INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF SOCIETIES OF AUTHORS AND COMPOSERS (CISAC) versus ADITYA PANDEY & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 6 S.C.R. 728 · Decided: 20-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 6 S.C.R. 728 
A 
INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF SOCIETIES 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
OF AUTHOR'S AND COMPOSERS (CISAC) 
v. 
ADITYA PANDEY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9412-9413 of2016) 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 
(RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Copyright Act, 1957 - ss. 2(d){v), 13, 14(9) and 14(e)(iii) 
and 17 - Suit alleging infringement of copyrights in lyrics and 
musical work - Application for interim injunction - Disposed of by 
Single Judge and affirmed by Division Bench of High Court - On 
appeal, held: Per Prafulla C. Pant: Copyright to the author of literary 
work would not mean that such right of the producer of sound 
recording [who is author uls. 2(d){v) and has right to communicate 
his work to public uls. 14(e){iii)] is lost - Impugned order of High 
Court upheld - Per Ranjan Gogoi: The i11terim order of the Single 
Judge, upheld by Division Bench, strikes a reasonable note to find 
a workable solution during the pendency of the suit - Therefore, 
the same neetl1· to be upheld - Interlocutory injunction. 
Copyright - 'Assignment of copyright of a work' and 'licence 
to use the work' - Distinction between. 
Interlocutory Injuction - Scope of - Discussed. 
Words and Phrases: 
Words 
'copyright', 
'author', 
'sound 
recording', 
'communication to the public' - Meanings of, in the context of 
Copyright Act, 1957. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 
Per Prafulla C. Pant, J.: 
1. As per sub-section (10) of s.19 of Copy Rights Act, 1957 
"No assignment of the copyright in any work to make a sound 
recording which does not form part of any cinematograph film 
shall affect the right of the author of the work to claim an equal 
728 
INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF SOCIETIES OF 
AUTHORS AND COMPOSERS (CISAC) v. ADITYA PANDEY 
share of royalties and consideration payable for any utilization of 
such work in any form. Sub-section (10) was inserted with effect 
from 21.06.2012 vide Act No. 27 of 2012, on the day the plaint 
was filed before trial court in the year 2006. As such rights as 
exist w.e.f. 21.06.2012 were not the same prior to it. [Paras 17 
and 18) [740-B, E-F) 
2. There is distinction between assignment of a copyright 
of a work and licence to use the work. In the assignment, normally, 
ownership of the copyright of the work is transferred but in the 
case of licence another person is allowed to use the work by the 
author. [Para 20) [742-BJ 
3. Though each of the seven sub-clauses of clause (a) of 
Section 14 of Copyrights Act, 1957 relating to literary, dramatic 
or musical work, are independent of one another, but reading 
these sub-clauses independently cannot be interpreted to mean 
that the right of producer of sound recording, who also comes 
under definition of author under Section 2(d)(v), and has a right 
to communicate his work to the public under Section 14(e)(iii) of 
the Act is lost. It is· nobody's case that the defendant/respondents 
had stolen the lyric or that sound recording is made without licence 
from the lyricist or musician. The plea of the appellants that the 
permission granted to defendant was S(l11s the right to 
communicate the sound recording to the public, cannot be 
accepted as there appears no such term and condition between 
the parties depriving the defendant from communicating his work 
of making song to the public. [Para 21) [742-C-E) 
Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian 
Motion Pictures Association and others 1977 (3) SCR 
206 : (1977) 2 SCC 820; Entertainment Network (India) 
Ltd v. Super Cassette lndustriesLtd. 2008 (9) SCR 165 
: (2008) 13 sec 30 - relied on. 
4. So far as the International Conventions and Treaties are 
concerned, the law has been amended by Act 27 of 2012 w.e.f. 
21.06.2012. In the present case the suit was filed in 2006, and 
the law as it existed has to be applied, for the period prior to 
21.06.2012. [Para 21) [742-E] 
5. There is no error in the impugned order passed by the 
High Court. However, it is clarified that with effect from 
729 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
730 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 6 S.C.R. 
21.06.2012, in view of snb-section (10) of Section 19, the 
assignment of the copyright in the work to make sound recording 
which does not form part of any cinematograph film, shall not 
affect the right of the author of the work to claim an equal share 
of royalties or/and consideration payable for utilization of such 
work in any form by the plaintiff/respondent. [Para 24] [744-G-H;

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.