration to the  submis-
\n\tsions  made by learned counsel for the parties.\t So  far  as
\n\tthe  first  part of the question reproduced  above  is\tcon-
\n\tcerned,\t there\tis no dispute between\tthe  parties.\tBoth
\n\tsides  are agreed that in view of the provisions of  section
\n\t18<\/a>  of\tthe  Act, the material portion of  which  lays\tdown
\n\tthat–“(1) the owner of the copyright in an existing work-or
\n\tthe prospective owner of the copyright in a future work\t may
\n\tassign to any person the copyright either wholly or partial-
\n\tly and either generally or subject to limitations and either
\n\tfor  the whole term of the copyright or any  part   thereof;
\n\tprovided that in the case of the assignment of copyright  in
\n\tany future work, the assignment shall take effect only\twhen
\n\tthe  work comes into existence, (2)where the assignee  of  a
\n\tcopyright  becomes  entitled to any right comprised  in\t the
\n\tcopyright, the assignee as respects the rights so  assigned,
\n\tand the assignor as respects the rights not assigned,  shall
\n\tbe  treated  for the purposes of this Act as  the  owner  of
\n\tcopyright  and the provisions of this Act shall have  effect
\n\taccordingly”,  the  first  part of the\tquestion  should  be
\n\tanswered  in the affirmative.  It is  accordingly held\tthat
\n\tan existing and future right of music  ……  composer\t and
\n\tlyricist  in their respective ‘works’ as defined in the\t Act
\n\tis capable of assignment subject to the conditions mentioned
\n\tin  section 18<\/a> of the Act, as also in section 19<\/a> of the\t Act
\n\twhich requires an assignment to be in writing, signed by the
\n\tassignor or by his duly authorised agent.\n<\/p>\n
\t    It\tis the second part of the question which has been  a
\n\thot bed\t of controversy between the parties that has got  to
\n\tbe  tackled.  The main point for determination in regard  to
\n\tthis  part of the question is whether the composer of  lyric
\n\tor  musical work (which in terms of section 2(p)<\/a> of the\t Act
\n\tmeans  only a notationally written, printed  or\t graphically
\n\tproduced  or  reproduced music) retains a copyright  in\t the
\n\tlyric  or musical work if he grants a licence or  permission
\n\tto an author (owner) of a cinematograph film for its  incor-
\n\tporation in the sound track  of\t a cinematograph film.\t For
\n\ta  proper appreciation and determination of the\t contentions
\n\traised\tbefore us, it is necessary to notice certain  provi-
\n\tsions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t terms\t‘author’, ‘Cinematograph  film’,  ‘exclusive
\n\tlicence’,  ‘infringing copy’, ‘musical work’,  ‘performance’
\n\tperforming   rights  society’, ‘radio-diffusion’ and  ‘work’
\n\tare  defined in clauses (d), (f), (j), (m), (p),  (q),\t(r),\n<\/p>\n
\t(v)  and (y) respectively of section 2<\/a> of the Act  as  under
\n\t:–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      “(d) author means,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t (i)  in relation to a literary or  dramatic
\n\t\t      work, the author of the work;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      5–240SC I \/ 7 7
\n\t\t      216<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (ii)  in relation to a musical work, the\tcom-
\n\t\t      poser;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (iii) **\t      **\t**\n\t\t      (iv)  **\t      **\t**\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      (v)  in relation to a cinematograph film,\t the
\n\t\t      owner  of the film at the time of its  comple-
\n\t\t      tion; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (vi) in relation to a record, the owner of the
\n\t\t      original plate from which the record is  made,
\n\t\t      at the time  of  the making of the plate”.
\n\t\t\t  “(f) cinematograph film includes the sound
\n\t\t      track,  if any, and “cinematograph”  shall  be
\n\t\t      construed as  including  any work produced  by
\n\t\t      any process analogous to cinematography.”
\n\t\t\t  “(j)\texclusive  licence means  a  licence
\n\t\t      which confers on the licensee or on the licen-
\n\t\t      see  and\tpersons authorised by  him.  to\t the
\n\t\t      exclusion of all other persons (including\t the
\n\t\t      owner  of the copyright), any right  comprised
\n\t\t      in  the copyright in  a work,  and  “exclusive
\n\t\t      licensee” shall be construed  accordingly.”
