Case Study: The Gramophone Company of India v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.

By Anish Sinha 10 Minutes Read

“This case is significant for its impact on copyright law, especially regarding copyright infringement in the music industry.”

Citation:  2010 SCC Online Del 4743

Date of judgment: 1^st July, 2010

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Vipin Sanghi (J)

Facts

• The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant Company from issuing any sound recording which embodies the works (literary and musical works) in which the copyright is owned by the Plaintiff herein. The Plaintiff also sought an injunction restraining the Defendant from launching sound recordings which are remixed versions of the sound recordings in which the Plaintiff owns copyright. For the sake of clarity, the sound recordings of the defendant are herein referred as “version recordings”.
• Plaintiff claimed to be the copyright owner of various sound recordings which comprised lyrics and background music or the musical score. The Plaintiff also claimed to be the owner of the copyright of the underlying musical score or composition and the lyrics embodied in the sound recordings.
• The main grievance of the Plaintiff was that the audio cassettes titled “28 Super Non-Stop Remix” Vol. 2, Vol. 3 and Vol. 4 released by the defendant contain remix version of songs from the film titles “Hum Aapke Hain Kaun”, “Daur”, “1942 – A Love Story”, “Saudagar”, “Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge” etc. The copyright in the literary, dramatic and musical works in these songs, as well as the copyright in sound recordings comprising these songs is claimed by the plaintiff.
• The Plaintiff stated that the Defendant Company had sought permission of the Plaintiff to make version sound recordings of the literary and musical works forming part of the soundtrack of the aforesaid titles. But the same was categorically refused by the plaintiff and permission to the Defendant to make such recordings were not granted.
• The Plaintiff asserted a copyright infringement case, claiming ownership of the copyright in both the sound recordings and the underlying musical compositions and lyrics. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has released audio cassettes containing versions of these copyrighted works without permission.

Decision of the Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and held that Gramophone Company of India Ltd. had valid copyright ownership over the sound recordings in question. It upheld the Plaintiff’s rights to control the reproduction and distribution of these sound recordings. Court found that Super Cassette Industries Ltd. had indeed infringed upon the Plaintiff’s copyright. The Defendant’s version recordings were held to be unauthorized reproductions of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings.

The main issue in this case revolves around interpreting Section 52(1)(j) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The term “version recording” is not explicitly defined in the Act but can be understood as a sound recording influenced by an existing original recording. The rise of cover versions has led to disputes between the original copyright holders and those who create cover versions. This situation has tested the copyright system’s ability to balance the rights of both parties, placing the scope of Section 52(1)(j) under scrutiny.

Court upheld the Plaintiff’s position that it had not granted any permission or license to the Defendant to produce or distribute the version recordings. This supported the Plaintiff’s claim of unauthorized use of its work.

Key legal issue discussed

1. Whether the version recording made by the defendant comes within the ambit of section 52(1)(j) of the Indian Copyright act, 1957?

Yes

Delhi High Court held that the version recordings made by the Defendant did indeed fall within the ambit of Section 52(1)(j). The Court ruled that the Defendant’s actions amounted to unauthorized reproduction and distribution of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings, thus constituting infringement under section 52(1)(j) of the Act.[1]

The court, in its rational judgment, held that while the composer of a lyric or musical work retains the right to perform it publicly for profit, apart from its use in a cinematographic film, this right cannot be restricted. Consequently, even if the author of a literary, dramatic, or musical work has authorized the creation of a cinematograph film that includes a soundtrack, the producer of the film is granted only a limited right to exploit that soundtrack. This means that the authorization to make a cinematograph film does not automatically extend to the right to exploit the soundtrack of the film beyond its inclusion in the film itself.

Additionally, if an author has authorized the making of a sound recording of their work, the person creating that authorized sound recording, or someone making a version recording under Section 52(1)(j) of the Act, does not have the right to use that recording for creating a cinematograph film.

“The purpose of clause (ii) and proviso (ii) to Section 52(1)(j) is to ensure that the person making and marketing the version recordings, by resort to Section 52(1)(j) does not mislead or confuse the public as to their identity as version recordings. The purpose is to prevent any confusion in the minds of the public that what is being offered by the producer of the version recordings is his version recording, and not any other earlier sound recording or version recording of the same literary, dramatic or musical work(s).” [PARA 76]

Other Issues addressed

• Court confirmed that the Gramophone Company of India Ltd. held valid copyrights over the sound recordings in question. This affirmation established the Plaintiff’s legal right to control the reproduction and distribution of these recordings. So accordingly, Super Cassette Industries Ltd. had infringed on the Plaintiff’s copyrights by producing and distributing version recordings without authorization.
• Court upheld the Plaintiff’s assertion that no permission or license had been granted to the Defendant for creating or distributing the version recordings. This supported the Plaintiff’s claim of unauthorized use and so court ordered Defendant to cease the production and distribution of the infringing recordings. Additionally, the Court awarded damages to the Plaintiff to compensate for the infringement and to deter future violations.

Note: The Court’s decision to grant injunctive relief and damages highlighted the remedies available to copyright holders. By ordering the cessation of infringing activities and awarding damages, the Court emphasized the importance of enforcing copyright laws to deter future violations and compensate for the harm caused.

Section 31C of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, introduced changes to Section 52(1)(j) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The amendment implemented stricter regulations concerning version recordings, aiming to address issues related to cover versions and similar reinterpretations of copyrighted works. This update was designed to clarify and enhance the protection of original works while managing the rights of those creating new versions.

[1] Section 52(1)(j) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, deals with the infringement of copyright, specifically focusing on the unauthorized making, selling, or distributing of copies of copyrighted works.

Anish Sinha