A Legal Analysis of Copyright Protection, Royalty Mechanisms, and the Rights of Creative Professionals Under Indian and International IP Law
Author- Yash Yogitta Joshi
Linkedin- https://www.linkedin.com/in/yash-yogitta-joshi-7251b3273?utm_source=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=member_android
Abstract
The relationship between copyright and royalties is the economic backbone of the creative economy. For artists — musicians, writers, filmmakers, painters, software developers, and architects — copyright is not merely a moral shield against plagiarism; it is an enforceable legal mechanism that converts creative labour into sustained economic income. Royalties, flowing from the exclusive rights granted by copyright law, enable artists to earn recurring remuneration every time their work is reproduced, communicated, performed, or adapted. In India, the Copyright Act, 1957, comprehensively governs these rights, and the 2012 Amendment Act introduced landmark protections — most notably the inalienable royalty right of authors and composers in cinematograph films and sound recordings — that fundamentally rebalanced the power between creators and commercial exploiters. This article examines the legal architecture of copyright-based royalty entitlements, the contractual and statutory mechanisms through which royaltiesflow to artists, the role of Collecting Societies in enforcement, and the judicial treatment of royalty disputes in India.
To the Point
When a singer records a song, a novelist publishes a book, or a software engineer writes code, the law instantaneously vests in that creator a bundle of exclusive rights over their work. These rights — to reproduce, distribute, communicate to the public, make adaptations, and perform — are the statutory currency of copyright law. Their economic value is realised through royalties: payments made by those who wish to use the copyrighted work to the copyright owner in exchange for a licence to do so.
In India, the music industry alone generates an estimated Rs. 1,500 crore annually in royalty income, according to the Indian Music Industry (IMI) Annual Report 2023. Globally, the music royalty market exceeded USD 35 billion in 2023, reflecting the scale of economic value that copyright law unlocks for creative professionals. Yet for decades, Indian artists — particularly lyricists and composers — were routinely stripped of royalty entitlements through one-sided assignment contracts that transferred all rights to film producers or record labels for a one-time lump-sum payment.
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 corrected this structural inequity. By inserting Section 18(1) proviso and Section 19(9) and (10), Parliament established that authors and composers of literary and musical works incorporated in cinematograph films and sound recordings shall be entitled to receive royalties in equal shares with the assignee — an entitlement that cannot be contractually waived or assigned away except through a Collecting Society. This statutory guarantee transformed the legal landscape for Indian artists and aligned Indian copyright law with international best practices under the Berne Convention and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).
Use of Legal Jargon
1. Copyright and Original Works (Section 13, Copyright Act, 1957)
Copyright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Originality in Indian law does not demand novelty or aesthetic merit — it requires that the work originate from the author and not be copied from another work, as affirmed in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1. The moment an original work is fixed in a tangible medium, copyright arises automatically without registration, formality, or notice.
2. Economic Rights and the Royalty Nexus (Section 14, Copyright Act, 1957)
Section 14 confers upon the copyright owner a set of exclusive economic rights: the right to reproduce the work; to issue copies to the public; to perform or communicate the work to the public; to make translations and adaptations; and, in the case of sound recordings and cinematograph films, to sell, give on hire, or offer for sale. Royalties are the consideration paid by licensees for the authorised exercise of one or more of these exclusive rights. A royalty is therefore a creature of Section 14 — it exists because the copyright owner possesses rights that others cannot exercise without permission.
3. Assignment of Copyright and Inalienable Royalty (Sections 18 and 19)
Section 18 permits copyright owners to assign their rights to other persons. However, the proviso inserted by the 2012 Amendment Act creates a critical carve-out: an author of a literary or musical work in a cinematograph film or sound recording shall have an equal and inalienable right to royalties from every subsequent communication or exploitation of the work. Section 19(9) further mandates that any assignment that does not comply with this provision is void to the extent of non-compliance. This ‘reversion royalty’ principle ensures that even where copyright has been assigned, the creator retains a perpetual economic stake in the exploitation of their work.
4. Licence and Compulsory Licence (Sections 30 and 31)
A licence under Section 30 is a contractual permission granted by the copyright owner to a licensee to exercise specified rights without transferring ownership of the copyright. Licences may be exclusive or non-exclusive, and the royalty rate is typically a negotiated contractual term. Where the copyright owner withholds or unreasonably refuses to grant a licence, the Copyright Board (now the Commercial Court / High Court post-IPAB abolition) may grant a compulsory licence under Section 31, fixing a reasonable royalty to balance the creator’s economic interest against the public interest in access to creative works.
5. Performer’s Right and Moral Right (Sections 38, 38A, and 57)
Beyond copyright in the work itself, performers — singers, musicians, actors, dancers — possess independent ‘performers’ rights’ under Section 38 of the Copyright Act. Section 38A grants performers the exclusive right to receive royalties for any communication or sale of their performance to the public. Section 57 separately confers moral rights, including the right to claim authorship and to restrain distortion or mutilation of the work that would damage the artist’s honour or reputation, independently of copyright ownership.
