Introduction

Music remixing is common for the Bollywood (the Indian film industry based in Mumbai) music. A song remix is a reimagined version of an original music track. This reworking often includes changes to the arrangement, instrumentation, or vocals. Remixes may introduce new elements like different beats, samples, or styles, and their purpose is usually to give the song a fresh sound or appeal. While remixing can be a creative process, it often leads to legal complexities involving copyright and contract law. Although remixes can be a creative extension of the original songs, they raise important questions about authorship, derivative works, and rights management. 

In the context of Copyright Law, what does the term "remix" mean?

Remix is considered an “adaptation” under Section 2(a) of The Copyright Act, 1957, and exclusive authorization for such adaptations is reserved for copyright holders under Section 14 of The Copyright Act, 1957. In the context of a song, copyright is typically divided among the composer (who creates the music), the lyricist (who writes the lyrics), and the producer or label (who handles the recording). Therefore, all relevant rights holders must grant permission for a remix to be legal.

Relevant legislation

Section 51 specifies that remixing without a license is an infringement, which can lead to both criminal and civil liabilities. Exceptions outlined in Section 52, such as fair dealing, and Section 57 protects the moral rights of original creators, allowing them to object to adaptations that may harm their reputation, even if a license has been obtained.

Legal work it takes for the remix to be proper

Contracts between remixers and rights holders define the terms of adaptation, including royalty shares and credit attribution, in order to balance the interests of both creators and remixers.

Remixes involve altering existing copyrighted songs by adding new elements or modifying original components. Copyright law automatically protects original musical works upon creation, granting extensive rights to the original authors or copyright holders. Legally, remixes are categorized as "derivative works," which typically require formal permission from rights holders of both the underlying composition and the original sound recording. Many unofficial remixes are uploaded to digital platforms without proper authorization from copyright holders, putting them at risk of takedown or legal action.

Let's discuss in brief the most significant case of The Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (I.A No. 7050/1999 in C.S. (OS) No. 1625/1999). This case examines the legal conflict between The Gramophone Company of India Ltd. (now known as Saregama) and Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (commonly known as T-Series) regarding the creation and marketing of "version recordings," or remixed versions of existing copyrighted musical works under Indian copyright law. The dispute involves statutory licensing, copyright infringement, and the obligations of new producers when creating derivative musical recordings. The plaintiff, Gramophone Company (Saregama), holds copyrights for original sound recordings as well as the underlying musical and literary works. The defendant, Super Cassette (T-Series), produced and released remixed or "version recordings" of songs originally owned by the plaintiff, often featuring new performers and altered arrangements. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing on its copyrights and misleading the public by marketing these remixed songs with packaging similar to that of the original recordings. The defendant argued that such remixes were legitimate under Section 52(1) (j) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which permits the creation of new sound recordings of previously published works under specific statutory conditions. The dispute also extended to the use of these version recordings in visual media, such as VCDs and DVDs that incorporate cinematographic films. The key legal questions include: 

a.      Does creating "version recordings" of original literary and musical works infringe on copyright if there is no explicit permission from the copyright owner? 

b.      Does the use of similar packaging, labels, and artist names by the defendant constitute passing off or mislead consumers about the origin of the recordings? 

c.      Does Section 52(1) (j) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provide a statutory license to create such versions without the copyright owner's explicit consent, provided certain conditions are met? 

d.      Can version recordings be incorporated into cinematographic films (such as VCDs or DVDs) without permission from the copyright owner of the literary or musical work? 

To know more about this you can follow the ink below:

Rules and Principles

Section 52(1) (j) allows for the creation of sound recordings of literary or musical works after two years from the original recording. This is contingent upon giving notice to the copyright owner, paying royalties at the prescribed rate, and complying with specific conditions (e.g., no misleading packaging, no significant unauthorized alterations, and proper labeling and disclosures). Sections 14 and 13(4) clarify that copyrights in original literary and musical works are separate from those in sound recordings, meaning both can exist independently. Section 52A outlines the declarations and details that must be displayed when publishing sound recordings or cinematographic films. Additionally, Section 14(e) specifies the rights of the owner of a sound recording, which include creating other recordings, selling, renting, and communicating the work to the public. The defendant provided notice, paid royalties, and adhered to the statutory process outlined in Section 52(1) (j) before producing the new sound recordings. However, disputes arose regarding the adequacy of the notice and the potentially misleading nature of the packaging.