\n\t\t      “(m) infringing copy means,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (i)  in  relation\t to  a\tliterary,  dramatic,
\n\t\t      musical  or  artistic  work,  a\treproduction
\n\t\t      thereof  otherwise  than\tin  the\t form  of  a
\n\t\t      cinematograph film;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (ii)  in relation to a cinematograph  film,  a
\n\t\t      copy  of\tthe film or a record  embodying\t the
\n\t\t      recording\t in  any  part of  the\tsound  track
\n\t\t      associated with the film;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (iii) **\t      **\t**\n\t\t      (iv) **\t\t  **\t\t **\"\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t  “(p) musical work means any combination of
\n\t\t      melody and harmony or either of them, printed,
\n\t\t      reduced  to writing or  otherwise\t graphically
\n\t\t      produced or reproduced”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  “(q)\tperformance includes any   mode\t  of
\n\t\t      visual or acoustic presentation including\t any
\n\t\t      such  presentation  by  the  exhibition  of  a
\n\t\t      cinematograph film, or by means of   radiodif-
\n\t\t      fusion,  or by the use of a record, or by\t any
\n\t\t      other  means  and, in relation to\t a  lecture,
\n\t\t      includes the delivery  of\t such lecture”.
\n\t\t\t  “(r)\tperforming  rights society  means  a
\n\t\t      society,\tassociation or other  body,  whether
\n\t\t      incorporated or not, which carries on business
\n\t\t      in India of issuing or granting licences\t for
\n\t\t      the performance in India of any works in which
\n\t\t      copyright subsists”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      217<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t  (v) radio-diffusion includes communication
\n\t\t      to the public by any means of wireless  diffu-
\n\t\t      sion whether in the form\tof  sounds or visual
\n\t\t      images or both”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      “(y)  work means any of the  following  works,
\n\t\t      namely–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (i)  aliterary, dramatic, musical or  artistic
\n\t\t      work;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (ii) a cinematograph film;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (iii) a record”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      Section 13<\/a> of the Act provides as follows :–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  “13.\t  Works\t   in\t which\t   copyright
\n\t\t      subsists.–(1)  Subject to the  provisions  of
\n\t\t      this section-and the other provisions of\tthis
\n\t\t      Act, copyright shall subsist throughout  India
\n\t\t      in the following classes of works, that is  to
\n\t\t      say,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (a)  original literary, dramatic musical\t and
\n\t\t      artistic works;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (b) cinematograph films; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (c) records.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (2) **\t   **\t    **
\n\t\t      (3) Copyright shall not subsist–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (a) in any cinematograph film if a substantial
\n\t\t      part  of\tthe film is an infringement  of\t the
\n\t\t      copyright in any other work;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (b) in any record made in respect of a liter-
\n\t\t      ary,  dramatic or musical work, if  in  making
\n\t\t      the  record, copyright in such work  has\tbeen
\n\t\t      infringed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  (4) The copyright in a cinematograph\tfilm
\n\t\t      or  a  record shall not  affect  the  separate
\n\t\t      copyright in any work in respect of which or a
\n\t\t      substantial part of which, the film, or as the
\n\t\t      case may be, the record is made.
\n\t\t      (5) **\t **\t**
\n\t\t       Section\t14<\/a>  of the Act\twhich  contains\t the
\n\t\t      meaning  of the expression “copyright”  is  to
\n\t\t      the following effect :–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  “14.\tMeaning of copyright.”–(1) For\t the
\n\t\t      purposes\tof this Act: “copyright”  means\t the
\n\t\t      exclusive right, by virtue of, and subject  to
\n\t\t      the provisions of, this Act,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t    (a) in the case of literary, dramatic or
\n\t\t      musical work, to do and authorise the doing of
\n\t\t      any of  the  following  acts, namely–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (i)  to  reproduce the work  in  any  material
\n\t\t      form;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (ii) to publish the work;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (iii) to perform the work in public;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      218<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t      (iv) to produce, reproduce, perform or publish
\n\t\t      any translation of the work;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (v) to make any cinematograph film or a record
\n\t\t      in respect of the work;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (vi)  to communicate the work by\tradio-diffu-
\n\t\t      sion  or\t to communicate to the public  by  a
\n\t\t      loud-speaker  or any other similar  instrument
\n\t\t      the radio-diffusion of  the work;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (vii) to make any adaptation of the work;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (viii)  to do in relation to a translation  or
\n\t\t      an  adaptation  of the work any  of  the\tacts
\n\t\t      specified\t in relation to the work in  clauses\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (i) to (vi):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (b) **\t   **\t    **\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  (c)  in the case of a cinematograph  film,
\n\t\t      to  do  or authorise the doing of any  of\t the
\n\t\t      following acts, namely-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (i) to make a copy of the film;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (ii)  to cause the film, in so far as it\tcon-
\n\t\t      sists  of\t visual images, to be seen in public
\n\t\t      and, in so far as it consists of sounds, to be
\n\t\t      heard in public;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (iii) to make any record embodying the record-
\n\t\t      ing in any part of the sound track  associated
\n\t\t      with the film  by utilising such sound track;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (iv)  to communicate the film by\tradio-diffu-
\n\t\t      sion;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  (d)  in  the case of a record,  to  do  or
\n\t\t      authorise\t the doing of any of  the  following
\n\t\t      acts by utilising the record, namely–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (i) to make any other  record  embodying\t the
\n\t\t      same recording;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (ii)  to cause the recording embodied  in\t the
\n\t\t      record to be heard in public;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (iii) to communicate the recording embodied in
\n\t\t      the record by radio-diffusion.
