Navigating Through India’s Copyright Societies: A Comprehensive Overview

Every time a song plays on the radio, a photocopier reproduces a chapter from a textbook, or a film is broadcast on television, someone’s intellectual property is being used. For individual creators – a lyricist in Mumbai, a publisher in Delhi, a film producer in Chennai – tracking each such use and collecting payment for it would be practically impossible. This is precisely the problem that copyright societies solve. In India, these societies operate as collective management organizations (CMOs), authorized under the Copyright Act, 1957 to manage rights centrally, issue licenses, and ensure creators get paid. Understanding how they work is essential for anyone navigating India’s intellectual property landscape.

What is a copyright society? 🔗

A copyright society is a registered collective administration body formed by authors and other owners of copyrighted works. Rather than each creator individually chasing down every unauthorized use of their work, the society does it on their behalf – issuing licenses to users, collecting royalties, and distributing the proceeds to rights holders after deducting administrative costs.

The legal backbone of this system is Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 33(1) categorically states that no person or association of persons can commence or carry on the business of issuing or granting licenses for copyrighted works unless registered as a copyright society. This is not merely procedural – it is an absolute statutory requirement. The provision also clarifies that individual copyright owners retain the right to license their own works personally, as long as it is consistent with their obligations as members of a registered society.

A copyright society must be registered with the Central Government, which evaluates the application based on the interests of authors, convenience of the public, and the professional competence of the applicant body. Ordinarily, the government does not register more than one society for the same class of works – ensuring a structured, non-fragmented licensing environment.

Registration and governance 🔗

To apply for registration, an association must submit an application to the Registrar of Copyrights. The application must include a copy of the Memorandum of Association, a list of governing body members with their consent, a declaration outlining the society’s objectives and accounting arrangements, and an undertaking to comply with the provisions of the Copyright Act.

Under the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, registration is granted for a period of five years and must be renewed before every five-year term expires. The Central Government reviews a report from the Registrar of Copyrights on the society’s functioning before granting renewal. Crucially, the 2012 amendment also mandated that collective control of the society must be shared with authors in their capacity as copyright owners or royalty recipients – not just with publishers or producers. This was a significant shift toward protecting the interests of original creators.

The government also holds the power to cancel a society’s registration under Section 33(4) if it finds that the society is being managed in a manner detrimental to the interests of authors and other rights holders – after conducting a prescribed inquiry.

Major copyright societies in India 🔗

India currently has four recognized copyright societies, each covering a distinct category of creative works. Together, they form the institutional infrastructure of copyright administration in the country.

IPRS – Indian Performing Right Society 🔗

IPRS was established on 23 August 1969 and is the designated copyright society for musical works and literary works associated with music – meaning compositions, lyrics, and the publishers who hold rights over them. IPRS is the sole authority for issuing licenses for the use of musical and literary works within India, and its members include composers (music directors), lyricists, and music publishing companies.

Any entity that broadcasts or publicly performs music – radio stations, television channels, hotels, restaurants, event organizers – must obtain a license from IPRS before doing so. The royalties collected are distributed to members after deducting administrative costs. IPRS has also been active in litigation: a landmark ruling by the Bombay High Court in IPRS v. Music Broadcast Limited clarified that when a lyricist or composer permits a producer to include their work in a film, the producer holds rights over the film as a whole, but the underlying works retain their separate character – a ruling that strengthened the royalty rights of original creators.

PPL – Phonographic Performance Limited 🔗

PPL India was established in 1941 and originally registered as a copyright society for sound recordings. It represents record labels and sound recording owners, managing their public performance and broadcasting rights. PPL owns or controls the public performance rights of over 400 music labels, covering more than 4.5 million domestic and international sound recordings, including labels like T-Series, Sony Music, Universal Music, and Warner Music.

However, PPL’s current status as a copyright society is legally complicated. Following the 2012 amendment, all pre-existing copyright societies had to re-register within one year. PPL applied for re-registration in May 2013 but subsequently withdrew its application in May 2014, declaring that it did not consider itself a copyright society and instead preferred to operate as a private limited company under the Companies Act. As a result, PPL was automatically de-registered as a copyright society on 21 June 2013. It now claims to function as an authorized agent of its member labels under Section 30 of the Copyright Act – though this position remains legally contested.

SCRIPT – Society for Copyright Regulation of Indian Producers for Film and Television 🔗

SCRIPT is the designated copyright society for cinematograph films and television productions. It represents film and television producers, managing rights related to the screening, broadcasting, and communication of audiovisual content to the public. Given that audiovisual works typically involve multiple rights holders – directors, producers, music composers, scriptwriters – SCRIPT plays a particularly important role in simplifying the licensing process for users while ensuring producers receive appropriate compensation.

IRRO – Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation 🔗

IRRO was established in 2000 under Section 33 of the Copyright Act and covers reprographic rights – the reproduction of literary works through photocopying, scanning, or similar processes. Registered by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, IRRO is the exclusive authority for reprographic licensing in the country and is internationally affiliated with the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO).