The Court clarified that Section 52(1) (j) does not mandate explicit or additional permission from the copyright owner beyond meeting the statutory requirements. Once two years have elapsed since the first authorized recording, anyone may create a new "version recording" by following the procedures specified in Section 52(1) (j). However, the statutory license does not permit the new sound recording to be used in cinematographic films (such as VCDs or DVDs) without obtaining a separate license from the copyright owner of the underlying work. The right to create a sound recording does not extend to the right to produce videos or films that incorporate that recording. The Court determined that certain covers and packaging used by the defendant were misleading to the average consumer because they either imitated original packaging or failed to adequately disclose that the recording was a remix or version, rather than being sourced from the original soundtrack. This constituted an actionable wrong. Moreover, displaying the names and likenesses of original artists in a way that implies their participation in the version recording, when such involvement does not exist, is misleading and prohibited.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi issued several key rulings:

·       Statutory License Upheld: The Court held that, under Section 52(1) (j), making version sound recordings is lawful without the express consent of the copyright owner, provided that all statutory conditions are strictly observed. These conditions include giving notice, paying royalties, and ensuring honest labeling.

·       Injunction on Misleading Labels: The defendant was prohibited from using certain labels, covers, and packaging for its version recordings that could mislead or deceive consumers into believing the recordings were from the original soundtrack or performed by the original artists. The Court specified several titles (e.g., "28 Super Non Stop Remix," "Finest Memories of Mukesh," etc.) and allowed the defendant to reintroduce these titles only with packaging that accurately reflects the nature of the recordings and does not mislead.

·       Prohibition on Use in Cinematograph Films: The defendant was banned from incorporating its version recordings into cinematograph films (including VCDs and DVDs) featuring the underlying literary or musical works, unless it obtained direct written permission from the plaintiff (the original copyright owner). The statutory license does not extend to video or cinematic use of the music.

·       Maintenance of Accounts: The defendant was directed to maintain and submit annual account books concerning the version recordings in question. This measure is intended to support ongoing monitoring of statutory compliance and royalty payments.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful examination of the statutory text, legislative intent, and comparisons to international copyright practices. The judgment balanced the purpose of statutory licensing—aimed at promoting dissemination and the creation of new interpretations—with the necessity of protecting copyright holders from loss of licensing revenue and public confusion due to misleading marketing. While the Court upheld the right to create version recordings under the statutory license, it also safeguarded the interests of original copyright holders by restricting misleading commercial practices and limiting the scope of statutory licensing to sound recordings, excluding cinematograph films. The Court emphasized the public’s right to be informed about the origin or authenticity of recordings and reinforced the need for transparency in industry practices regarding derivative works.

Analysis

Unauthorized remixes violate the exclusive rights granted to original authors under copyright law. Failing to secure any required licenses, whether for composition or recording, places remixers at legal risk. In India, music remixing is only legal if explicit permissions are obtained from all relevant copyright holders. Failure to obtain these permissions constitutes copyright infringement and can lead to both civil and criminal liability under the Copyright Act. Remixing is a regulated artistic process that requires legal compliance and ethical consideration. To avoid conflicts and promote a respectful music industry, it is essential to adhere to statutory provisions, obtain proper contracts, and respect the moral rights of original creators. Remixers must secure explicit permissions through licensing agreements for both the musical composition and sound recording elements. They should also credit the original creators appropriately and understand the potential consequences of non-compliance. This highlights the structured statutory licensing framework in India, which permits new recordings to be created and exploited legally, provided that the process is fully compliant and does not mislead the public. However, it is important to note that such statutory licenses do not extend to audio-visual or film uses, which remain protected for the copyright owner, thus maintaining a clear distinction between rights related to music and those related to cinema and video works.