In Indian music, copyright refers to the legal protection afforded to composers, lyricists, and music producers whocreate original musical compositions. The creators have the sole ownership rights to their musical works because to this protection it makes sure that their creations are never shared with the public, performed, distributed, or reproduced without their consent. The Copyright Act, which acknowledges music as a form of artistic expressiondeserving of legal rights and safeguards, protects musical works in India. Aspects of musical compositions such as melodies, lyrics, arrangements, and sound recordings are all covered under the Act. In musical works, copyright grants artists the authority to manage and profit from their compositions. It safeguards the financial interests ofmusicians and other stakeholders while promoting creativity and artistic endeavours.
There are two main types of music copyright: Master copyright and Composition copyright
- Master Copyright: Within the music industry, one of the most important aspects that producers frequently control is the copyright ownership of the sound recording. In essence, master copyright belongs to the producers, giving them the authority to control how recorded music is distributed and reproduced. This indicates that the sound recording itself is the sole property of the makers, giving them the authority to determine its intended use and Producers may safeguard their intellectual property and make sure they are properly credited andcompensated for their work by obtaining the master copyright.
- Composition Copyright: Many factors are taken into consideration when creating musical These caninclude the song’s overall arrangement, melody, and lyrics. Ownership of the composition belongs to the author or songwriter. They have the authority to regulate how the composition is performed and used thanks to thiscopyright. They ensure that their intellectual property is safeguarded by having the last word on who can and howtheir work is used.
Provisions Related to Copyright Music in India:
Section 2 of the Copyright Act
- (p) states about musical work, its different categories, and graphical notation. Only the original work can be
- (qq) defines “performer” which includes singer, dancer, actor, musician, conjurer, juggler, lecturer, or any person who is performing.
- (uu) defines “producer” as a person who takes the responsibility and initiative for making work about cinematographic or sound recording.
Section 13 provides various kinds of work that come under the copyright act i.e., Original – literary, Musical, Artistic, Cinematographic works, etc.
Section 14 outlines the rights granted to the author or originator in the theatre, music, literary arts and includes the following: reproduce, present, perform, and publish work in public. It encompasses work in both language translation and cinematographic film. The work may be copied, presented, or sold to the general public by the authors.
Section 17 outlines the author or the person who considers the work as the first owner of the copyright. Sub-section (c) states that the employer becomes the first owner of the works that are made by his employee during their course of employment unless there is any agreement against the same between the parties.
Complexities Involved In Music Licensing Process
Navigating the world of music licensing has gotten more and more challenging. Today, navigating the complexprocess of identifying the various rights and rights holders involved is part of licensing music. An example will assist to further illustrate this intricacy. For example, suppose that today’s music streaming service wants to let its users to listen and download the Bart Howard song “Fly me to the Moon,” which is sung by Frank Sinatra. The musicstreaming service would have to secure:
(l) License to the sound recording of Sinatra’s singing;
- The right to digitally transmit the sound recording;
- Right to publically perform/communicate Bart Howard’s work and also the right to reproduce and distribute his work.
Copyright Licences under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957
There are two types of licenses available under the Copyright Act: non-voluntary and voluntary. Licenses that theowner voluntarily obtains are known as voluntary licenses. Conversely, licenses that are forced onto the owner of the copyright are known as non- voluntary licenses.
The Copyright Act includes non-voluntary licenses to strike a balance between the public interest and the author’seconomic rights. Society would lose if the author was granted exclusive rights since the expense of obtaining licenses would continue unchecked, while the author’s financial gain would be diminished if the work was made publiclyavailable.
Provision for Statutory License to Broadcasting Organizations under the Copyright Act, 1957
Section 31-D of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides statutory licenses for the broadcasting of literary and musicalworks as well as sound recordings. Section 18 of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 incorporated the Section into the Act, and Rules 29 to 31 of the Copyright Rules, 1958 further enhance it. This Section was added to help thegrowing broadcasting business find work by offering a license option other than voluntary. Voluntary licensing was being utilized by the owners as an exploitative weapon because they were free to set the terms and conditions. In response to these circumstances, the legislature established Section 31D.
Digital Music Platforms in the United States of America
Through its various plans, Spotify provides its consumers in the United States with interactive and non-interactivestreaming services. Similar to the situation under Indian copyright law, Spotify needs to obtain licenses for both thesound recording and the underlying musical work in order to use its premium features, which let users createtheir own playlists, shuffle back and forth, and download and listen to songs offline.
It is important to remember that the United States just approved the Music Modernization Act of 2018 in an effort to regularize and streamline the way that digital music platforms use music. The new Act allows streaming service providers to be granted a blanket license. Additionally, a Mechanical Licensing Collective has taken the place of the Copyright Office. Its responsibilities include managing a database that lists the musical works included in soundrecordings as well as the copyright holders of those works, as well as determining and allocating licenses among the different copyright holders of those works. Furthermore, streaming providers must now notify Licensing Collective of their intention to grant licenses rather than the Copyright Office in accordance with thenew Act.
Relevant Judgements
Dua Lipa v. Artikal Sound System:
A lawsuit brought by the Florida reggae ensemble Artikal Sound System was dismissed by a federal court in Los Angeles during the current legal dispute for Dua Lipa’s hit song “Levitating.” The group said that “Levitating” violated their copyright for the song “Live Your Life,” which was released in 2017. DuaLipa, however, won the case because U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes found that Artikal Sound System was unable to demonstrate that the authors of “Levitating” had seen or heard their song.
Lana Del Rey v. Radiohead
Radiohead first argued that Lana Del Rey’s song “Get Free” was comparable to their famous ’90s hit song “Creep” in the legal dispute between the two artists. Radiohead requested 100% of the song’s royalties, while Del Rey offered 40%. After all was said and done, Radiohead granted Del Rey composition credit and a portion of the songwriting profits. After the matter was settled amicably, Del Rey was free to perform “Get Free” without facing any more legalrestrictions.
Ed Sheeran v. Marvin Gaye
The British singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran was accused of ripping off parts of Marvin Gaye’s iconic 1970s song “Let’s Get It On” when writing his successful song “Thinking Out Loud” in the legal dispute between the singer-songwriter and Marvin Gaye’s estate. Nonetheless, a
U.S. court decided in Ed Sheeran’s favor, finding that he had not violated the song’s copyright. The jury’s unanimous decision supported Sheeran’s composition as being different from Gaye’s. This case serves as a reminder of the continuous difficulties in the music industry in identifying originality and safeguarding intellectual property.
Conclusion
India should also create a distinct, independent copyright organization, similar to the Mechanical Licensing Collective established by the Music Modernization Act of America, to handle statutory licenses for internet music broadcasting organizations in order to address the intricacies associated with digital music licensing. Additionally, the proposed copyright board ought to include a database of all songs that are eligible for licensing to digital music outlets, much like the Music Modernization Act does.
Legislators now control the future of digital music streaming, and they should remember that updating copyright laws to reflect the changing business landscape will benefit all parties in the music industry, including songwriters, composers, record labels, singers, lyricists, and users of digital music platforms.
Author: Shreyas Mehta, Second Year student of Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur
