Introduction:

In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court has addressed a significant legal question concerning music rights holders, asserting that entities like Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) and Novex can issue music licenses even without being registered as copyright societies. The court’s decision stems from a plea by disability rights activist Vaishnavi Jayakumar, focusing on the compliance of the Kilambakkam Bus Terminus with Harmonized Guidelines. Justice R.I. Chagla’s verdict holds implications for copyright licensing in the music industry.

Arguments of Both Sides:

PPL and Novex, exclusive licensees for music titles from major producers, faced a legal battle against establishments accused of copyright infringement. The defendants argued that Section 33(1) of the Copyright Act prohibits anyone, including copyright owners, from issuing licenses without registering as a copyright society. The petitioners countered that Section 30 empowers copyright owners to grant licenses, emphasizing the need for flexibility beyond copyright society regulations.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice R.I. Chagla upheld the primacy of Section 30, ruling that music rights holders, even without copyright society registration, can issue licenses. The court rejected the defendants’ broad interpretation of Section 33(1) and highlighted that such an interpretation would strip owners of their rights to grant licenses. Referring to the Supreme Court’s stance in Entertainment Network India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd., the court emphasized that copyright societies are meant to assist owners, not diminish their rights.