\n\t\t\t  (2)  Any reference in sub-section  (1)  to
\n\t\t      the doing of any act in relation to a work  or
\n\t\t      a\t translation or an adaptation thereof  shall
\n\t\t      include  a reference to the doing or that\t act
\n\t\t      in relation to a substantial part thereof”.
\n\t\t\t  Section  17<\/a>  of the Act which\t relates  to
\n\t\t      ownership\t of copyright provides as under :–
\n\t\t\t  “17.\tFirst owner of\tcopyright.—Subject
\n\t\t      to the provisions of this Act, the author of a
\n\t\t      work shall be the first owner of the copyright
\n\t\t      therein;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      Provided that–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      219<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t      (a)  in  the case of a literary,\tdramatic  or
\n\t\t      artistic\t work  made  by the  author  in\t the
\n\t\t      course of his employment by the proprietor  of
\n\t\t      a\t newspaper, magazine or\t similar  periodical
\n\t\t      under a contract of service or apprenticeship,
\n\t\t      for the purpose of publication in a newspaper,
\n\t\t      magazine\tor  similar  periodical,  the\tsaid
\n\t\t      proprietor shall, in the absence of any agree-
\n\t\t      ment  to the contrary. be the first  owner  of
\n\t\t      the  copyright  in the work in so far  as\t the
\n\t\t      copyright\t relates to the publication  of\t the
\n\t\t      work  in\tany newspaper, magazine\t or  similar
\n\t\t      periodical, or to the reproduction of the work
\n\t\t      for the purpose of its being so published, but
\n\t\t      in all other respects the author shall be\t the
\n\t\t      first owner of the copyright in the work;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (b)  Subject to the provisions of clause\t(a),
\n\t\t      in the case of a photograph taken, or a paint-
\n\t\t      ing  or portrait drawn, or an engraving  or  a
\n\t\t      cinematograph film made. for valuable  consid-
\n\t\t      eration  at the instance of any  person,\tsuch
\n\t\t      person shall, in the absence of any  agreement
\n\t\t      to  the contrary, be the first owner  of\t the
\n\t\t      copyright therein;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (c)  in the case of a work made in the  course
\n\t\t      of  the
\n\t\t\t author’s  employment  under a\tcontract  of
\n\t\t      service or
\n\t\t\t apprenticeship,  to  which  clause  (a)  or
\n\t\t      clause (b)
\n\t\t\t does not apply, the employer shall, in\t the
\n\t\t      absence of
\n\t\t\t any agreement to the contrary, be the first
\n\t\t      owner of
\n\t\t\t the copyright therein;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (d) **\t   **\t **\n\t\t      (e) **\t**\t **\n\t\t\t  Sections  22<\/a> and 26<\/a> of the Act which\tdeal\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      with  the\t term of copyright  in\tmusical\t and
\n\t\t      other works and cinematograph films are to the
\n\t\t      following effect :–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  “22. Term of copyright in published liter-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      ary,    dramatic\t  musical    and    artistic
\n\t\t      works.–Except  as otherwise hereinafter\tpro-
\n\t\t      vided,  copyright shall subsist in any  liter-
\n\t\t      ary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (other
\n\t\t      than a photograph) published within the  life-
\n\t\t      time of the author until fifty years from\t the
\n\t\t      beginning\t of the calendar year following\t the
\n\t\t      year in which the author dies.
\n\t\t\t  Explanation.–In this section, the  refer-
\n\t\t      ence  to\tthe author shall, in the case  of  a
\n\t\t      work  of Joint authorship, be construed  as  a
\n\t\t      reference to the author who dies last .
\n\t\t\t  “26.\tTerm of copyright  in  cinematograph
\n\t\t      films.   In the case of a cinematograph  film,
\n\t\t      copyright shall subsist until fifty years from
\n\t\t      the  beginning of the calendar year next\tfol-
\n\t\t      lowing  the  year in which the  film  is\tpub-
\n\t\t      lished”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      220<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t  Section  30<\/a>  of the Act which\t deals\twith
\n\t\t      grant of licences by owners of copyright\truns
\n\t\t      thus :–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  “30. Licences by owners of copyright.–The
\n\t\t      owner of the copyright in any existing work or
\n\t\t      the prospective owner of the copyright in\t any
\n\t\t      future  work  may grant any  interest  in\t the
\n\t\t      right  by licence in writing signed by him  or
\n\t\t      by his duly authorised agent:
\n\t\t\t  Provided  that  in the case of  a  licence
\n\t\t      relating to copyright in any future work,\t the
\n\t\t      licence shall take effect\t only when the\twork
\n\t\t      comes into existence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  Explanation.–When  a\t person\t to  whom  a
\n\t\t      licence  relating to copyright in\t any  future
\n\t\t      work is granted under this section dies before
\n\t\t      the  work\t comes\tinto  existence,  his  legal
\n\t\t      representatives  shall, in the absence of\t any
\n\t\t      provision\t to the contrary in the licence,  is
\n\t\t      entitled to the benefit of the licence”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    The\t interpretation clause (f) of section  2<\/a>  reproduced
\n\tabove,\twhich  is not exhaustive, leaves no room  for  doubt
\n\twhen read in conjunction with section 14(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> that the
\n\tterm “cinematograph film” includes a sound track  associated
\n\twith the film.\tIn the light of these provisions, it  cannot
\n\tbe  disputed that a “cinematograph film” is  to be taken  to
\n\tinclude the sounds embodied in a sound track which is  asso-
\n\tciated with the film.  Section 13<\/a> recognises  ‘cinematograph
\n\tfilm’  as  a distinct and separate class of ‘work’  and\t de-
\n\tclares\tthat  copyright\t shall\tsubsist\t therein  throughout
\n\tIndia.\tSection 14<\/a> which enumerates the fights that  subsist
\n\tin various classes of works mentioned in section 13<\/a> provides
\n\tthat  copyright in case of a literary or musical work  means
\n\tinter alia (a) the right to perform or cause the performance
\n\tof  the\t work  in public and (b) to make  or  authorise\t the
\n\tmaking of a cinematograph film or a record in respect of the
\n\twork.  It also provides that copyright in case of  cinemato-
\n\tgraph film means. among other rights, the right of  exhibit-
\n\ting or causing the exhibition m public of the  cinematograph
\n\tfilm  i.e. of causing the film in so far as it\tconsists  of
\n\tvisual images to be seen in public and in so far it consists
\n\tof sounds to be heard in public. Section 13(4)<\/a> on which\t Mr.
