Administration of Copyright Rights in Sound Recordings: Procedures and Practices

Every time you buy an album, stream a song, or hear music playing at a restaurant, a complex web of rights and administrative processes is at work behind the scenes. For sound recordings specifically, the question isn’t just who owns the copyright – it’s about how those rights are managed, enforced, and monetised in practice. Under Indian law, the administration of copyright in sound recordings involves automatic protection, mandatory labelling requirements, collective licensing through copyright societies, and a carefully constructed compulsory licensing system. Each of these elements shapes how producers, artists, and users interact with recorded music every day.

Copyright in sound recordings arises automatically 🔗

One of the most important features of copyright in India – and globally – is that it requires no formalities to exist. The moment a sound recording is created, copyright protection attaches to it automatically by operation of law. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, sound recordings are among the categories of works that receive protection under Section 13, alongside literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, as well as cinematograph films. There is no requirement to register the work, affix a copyright symbol, or complete any administrative procedure for the copyright to be valid and enforceable.

This automatic nature is rooted in the same principle as all copyright law: the Act protects the expression of creativity, not the idea behind it. The producer of a sound recording – the person who takes the financial and creative initiative to make the recording – is typically the first owner of copyright in that recording. The term of protection for a published sound recording is sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year of publication, after which the recording enters the public domain.

That said, while registration is not mandatory, it is advisable. The Copyright Office of India maintains a Register of Copyrights, and an entry in this register serves as prima facie evidence of the particulars recorded therein. This can be invaluable in disputes over ownership or first publication.

Mandatory information on published sound recordings: Section 52A 🔗

Although copyright arises without formality, the law does impose specific disclosure obligations once a sound recording is published. Section 52A of the Copyright Act, 1957, introduced by amendment in 1984, mandates that no person shall publish a sound recording in respect of any work unless the following particulars are displayed on the sound recording and on any container thereof:

• The name and address of the person who made the sound recording (i.e., the producer);
• The name and address of the owner of the copyright in such work; and
• The year of its first publication.

These requirements apply to both the physical medium (such as a CD or vinyl record) and its packaging or container. The law treats these details as non-negotiable disclosures that protect consumers from confusion and help enforce rights against unauthorised copying. Violating Section 52A is not a minor lapse – Section 68A of the Act makes it a criminal offence, punishable with imprisonment extending up to three years along with a fine.

It is worth noting the distinction between the “person who made the sound recording” and the “owner of the copyright.” These can be different entities – for instance, when a producer assigns copyright to a record label through an assignment deed under Section 18. In such cases, both names must appear on the label. This disclosure requirement reflects the legislature’s intent to maintain transparency in the chain of ownership, which becomes crucial when third parties seek licences or when infringement disputes arise.

The role of copyright societies in rights administration 🔗

Managing copyright individually – tracking who is playing your sound recording, where, and for how long – is practically impossible for a single producer or record label. This is why copyright societies (also called collective management organisations or CMOs) play a central role in the practical administration of sound recording rights in India.

Chapter VII of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Sections 33-36A) deals extensively with copyright societies. Under Section 33, any person or association of persons carrying on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of copyrighted works must be registered as a copyright society. A registered copyright society can issue licences, collect licence fees, and distribute the proceeds to rights owners after deducting administrative expenses.

Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL India) 🔗

Phonographic Performance Limited India (PPL India), founded in 1941, is the oldest and most prominent performance rights organisation for sound recordings in India. It licenses sound recordings for public performance and radio broadcast on behalf of its member record labels. PPL represents major labels including T-Series, Sony Music, Universal Music, Saregama, Warner Music India, and many more – collectively covering over 70 lakh international and domestic sound recordings across genres from Bollywood to classical.

PPL’s licensing model is straightforward: any commercial establishment that plays recorded music publicly – hotels, restaurants, malls, airlines, radio stations – must obtain a licence from PPL. The licence fees collected are then distributed to the member labels in proportion to actual usage of their recordings.

The registration controversy: a case study in legal compliance 🔗

PPL India’s legal standing as a licensing body has, however, been the subject of significant judicial scrutiny. In the landmark case of Azure Hospitality Private Limited v. Phonographic Performance Limited (2025:DHC:2561-DB), the Delhi High Court ruled that PPL cannot issue or grant licences for sound recordings in its repertoire without being registered as a copyright society or becoming a member of one. The Division Bench held that PPL’s systematic granting of licences for public performance of sound recordings squarely fell within “carrying on business” under Section 33(1), making registration mandatory.

This ruling has far-reaching implications. Between 1996 and 2014, PPL was registered as a copyright society. After the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 required re-registration, PPL’s application was rejected. Following that, Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL) was registered as a copyright society under Section 33(3) specifically for sound recording works in 2021. The Delhi High Court, in the Azure case, directed that payments to PPL be calculated based on RMPL’s tariff – a practical workaround pending resolution of PPL’s registration status. This case illustrates that even the largest players in the music industry cannot sidestep the statutory requirements governing rights administration.