6. Collecting Societies and the Royalty Distribution Framework (Section 33)
Section 33 of the Copyright Act authorises the formation and registration of Copyright Societies — also called Collecting Societies — to administer and enforce the rights of copyright owners collectively. The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) administers performing rights for musical and literary works. The Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) manages sound recording rights. These societies license users (broadcasters, streaming platforms, restaurants, event organisers), collect royalties on behalf of members, and distribute proceeds after administrative deductions. The 2012 Amendment made membership in a Copyright Society the only permissible route for assignment of the inalienable performing royalty, preventing direct contractual waiver.
7. Copyright Term and Duration of Royalty Entitlement (Section 22)
The economic rights of copyright, and therefore the entitlement to royalties, subsist for the lifetime of the author plus sixty years in India under Section 22, in conformity with the Berne Convention minimum of life plus fifty years. For sound recordings and cinematograph films, the term is sixty years from the year of publication. Upon expiry, works enter the public domain and may be used without payment of royalties — a balance between the creator’s economic interest and the long-term public interest in access to cultural heritage.
The Proof
Legislative and Statistical Evidence
• The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 (Act No. 27 of 2012) introduced Sections 18(1) proviso, 19(9), 19(10), 38, and 38A, explicitly granting authors and composers an inalienable right to royalties in sound recordings and cinematograph films — a direct response to the systemic exploitation of Bollywood lyricists and composers who had historically received one-time payments and no residual royalty income.
• The Indian Music Industry (IMI) Annual Report 2023 estimates total music royalty collections in India at Rs. 1,500 crore, up from Rs. 800 crore in 2018, driven primarily by growth in digital streaming royalties from platforms such as Spotify, JioSaavn, and YouTube Music.
• IPRS (Indian Performing Right Society) collected Rs. 310 crore in royalties in FY 2022–23 on behalf of its member authors, composers, and publishers, distributing approximately 75% of collections to rights holders after administrative deductions, per its Annual Accounts filed with the Copyright Office.
• The Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL India) reported royalty collections of Rs. 280 crore in FY 2022–23 from television broadcasters, radio stations, streaming platforms, and event organisers, representing one of the largest collective royalty pools for sound recording owners in South Asia.
Industry and Judicial Evidence
• In the wake of the 2012 Amendment, major streaming platforms — including Spotify and Apple Music — entered direct licensing agreements with IPRS and PPL, creating for the first time a transparent digital royalty pipeline for Indian artists. Prior to 2012, such platforms had licensed directly from producers and labels, bypassing underlying author royalties.
• The Copyright Office of India registered 16,842 copyright works in the category of literary and musical works in 2022–23, reflecting growing awareness among creators of the importance of copyright registration as a practical step in establishing and enforcing royalty entitlements, though registration is not a prerequisite for copyright to arise.
Case Laws
1. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, AIR 1977 SC 1443
This landmark Supreme Court judgment is the foundational authority on the performing right and royalty entitlement of authors and composers in cinematograph films. The court held that the author of a literary or musical work does not lose the performing right — and consequently the right to royalties — merely because the work is incorporated in a cinematograph film under an assignment. The court drew a crucial distinction between the copyright in the film and the underlying copyright in the literary and musical works, holding that both coexist independently. This ruling laid the doctrinal groundwork for the 2012 Amendment’s inalienable royalty provisions.
2. Suresh Jindal v. Rissik Cinematograph (1977) Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court affirmed that a copyright assignment for a lump sum does not extinguish the underlying author’s right to receive equitable remuneration when the work is exploited beyond the terms initially contemplated. The court’s reasoning on the unconscionability of one-sided assignment agreements in the creative industry directly informed legislative reform and remains a reference point in royalty disputes involving film music contracts.
3. Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India, 117 (2005) DLT 717
The Delhi High Court, in a pioneering judgment on moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, held that sculptor Amarnath Sehgal’s mural could not be removed from Vigyan Bhavan without his consent, and awarded damages. The court affirmed that moral rights and economic rights — including the right to receive royalties — are constitutionally protected facets of an artist’s dignity under Article 21, reinforcing the indivisible character of an artist’s rights in their creative output.
4. Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Music Ltd., (Bombay HC, 2019)
The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling on digital streaming royalties, held that Wynk Music’s service of allowing users to download copyrighted songs for offline listening constituted ‘sale’ under Section 14(e) of the Copyright Act, and not merely a ‘communication to the public’ under Section 31D. The court refused to grant a compulsory statutory licence for downloading, holding that rights holders retained the right to negotiate royalty rates freely for this mode of exploitation. This decision significantly strengthened the royalty-bargaining position of music labels and, by extension, artists in digital licensing negotiations.
5. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. DXC Technology & Anr., (Bombay HC, 2023)
The Bombay High Court clarified the legal standing of non-Copyright Society intermediaries in licensing and royalty collection, holding that entities that are not registered Copyright Societies under Section 33 cannot carry on the business of issuing licences or collecting royalties on behalf of copyright owners as a regular commercial activity. This judgment reinforced the gatekeeping function of IPRS and PPL as the sole authorised collective royalty administrators for their respective domains, protecting artists from unlicensed intermediaries claiming royalty entitlements in their name.
Conclusion
Copyright is not merely a legal abstraction designed to protect creators from copying — it is the foundational economic instrument through which artistic labour is converted into sustained, recurrent income. The royalty is the living expression of copyright: each time a song is streamed, a novel is adapted into a film, or a painting is reproduced on merchandise, the law requires that the creator receive their rightful economic share. India’s Copyright Act, 1957, as reinforced by the landmark 2012 Amendment, has substantially strengthened this framework by making certain royalty rights inalienable — a guarantee that no contractual clause, however cleverly drafted, can override.
Yet challenges remain. The enforcement infrastructure for royalty collection is fragmented. Many artists — particularly in regional language music, folk traditions, and visual arts — are unaware of their statutory entitlements or lack the financial resources to enforce them. Collecting Societies, while vital, face questions about transparency in distribution, governance accountability, and reach beyond metropolitan markets. The digital revolution has created new royalty streams — streaming, synchronisation, podcasting, AI-generated music — that existing frameworks were not designed to address, creating regulatory gaps that legislatures and courts are only beginning to fill.
The path forward requires three coordinated interventions: legislative modernisation to explicitly address AI-assisted creativity, synthetic voices, and algorithm-curated content; institutional strengthening of Collecting Societies through mandatory audits, grievance mechanisms, and digital distribution portals; and a nationwide artist-literacy programme to ensure that every creator — from a Bollywood lyricist to a tribal textile designer — understands, asserts, and enforces their copyright-based royalty rights. When copyright works as Parliament intended, it does not merely protect art; it pays the artist.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. What is a royalty in the context of copyright law?
A royalty is a payment made by a person who uses a copyrighted work to the copyright owner or their assignee in exchange for the right to use that work. Royalties may be calculated as a percentage of revenue generated from the work, a fixed fee per unit sold or streamed, or a lump sum for a specific licence period. Under Indian law, the entitlement to royalties flows from the exclusive rights granted by Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Q2. Do artists automatically receive royalties, or do they need to register?
Copyright — and the corresponding right to royalties — arises automatically upon creation and fixation of an original work in India. Registration of copyright under Section 44 of the Copyright Act is not a prerequisite for copyright to subsist or for royalty entitlements to arise; it is merely a legal presumption in favour of the registered owner that assists in enforcement. In practice, artists are strongly advised to register their works and join Collecting Societies such as IPRS or PPL to practically receive and enforce royalties.
Q3. Can an artist’s royalty rights be taken away by contract?
Post the 2012 Amendment, the answer is no — in certain specified contexts. Sections 18(1) proviso and 19(9) of the Copyright Act establish that the royalty entitlement of authors and composers of literary and musical works in cinematograph films and sound recordings is inalienable. Even if an artist signs a contract assigning all copyright to a producer or label, they retain the right to receive royalties from subsequent exploitation of the work. Any contractual clause waiving this right is void.
Q4. What is the role of IPRS and PPL in royalty collection?
The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) administers the performing rights of authors, composers, and publishers of musical and literary works. Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) administers the rights in sound recordings. Both are registered Copyright Societies under Section 33 of the Copyright Act. They issue blanket licences to users (broadcasters, streaming platforms, public venues), collect royalties on behalf of their members, and distribute proceeds according to a pre-determined formula. Artists must become members of these societies to access collective royalty income.
Q5. How does copyright protect digital royalties on streaming platforms?
When a song is streamed on platforms such as Spotify, JioSaavn, or YouTube Music, two types of royalties arise: (i) a ‘mechanical royalty’ for the reproduction of the underlying musical composition, payable to the songwriter or their publisher (administered by IPRS); and (ii) a ‘master royalty’ for the use of the specific sound recording, payable to the record label or artist (administered by PPL). Under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, broadcasters including internet broadcasters may seek a statutory licence at rates fixed by the Copyright Board, though the Tips v. Wynk (2019) ruling limits this to streaming rather than downloading.
Q6. What happens to royalties after an artist’s death?
Under Section 22 of the Copyright Act, copyright in literary and musical works subsists for the lifetime of the author plus sixty years. This means that royalties continue to accrue and are payable to the artist’s legal heirs or estate for sixty years after death. The heirs or testamentary beneficiaries step into the copyright owner’s shoes and may enforce royalty entitlements through Collecting Societies or direct licensing, depending on the nature of the work and the mode of exploitation.