\n\tAshok  Sen has leaned heavily in support of his\t contentions
\n\tlays  down that the copyright in a cinematograph film  or  a
\n\trecord\tshall not affect the separate copyright in any\twork
\n\tin  respect  of which or a substantial part of\twhich,\t the
\n\tfilm,  or as the case may be, the record is made.  Though  a
\n\tconflict  may at first sight seem to exist  between  section
\n\t13(4)<\/a>  and section 14(1)<\/a> (a) (iii) on the one hand and\tsec-
\n\ttion  14(1)  (c) (ii) on the other, a close scrutiny  and  a
\n\tharmonious and rational instead of a mechanical construction
\n\tof  the said provisions cannot but lead to the\tirresistible
\n\tconclusion that once the author of a lyric or a musical work
\n\tparts with a portion of his copyright by authorising a\tfilm
\n\tproducer to make a cinematograph film in respect of his work
\n\tand  thereby to have, his work incorporated or\trecorded  on
\n\tthe sound track of a cinematograph film, the latter acquires
\n\tby  virtue of section 14(1)<\/a>‘(e) of the Act on completion  of
\n\tthe cinematograph film a copyright which gives
\n\t221<\/span>
\n\thim the exclusive right inter alia of performing the work in
\n\tpublic\ti.e. to cause the film in so far as it\tconsists  of
\n\tvisual\timages\tto  be seen in public and in so\t far  as  it
\n\tconsists  of  the acoustic portion including a\tlyric  or  a
\n\tmusical\t work  to be heard in public  without  securing\t any
\n\tfurther permission of the author (composer)  of\t the   lyric
\n\tor   a musical work for the performance of the work in\tpub-
\n\tlic.  In other\twords, a distinct copyright in the aforesaid
\n\tcircumstances comes to\tvest in the cinematograph film as  a
\n\twhole which in the words of  British Copyright Committee set
\n\tup  in\t1951  relates both to copying the film\tand  to\t its
\n\tperformance  in public.\t Thus if an author (composer)  of  a
\n\tlyric  or musical work authorises a cinematograph film\tpro-
\n\tducer  to  make a cinematograph film of his  composition  by
\n\trecording it on the sound track of a cinematograph film,  he
\n\tcannot complain of the infringement of his copyright if\t the
\n\tauthor (owner) of the cinematograph film causes the lyric or
\n\tmusical\t work recorded on the sound track of the film to  be
\n\theard  in public and nothing contained in section  13(4)<\/a>  of
\n\tthe  Act  on  which Mr. Ashok Sen has  strongly\t relied\t can
\n\toperate to affect the rights acquired by the author (owner)
\n\tof  the film by virtue of section 14(1)(c)<\/a> of the Act.\t The
\n\tcomposer of a lyric or a musical work, however, retains\t the
\n\tright  of performing it in public for profit otherwise\tthan
\n\tas  a  part of the cinematograph film and he cannot  be\t re-
\n\tstrained  from doing so.  In other words, the author   (com-
\n\tposer)\t of lyric  or musical work  who\t has   authorised  a
\n\tcinematograph film producer to. make  a\t cinematograph\tfilm
\n\tof his\twork  and  has\tthereby permitted  him to  appropri-
\n\tate  his   work\t by   incorporating  or\t  recording  it\t  on
\n\tthe  sound track of a cinematograph  film  cannot   restrain
\n\tthe   author (owner) of the film from causing  the  acoustic
\n\tportion of the film to be performed or projected or screened
\n\tin public for profit or from making any record embodying the
\n\trecording in any part of the sound track associated with the
\n\tfilm by utilising such sound track or from communicating  or
\n\tauthorising  the communication\tof the film by\tradio-diffu-
\n\tsion,  as section 14(1)(c)<\/a> of the Act expressly permits\t the
\n\towner  of the copyright of the cinematograph film to do\t all
\n\tthese  things.\tIn  such cases, the author  (owner)  of\t the
\n\tcinematograph film cannot be said to wrongfully\t appropriate
\n\tanything  which\t belongs to  the composer of  the  lyric  or
\n\tmusical work.  Any other construction would not only  render
\n\tthe  express provisions of clauses (f), (m), (y) of  section
\n\t2<\/a>,  section 13(1)(b)<\/a> and section 14(1)(c)<\/a> of the Act  otiose
\n\tbut  would  also defeat the intention  of  the\tLegislature,
\n\twhich in view of the growing  importance  of the   cinemato-
\n\tgraph  film as\ta  powerful media  of expression,  and\t the
\n\thighly\tcomplex\t technical  and scientific process and heavy
\n\tcapital\t outlay\t involved in its production, has  sought  to
\n\trecognise  it  as a separate entity and to  treat  a  record
\n\tembodying  the\trecording  in any part of  the\tsound  track
\n\tassociated  with the film by utilising such sound  track  as
\n\tsomething distinct from\t a record as ordinarily understood.\n<\/p>\n
\t       On a conspectus of the scheme of the Act as disclosed
\n\tin  the\t provisions reproduced\tabove  particularly  clauses\n<\/p>\n
\t(d)(v), (f) (m), (v)and (y) of section 2<\/a>, sections 13(1)<\/a> and
\n\t14(1)(c)<\/a>, provisos (b)and (c) to section 17<\/a> and sections  22<\/a>
\n\tand 26<\/a> of the Act, it is, therefore, abundantly clear that a
\n\tprotectable copyright  (comprising  a
\n\t222<\/span>
\n\tbundle of exclusive rights mentioned in section 14(1)(c)<\/a>  of
\n\tthe  Act) comes to vest in a cinematograph film on its\tcom-
\n\tpletion which is said to take place when the visual  portion
\n\tand audible portion are synchronized.\n<\/p>\n
\t    This takes us to the core of the question namely, wheth-
\n\ter the producer of a cinematograph film can defeat the right
\n\tof the composer of music  ….\tor lyricst by engaging\thim.