IRRO issues blanket licenses to educational institutions, libraries, and businesses on an annual basis. These licenses cover all copying done within the terms of the license throughout the year, eliminating the need for users to seek permission every time they photocopy a page. After collecting license fees, IRRO distributes them to rights holders based on a distribution scheme derived from data collected through surveys and usage reports. Administrative deductions are capped at 15% of the total amount collected – a statutory ceiling that applies to all copyright societies in India.

Core functions of copyright societies 🔗

While each society operates in its own domain, the core functions remain broadly consistent across all of them:

Licensing: Copyright societies issue licenses to users who wish to use copyrighted works – whether for broadcasting, public performance, reproduction, or communication to the public. This is their primary function under Section 33, and no entity other than a registered copyright society (or an individual copyright owner acting personally) can legally carry on this business.

Royalty collection and distribution: Societies collect license fees from users and distribute them to rights holders based on pre-determined distribution schemes. The process accounts for actual usage data, and distributions are made after deducting administrative costs within the statutory cap.

Monitoring and enforcement: Societies actively monitor the use of copyrighted works, identify infringements, and can initiate legal proceedings on behalf of their members. Courts have consistently upheld this role – in Novex Communications v. DXC Technologies, the Madras High Court held that only recognized copyright societies are authorized to issue licenses, reaffirming that licensing cannot be routed through unregistered private entities.

International coordination: Societies like IRRO and IPRS enter into bilateral agreements with foreign copyright societies, enabling them to collect royalties for Indian rights holders when their works are used abroad, and to distribute fees to foreign rights holders when their works are used in India.

The 2012 amendment and its controversies 🔗

The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 significantly restructured the framework governing copyright societies. Among its key changes, it replaced the term “owners of rights” with “authors and other owners of rights” in Sections 33(4) and 33(5), signaling that the Central Government could now more directly oversee society management and that authors – not just commercial rights holders – would have equal representation and equal say in royalty distribution.

Both IPRS and PPL were uncomfortable with this increased governmental oversight and withdrew their re-registration applications, effectively stepping outside the copyright society framework. Both entities have since claimed to function as agents under Section 30 of the Copyright Act, acting on behalf of their member labels rather than as registered societies. This created a significant legal ambiguity – one that courts have repeatedly been called to resolve.

The Bombay High Court in Leopold Café Stores v. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. drew a sharp line: entities engaged in the business of issuing licenses cannot operate outside Section 33 by simply calling themselves agents. At the same time, an absolute bar on agency arrangements would clash with the express language of Section 30. The court held that Novex could continue issuing licenses as an authorized agent under Section 30, but not carry on the business of licensing as if it were a registered society – a distinction that remains contested in practice.

Why copyright societies matter 🔗

The value of copyright societies becomes clearest when you consider the alternative. A music composer in Lucknow has no practical way of knowing when a restaurant in Pune plays their song, or when a radio station in Bengaluru broadcasts it. Without a collective body tracking this and collecting on their behalf, the composer’s legal rights would exist on paper but mean nothing in practice.

For users, copyright societies provide a single-window system. Instead of negotiating individual licenses with each rights holder – which would be commercially unworkable – a business obtains a blanket license from the relevant society and is covered for a defined category of uses. This reduces transaction costs dramatically and brings more uses within the bounds of legal compliance.

For creators, the society acts as both an administrator and an enforcer. It gives them access to collective legal strength, organized distribution systems, and the credibility to participate in international royalty arrangements.

India’s creative economy – its film industry, its music ecosystem, its vast publishing sector – depends on a functioning collective management infrastructure. As digital platforms multiply the ways in which content is used and monetized, the role of copyright societies will only become more central. The challenge ahead lies in ensuring these institutions remain transparent, efficient, and genuinely aligned with the interests of the creators they are meant to serve.

What do you think? Given that both IPRS and PPL have stepped outside the copyright society framework while continuing to collect royalties, does the current legal structure adequately protect the interests of individual creators like lyricists and composers? And as streaming platforms increasingly dominate music and film consumption, should India’s copyright society framework be reformed to specifically address digital licensing?

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1186979/
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1011670/
3. https://chambers.com/articles/evolution-and-functioning-of-copyright-societies-in-india
4. https://thelawcommunicants.com/copyright-societies-in-india/
5. https://lawbhoomi.com/copyright-societies/
6. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/463106/copyright-society-under-the-copyright-act-1957
7. https://www.jusip.in/emerging-challenges-reforms-copyright-societies-cinematographic-films-analysis/
8. https://www.company360.in/blog/enforcement-of-copyright-laws-through-copyright-societies
9. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=211c72d0-8cad-45f6-bdae-4de5a02240df
10. https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2017/08/26/legitimacy-of-iprs-and-ppl