Indian Performing Rights Society V Eastern India Motion Pictures.
1. Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association & Ors. (AIR 1977 Cal 101)
Facts:
The Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) is a society formed by music composers, lyricists, and publishers. It controls the performance rights of its members’ musical works.
The Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (EIMPA) consisted of cinema owners and exhibitors.
IPRS demanded that cinema owners pay royalties for the public performance of copyrighted musical works in films screened at cinemas.
EIMPA refused, arguing that showing films was not a “public performance” of music, as it was part of the film, and therefore exempt from paying royalties.
Issues:
Does the screening of films in cinemas amount to a “public performance” of musical works under the Copyright Act, 1957?
Can a performing rights society claim royalties from exhibitors?
Judgment (Calcutta High Court):
The Court held that screening a film in a cinema hall constitutes a public performance of the musical work embedded in it.
Even though the music is part of a larger film, its performance is separate and is enjoyed by the public.
IPRS was therefore entitled to claim royalties for the public performance of musical works in films.
Principles Established:
The definition of “public performance” includes any performance where a work is made available to the public.
The right to receive royalties is independent of whether the work is part of another medium (like film).
Performing rights societies can enforce rights on behalf of their members without the need for individual licenses for each song.
2. Bharat Bhushan v. K.K. Verma (AIR 1962 SC 1012)
Facts:
Concerned the copyright in literary and dramatic works and whether adaptations constitute infringement.
The plaintiff was a playwright; the defendant produced a film based on the same story.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that adaptation of a copyrighted work without consent constitutes copyright infringement.
It emphasized that the author’s exclusive right includes adaptation, reproduction, and public performance.
Relevance to IPRS v. EIMPA:
The principle that any public performance of copyrighted work without authorization is infringement applies here.
Just as adapting a literary work requires permission, performing music publicly in cinemas requires permission from IPRS.
3. Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey (AIR 1984 SC 667)
Facts:
The case concerned mechanical rights (recording and reproducing music).
Gramophone Co. claimed exclusive rights to record and distribute music, while the defendant argued that mere performance doesn’t violate copyright.
Decision:
The Supreme Court clarified that performing a work publicly, even without reproducing it, can infringe the owner’s rights.
“Performance rights” are independent of reproduction rights.
Connection:
This case supports IPRS’ claim that cinema exhibition constitutes public performance, even if the music is embedded in films, not played live.
4. University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd. (1916)
Facts (UK Case, but cited in Indian courts):
Issue: Reproduction of examination papers from copyrighted works without authorization.
Decision: Even partial reproduction for a public audience constitutes infringement.
Relevance:
It reinforced the idea that any unauthorized communication of a copyrighted work to the public—not just complete copying—is infringement.
Applied in India in cases like IPRS v. EIMPA to justify public performance royalties.
5. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (2008) 13 SCC 30
Facts:
Radio stations played music in public; the question was whether they had to pay royalties to copyright holders.
Decision:
Supreme Court ruled that broadcasting music in public (even via radio) constitutes public performance.
Right holders are entitled to royalties.
Radio stations cannot claim exemption by arguing that the work is incidental or background music.
Connection:
Reinforces IPRS’ principle: public performance rights are enforceable irrespective of medium.
The logic of cinema exhibition is similar: music is performed publicly, even if as part of a film.
6. The Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2008)
Facts:
IPRS filed suits against bars, hotels, and restaurants playing music without a license.
Decision:
Delhi High Court reiterated that any performance of copyrighted music in public requires authorization and payment of royalties.
The court explicitly cited the IPRS v. EIMPA case as foundational.
Principles Reinforced:
Performing rights societies can license music on behalf of composers and lyricists.
Public performance does not require direct live performance; playing recordings or in films also counts.
Failure to obtain a license amounts to infringement.
Key Takeaways from the IPRS v. EIMPA Case and Related Jurisprudence
Public performance is broadly defined – includes live performances, radio, cinema, and other public screenings.
Performing rights societies are valid enforcers of copyright.
Royalties are mandatory when copyrighted works are used publicly, even if part of another medium.
Background music and incidental use do not exempt the user from royalties.
Precedent cases like Bharat Bhushan, Gramophone Co., and Entertainment Network consistently reinforce that copyright law protects performance rights independently of reproduction rights.
RELATED Blog
comments