\n\tThe  key to the solution of this question lies\tin  provisos\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) and (c) to section 17<\/a> of the Act reproduced above  which
\n\tput  the  matter beyond doubt.\tAccording to  the  first  of
\n\tthese  provisos viz. proviso (b) when a\t cinematograph\tfilm
\n\tproducer  commissions a composer of music or a\tlyricst\t for
\n\treward\tor valuable consideration for the purpose of  making
\n\this cinematograph  film, or composing music or lyric  there-
\n\tfore i.e. the sounds for incorporation or absorption in\t the
\n\tsound  track  associated with the  film,  which\t as  already
\n\tindicated, are included in a cinematograph film, he  becomes
\n\tthe first owner of the copyright therein ‘and no  copyright
\n\tsubsists in the composer of the lyric or music\tso  composed
\n\tunless\tthere  is  a contract to the  contrary\tbetween\t the
\n\tcomposer  of  the  lyric or music on the one  hand  and\t the
\n\tproducer of the\t cinematograph film on the other.  The\tsame
\n\tresult\tfollows\t according to aforesaid proviso (c)  if\t the
\n\tcomposer  of music or lyric is employed under a contract  of
\n\tservice\t or  apprentice.ship to compose the work.   It\t is,
\n\ttherefore, crystal clear that the rights of a music composer
\n\tor ….lyricst Can be defeated by the producer of a cinemat-
\n\tograph film in the manner laid down in provisos (b) and\t (c)
\n\tof  section 17<\/a> of the Act. We are fortified in this view  by
\n\tthe  decision in Wallerstein v. Herbert (1867) Vol. 16,\t Law
\n\tTimes Reports 453, relied upon by Mr. Sachin Chaudhary where
\n\tit was held that the music composed for reward by the plain-
\n\ttiff  in pursuance of his engagement to give effect to\tcer-
\n\ttain  situations  in  the  drama  entitled  “Lady   Andley’s
\n\tSecret”,  which was to be put on the stage was not an  inde-
\n\tpendent\t composition  but was merely an accessory to  and  a
\n\tFart and parcel of the drama and the plaintiff did not\thave
\n\tany right in the music.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the foregoing reasons, we do not find any  justification
\n\tto  interfere  with the order of  the High   Court.   Conse-
\n\tquently,  the\tappeal\tfails and is dismissed\tbut  in\t the
\n\tcircumstances of the case without any order as to costs.
\n\t    KRISHNA  IYER,  J.—The judgment just delivered  is  on
\n\tbehalf of the Court, which makes this footnote, in a  sense,
\n\totiose.\t  But I do append the abbreviated opinion solely  to
\n\tbelight a slightly penumberal area of the law and to voice a
\n\tneed  for legislative exploration to protect a category\t now
\n\tleft in the cold.\n<\/p>\n
\t    A  cinematograph  is  a felicitous\tblend,\ta  beautiful
\n\ttotality,  a  constellation  of stars, if I  may  use  these
\n\tlovely\timageries to drive home my point, slurring over\t the
\n\trule  against  mixed metaphor.\tCinema is  more.  than\tlong
\n\tstrips of celluloid, more than miracles in photography, more
\n\tthan song, dance and dialogue and indeed, more than dramatic
\n\tstory,\texciting  plot, gripping situations  and  marvellous
\n\tacting.\t But it is that
\n\t223<\/span>
\n\tensemble  which\t is the finished  product  of\torchestrated
\n\tperformance  by each of the several  participants,  although
\n\tthe   components  may, sometimes, in themselves\t be  elegant
\n\tentities.  Copyright in a cinema film exists in law, but  s.
