INDIAN MUSIC INDUSTRY AND COPYRIGHT CONTROVERSY

  INTRODUCTION

Music Industry being one of the vibrant and dynamic industry encompasses within itself various components like lyrist, composer, singer, producer. Due to his evolving nature, there tends to be conflict between the rights of the people and companies engaged in these industries. The copyright law, tends to provide effective management for protection and enforcement of the rights of these persons. However, since AI has also evolved a thereby, it is imposing another series of challenges.

LAWS UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW AFFECTING MUSIC INDUSTRY

When we talk about music industry there are essential laid down in copyright law which we need to understand. These can be laid down as follows:

Section 2 (0) defines literary work as “including computer program, tables, compilations “

Section 2 (ffa) defines composer as “in relation to musical work means the person who composes the music regardless of whether he records it in any form of graphical notation

section 2(qq) defines who a performer is, a performer is defined to “include an actor, singer, musician, dancer, acrobat, juggler, conjurer, snake charmer, a person delivering a lecture, or any other person making a visual or acoustic live presentation.”

Section 2(uu) defines producers, “in relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording, means a person who takes the initiative and responsibility for making the work;”

Section 2(x)(x) sound recording" means a recording of sounds from which such sounds may be produced regardless of the medium on which such recording is the method by which the sounds are produced”

Let’s understand the application of above provisions with help of an example that how above laws are incorporated. Now, when we talk about music Industry, we basically refer to the aspect of sound recording. The ownership rights in sound recording are generally vested in producers like T-series, Zee Music etc.

Example- Say a song “Kal ho Na ho” 

·         Lyrics - Javed Akhtar (Lyricists): Right separately covered under Literary works for his lyrics.

·         Composer - Shankar Ehsaan Loy(music composer): The graphical notation of the music and his rights will be covered under Musical works

·         Singer - Sonu Nigam (performer): He will get the right in performance of this song.

·         Sound recording- T-series: The ownership rights vest in this particular song (sound recording) vests with Music company i.e. T- series).

It can be seen that a sound recording is culmination of various aspects. The producer i. e. T-series has right of ownership in that recorded version and he can exercise such right like fixing sound recording in tangible medium like CD etc, sell, commercial rent, communicate as laid down under section 14(1) (e) of the Copyright Act, 1957.The rest of the components involved such as lyricist, composer etc. their rights are separately covered under other categories of works.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Issue 1- Unequal Bargaining Power and aspect of royalty sharing

This issue basically highlights the imbalance in the bargaining power of the original authors of work like lyrists, composer who actually made the song and between giant companies like T-series. There is high possibility that there may be struggling composers, writer etc.  who may forge their right in the work and may settle in very less royalty amount. In order to address such situation Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) is established which bargain on behalf of these authors and ensure that their rights are secured.

 In Vodafone Idea Limited vs Saregama India Limited and Anr. (2024), Vodafone came up with feature of pre-recorded caller tunes. Certain songs used in these recording were claimed by Saregama India ltd and some other songs were claimed by IPRS as well. IPRS contended that since there was a valid assignment done by the Saregama to IPRS, Vodafone lacked authorization to exploit the musical and literary works in those sound recordings. Vodafone contends that first owner as per section 17(c) of the Copyright Act,1957 is Saregama and the work was commissioned by it for a valuable consideration and therefore no permission need of IPRS. Court held that since post 2012 there were amendments in copyright law in favour of authors of literary and musical works. Further, when works of these authors are utilized, there is a need for mandatory royalty sharing with the original authors. Also, court ensured that if such recordings would be utilized in any future recordings which were not in the original agreement between producer and author, they will be entitled to royalties in exploitation of their works in future technologies.

Thus court maintained the balance between the rights of author and producers. It kept a check upon the undue practices adopted by the big giants and thus prevent the commercial exploitation of the rights of the authors of musical works, lyricist etc.

Issue 2- whether AI generated sound recordings can be considered as original?

AI tools have been in market recently and has effected various sectors including music industry. AI tools can be used to produce sound recordings and musical works as well. Since, AI tool data is based on pre-existing works there is likelihood that it will infringe upon the rights of the other authors or owners of the work.

In recent case UMG Recording INC v SUNO INC (2024), there major producers named – Sony music, Warner records and Universal music have filed suit against AI technology-based start-ups. They claimed that these start-ups used copyrighted music and create new works and compositions by using AI algorithm. On other hand the start-ups argued that their technology is line with featuring innovation and development and thus produce original works based on such compositions.

The court decision is yet to come but court have to deal with various issues such as whether AI works would qualify as original works or would AI be considered as author or the extent of human involvement. These issues are yet to be addressed.