IPRS and the layered licensing system 🔗

An important practical point for anyone seeking to use commercially recorded music publicly is that obtaining a licence from a sound recording rights organisation like PPL is not enough on its own. As the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) clarifies, when a song is played, two distinct sets of rights come into use: the rights in the sound recording itself and the rights in the underlying musical and literary works (the composition and the lyrics). A separate licence must be obtained from IPRS for the musical and literary works. These are independent rights and independent licences – using music publicly without both licences in place constitutes infringement.

IPRS is registered under Section 33 as a copyright society specifically for musical works and literary works associated with musical works. It represents composers, lyricists, and publishers. So a hotel playing Bollywood music, for instance, must obtain a licence from the sound recording rights holder (currently RMPL or equivalent) and separately from IPRS – both are mandatory.

Compulsory licensing for sound recordings 🔗

Not all licences in the sound recording world are voluntary or negotiated between parties. The Copyright Act provides for compulsory licensing in certain defined circumstances – situations where the law steps in to override the copyright owner’s refusal to grant a licence.

Statutory licence for cover versions (Section 52(1)(j)) 🔗

One significant compulsory licensing provision relevant to sound recordings is the cover version mechanism under Section 52(1)(j) of the Act. Once a sound recording of a literary or musical work has been made with the owner’s consent, any other person may make a new sound recording of the same work – a “cover version” – without the original copyright holder’s permission, subject to strict conditions:

• Prior notice must be given to the owner in the prescribed manner.
• Copies of all covers and labels must be provided in advance.
• Royalties must be paid in advance at rates fixed by the Appellate Board.
• The cover version may not be made until five calendar years have elapsed since the year in which the first sound recording of the work was made.
• The packaging must clearly state that it is a cover version and must not feature the name or likeness of any performer from the original recording.
• Royalty is payable on a minimum of fifty thousand copies per work per calendar year.

This mechanism ensures that once a musical work enters the broader musical ecosystem, other producers can record it – but without exploiting the goodwill of the original. Importantly, the producer using this provision must also maintain detailed registers and books of account that the original rights owner can inspect. If the Appellate Board is satisfied that the rights owner has not been paid in full, it can issue an ex parte order directing the cover version producer to cease making further copies.

Compulsory licensing for withheld works (Section 31) 🔗

Section 31 of the Copyright Act addresses the scenario where a copyright owner unreasonably withholds a work from the public – by refusing to republish, allow public performance, or permit broadcasting of a sound recording on reasonable terms. In such cases, any person can file a complaint before the Copyright Board (now Appellate Board), which may, after hearing the owner and conducting an inquiry, direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant a compulsory licence on terms it considers reasonable. This provision prevents copyright from being used as a tool to suppress access to creative works that the public has a legitimate interest in.

Statutory licence for broadcasting (Section 31D) 🔗

Any broadcasting organisation – radio or television – that wishes to broadcast a literary or musical work or a sound recording may do so by giving prior notice and paying royalties at rates fixed by the Appellate Board. This statutory licence under Section 31D ensures that broadcasters are not entirely at the mercy of individual rights holders for licences, while ensuring creators receive fair compensation. The rates are determined by the Appellate Board after considering submissions from all stakeholders.

Why proper administration matters 🔗

The entire framework of copyright administration – from mandatory labelling to copyright societies to compulsory licensing – exists to solve a fundamental problem: creative works are infinitely reproducible, and their economic value depends on controlling that reproduction. Without proper administration, producers cannot realise royalties, artists cannot receive their share, and users have no clear pathway to legitimately access music.

The 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act brought an important protection for authors: lyricists and composers who contribute to sound recordings cannot assign or waive their right to receive royalties except in favour of their legal heirs or a registered collecting society. Any such assignment to other parties is void. This means that even when a producer holds copyright in a sound recording through assignment, the underlying authors retain an inalienable economic stake in its commercial exploitation – a direct recognition of the power imbalance between individual creators and large commercial entities.

For producers, labels, and users alike, understanding these administrative processes is not optional. It is the difference between lawful use and infringement, between enforceable rights and worthless claims.

What do you think? Given the Delhi High Court’s ruling that PPL cannot issue licences without being registered as a copyright society, how should the law balance the practical efficiency of collective licensing with the regulatory requirements of formal registration? And with the layered licensing system requiring separate licences for sound recordings and underlying works, is the current framework practical enough for small businesses and event organisers who simply want to play music legally?

References

1. https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copyright_Act_1957.pdf
2. https://copyright.gov.in/documents/handbook.html
3. https://lawgist.in/copyright-act/52A
4. https://kanoongpt.in/bare-acts/the-copyright-act-1957/chapter-xiii-section-68a-5392525d5db7ffad
5. https://www.pplindia.org/about
6. https://trademarklawyermagazine.com/phonographic-performance-limited-stumbles-in-a-music-licensing-dispute/
7. https://iprs.org/all-about-licensing/
8. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15814