\n\t13(4)<\/a>\tof the Act preserves the  separate survival, in\t its
\n\tindividuality, of a copyright enjoyed by any ‘work’ notwith-
\n\tstanding  its confluence in the film.  This  persistence  of
\n\tthe  aesthetic ‘personality’ of the  intellectual   property
\n\tcannot\tcut  down the copyright of the film qua\t film.\t The
\n\tlatter right is, as explained earlier in my learned   broth-
\n\ter’s  judgment,\t set out indubitably in s. 14(1)(c)<\/a>.   True,
\n\tthe exclusive right, otherwise called copyright, in the case
\n\tof a musical work extends to all the sub-rights spelt out in
\n\ts.  14(1)(a).  A harmonious construction of s. 14<\/a>, which  is
\n\tthe integral yoga of copyrights in creative works, takes  us
\n\tto the soul of the subject.  The artist enjoys his copyright
\n\tin  the musical work, the filmproducer is the master of\t his
\n\tcombination  of artistic pieces and the two can happily\t co-
\n\texist and need not conflict.  What is the modus vivendi ?
\n\t  The  solution is simple.  The film  producer has the\tsole
\n\tright to exercise what is his entitlement under s.  14(1)(c)<\/a>
\n\tqua film, but he cannot trench on I the composer’s copyright
\n\twhich  he does only if the ‘music’ is performed or  produced
\n\tor reproduced separately,  in violation of s. 14(1)(a)<\/a>.\t For
\n\tinstance, a film may be caused to be exhibited as a film but
\n\tthe pieces of music cannot be picked out of the sound  track
\n\tand  played in the cinema or other theatre.  To do  that  is
\n\tthe  privilege of the composer and that right of his is\t not
\n\tcrowned in the film copyright except where there is  special
\n\tprovision such as in s. 17<\/a>, proviso (c).  So, beyond  exhib-
\n\titing  the film as a cinema show, if the producer plays\t the
\n\tsongs separately to attract an audience or for other reason,
\n\the  infringes  the  composer’s copyright.   Anywhere,  in  a
\n\trestaurant or aeroplane or radio station or cinema  theatre,
\n\tif a music is played, there comes into play the copyright of
\n\tthe composer or the Performing Arts Society.  These are\t the
\n\tboundaries  of composite creations of art which are at\tonce
\n\tindividual  and\t collective, viewed  from different  angles.
\n\tIn ‘a cosmic perspective, a thing of beauty has no  boundary
\n\tand  is humanity’s property but in the materialist plane  on
\n\twhich  artists thrive, private and exclusive estate  in\t art
\n\tsubsists.   Man,  the noblest work of the  Infinite  Artist,
\n\tstrangely enough, battles for the finite products of his art
\n\tand the secular law, operating on the temporal level, guard-
\n\tians material works possessing spiritual values.  The  enig-
\n\tmatic  small of Mona, Lisa is the timeless heritage of\tman-
\n\tkind  but,  till liberated by the  prescribed\tpassage\t  of
\n\ttime, the private copyright of the human maker says,  ‘hands
\n\toff’.\n<\/p>\n
\t The creative intelligence of man is displayed in  multiform
\n\tways  of  aesthetic  expression but it\toften  happens\tthat
\n\teconomic  systems  so operate that  the\t priceless  divinity
\n\twhich  we  call artistic or literary creativity\t in  man  is
\n\texploited  and\tmasterS,  whose works  are  invaluable,\t are
\n\tvictims of piffling payments.  World opinion in defence\t  of
\n\tthe human right to intellectual property led to internation-
\n\tal  conventions and municipal laws, commissions,  codes\t and
\n\torganisations,\tcalculated to protect works of\tart.   India
\n\tresponded  to this universal need by enacting the  Copyright
\n\tAct<\/a>, 1957.\n<\/p>\n
\t224<\/span><\/p>\n
\t    Not the recommendations in conventions but provisions in
\n\tmunicipal laws determine enforceable rightS.  Our  copyright
\n\tstatute\t protects the composite cinematograph work  produced
\n\tby  lay-out  of heavy money and many talents  but  does\t not
\n\textinguish  the copyrightable component parts in toto.\t The
\n\tmusic\twhich  has  merged,  through the sound\ttrack,\tinto
\n\tthe  motion picture, is copyrighted by the producer but,  on
\n\taccount\t of  this monopoly, the music  composer’s  copyright
\n\tdoes  not perish.  The twin rights can co-exiSt,  each\tful-
\n\tfilling\t itself in its delectable distinctiveness.   Section
\n\t14<\/a>  has, in its careful arrangement of the rights  belonging
\n\tto each copyright, has a certain melody and harmony to\tmiss
\n\twhich is to lose the sense of the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\t    A  somewhat un-Indian feature we noticed in\t the  Indian
\n\tcopyright  Act falls to be mentioned.  Of course, when’\t our
\n\tlaw  is\t intellectual ‘borrowing from  British\treports,  as
\n\tadmittedly  it\tis, such exoticism  is\tpossible.   ‘Musical
\n\twork’, as defined in s.2 ( p) reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t       “(p) musical work means any  combina-
\n\t\t      tion of melody
\n\t\t\t and harmony or either of them printed,\t re
\n\t\t      duced  to\t writing  or  otherwise\t graphically
\n\t\t      produced or reproduced.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\tTherefore,  copyrighted music is not the  soulful tune,\t the
\n\tsuperb singing, the glorious voice or the wonderful  render-
\n\ting.  It is the melody or harmony reduced to print,  writing
\n\tor  graphic form.  The Indian music lovers throng to  listen
\n\tand be enthralled or enchanted by the nada brahma, the sweet
\n\tconcord\t of  sounds, the rags, the bhava, the lava  and\t the
\n\tsublime\t or  exciting  singing.\t Printed music\tis  not\t the
\n\tglamour\t or glory of it, by and large, although the  content
\n\tof  the\t poem  or the lyric or the song\t does  have  appeal.
\n\tStrangely  enough, ‘author’, as defined in s.2(d), in  rela-
\n\ttion  to  a  musical work, is only the composer\t and  s.  16<\/a>
\n\tconfies\t ‘copyright’ to those works which are recognised  by
\n\tthe  Act.  This means that the composer alone has  copyright
\n\tin  a musical work.  The singer has none.  This\t disentitle-
\n\tment  of the musician or group of musical artists  to  copy-
\n\tright is un-Indian, because the major attraction which lends
\n\tmonetary  value\t to a musical performance is not  the  music
\n\tmaker, so much as the musician.\t Perhaps, both deserve to be
\n\trecognised  by the copyright law.  I make  this\t observation
\n\tonly because act in one sense, depends on the ethos and\t the
\n\taesthetic  best of a people; and while universal  protection
\n\tof  intellectual  and  aesthetic  property  of\tcreators  of
\n\t‘works’ is an international obligation, each country in\t its
\n\tlaw  must protect such rights wherever originality  is\tcon-
\n\ttributed.   So\tviewed, apart from the music  composer,\t the
\n\tsinger must be conferred a right.  Of course, law-making  is
\n\tthe province of Parliament but the Court must communicate to
\n\tthe lawmaker such infirmities as exist in the law extant.\n<\/p>\n
\tS.R.\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n\t225<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Indian Performing Right Society … vs Eastern India Motion Pictures … on 14 March, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1443, 1977 SCR (3) 206 Author: J Singh Bench: Singh, Jaswant PETITIONER: INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: EASTERN INDIA MOTION PICTURES ASSOCIATION DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/03\/1977 BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: SINGH, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-254033","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nIndian Performing Right Society ... vs Eastern India Motion Pictures ... on 14 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indian Performing Right Society ... vs Eastern India Motion Pictures ... on 14 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1977-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-16T15:04:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"52 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Indian Performing Right Society … vs Eastern India Motion Pictures … on 14 March, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-16T15:04:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977\"},\"wordCount\":7302,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977\",\"name\":\"Indian Performing Right Society ... vs Eastern India Motion Pictures ... on 14 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-16T15:04:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indian Performing Right Society … vs Eastern India Motion Pictures … on 14 March, 1977\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Indian Performing Right Society ... vs Eastern India Motion Pictures ... on 14 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indian Performing Right Society ... vs Eastern India Motion Pictures ... on 14 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-16T15:04:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"52 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Indian Performing Right Society … vs Eastern India Motion Pictures … on 14 March, 1977","datePublished":"1977-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-16T15:04:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977"},"wordCount":7302,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977","name":"Indian Performing Right Society ... vs Eastern India Motion Pictures ... on 14 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-16T15:04:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-performing-right-society-vs-eastern-india-motion-pictures-on-14-march-1977#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indian Performing Right Society … vs Eastern India Motion Pictures … on 14 March, 1977"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254033","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=254033"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254033\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254033"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254033"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254033"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}