Navigating Through Copyright Licences: Types and Implications

When a musician allows a streaming platform to use their song, or a publisher lets a regional press print a translated edition of a book, they are not giving away their copyright – they are granting a licence. A copyright licence is one of the most practical tools in intellectual property law. It lets rights holders monetise their creative work while retaining ownership, and it lets third parties legally use that work within agreed boundaries. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, the licensing framework in India is detailed, structured, and significant – both for creators and for anyone who wishes to use protected works.

What is a copyright licence? 🔗

A copyright licence is a permission granted by the copyright owner to another person, allowing that person to do something which would otherwise constitute infringement. The critical point is that a licence does not transfer ownership of the copyright. The original owner remains the copyright holder; they are simply authorising the licensee to exercise certain rights for a defined period, territory, or purpose.

Section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is the governing provision for voluntary licences. It states that the owner of copyright in any existing work, or the prospective owner of copyright in any future work, may grant any interest in the right by licence in writing, signed by him or by his duly authorised agent. If a licence is granted for a future work, it takes effect only once that work comes into existence.

Like an assignment deed, a licence agreement must be in writing. However, unlike an assignment, a licence agreement does not require the licensee’s signature – only the licensor’s. Section 30A makes it clear that the provisions of Section 19 – which govern the terms and conditions of assignments – apply to licences as well, with necessary modifications. So a licence deed should ideally specify the work covered, the rights granted, the territory, the duration, and any royalties payable.

Voluntary licences: when the owner chooses to share 🔗

A voluntary licence is one that the copyright owner grants of their own free will. There is no compulsion from any authority; the owner decides whom to licence, on what terms, and for how long. This is the most common form of licensing in practice – it underlies film distribution deals, music streaming agreements, software end-user licences, and publishing contracts across India.

Within voluntary licences, the law recognises several sub-types based on the scope of exclusivity granted.

Exclusive licences 🔗

Section 2(j) of the Copyright Act defines an exclusive licence as one which confers on the licensee – and on persons authorised by the licensee – any right comprised in the copyright, to the exclusion of all other persons, including the copyright owner themselves. This is a significant grant. When an exclusive licence is given, the owner effectively steps aside for the duration of that licence with respect to those particular rights. For example, if a novelist grants an exclusive licence to a Hindi publisher to translate and publish her book in Hindi for five years across India, neither the novelist nor anyone else can authorise another Hindi translation during that period.

Importantly, an exclusive licensee has standing to take legal action against infringers – a right not typically available to a non-exclusive licensee.

Non-exclusive licences 🔗

A non-exclusive licence grants permission to the licensee without restricting the owner from granting the same rights to others. The owner can continue exploiting the work and can issue similar licences to multiple parties simultaneously. This is common in the music industry, where a copyright owner may licence the same track to several production houses for use in different films or advertisements. The copyright may be licensed to more than one person non-exclusively, and the owner retains full ownership throughout.

Co-exclusive and sole licences 🔗

Beyond the two primary categories, practice has developed two further variations. A co-exclusive licence is granted to more than one licensee, but the licensor agrees to limit the total number of licensees – for instance, agreeing to licence only to three specific publishers and no one else. A sole licence means that only the licensor and the single licensee can use the work; no other third party can be granted rights, but the owner retains the right to use the work themselves. These distinctions matter when negotiating commercial agreements and drafting licence terms precisely.

Implied licences 🔗

An implied licence arises not from an express agreement but from the conduct of the copyright owner. If the owner was aware that someone was using their work and chose not to object, courts may infer that permission was given. Implied licences are fact-specific and their scope is limited – they should not be relied upon as a substitute for a proper written licence agreement.

Compulsory and statutory licences: when the law steps in 🔗

Not every licence originates from the copyright owner’s voluntary choice. Sometimes, the law permits – or even directs – the grant of a licence even when the owner objects. These are compulsory licences and statutory licences, and they represent the law’s effort to balance private copyright interests against the public good.

Compulsory licences 🔗

A compulsory licence is granted by the Appellate Board (formerly the Copyright Board) under specific circumstances defined in the Act. The key situations where compulsory licences apply under the Copyright Act, 1957 include:

Works withheld from the public (Section 31): If a copyright owner refuses to republish a work, or refuses to allow its public performance or broadcast, and this withholding is without reasonable grounds, any person may complain to the Appellate Board, which can then direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant a compulsory licence.

Unpublished or published works with untraceable owners (Section 31A): Where a work is withheld from the public in India because the author is dead, unknown, or cannot be traced, and the copyright owner cannot be found, any person may apply to the Appellate Board for a licence to publish or communicate the work to the public.

Licences for persons with disabilities (Section 31B): Any person working for the benefit of persons with disabilities may apply to the Appellate Board for a compulsory licence to publish any copyrighted work in formats accessible to the disabled – for instance, Braille or audio formats.

Translation licences (Section 32): A person may apply for a compulsory licence to translate and publish a literary or dramatic work in any Indian language for purposes of teaching, scholarship, or research, after the expiration of a specified period from first publication. These licences are not exclusive and require royalty payments to the original copyright owner.

Reproduction for education (Section 32A): Similarly, a person may apply for a licence to reproduce and publish a literary, scientific, or artistic work for use in systematic instructional activities, once the conditions set out in this section are met.

In the landmark case of Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (2008), the Supreme Court held that compulsory licences under the Act can be granted to more than one licensee – the Appellate Board must examine whether, in light of the facts, granting a licence to multiple parties is warranted.

Statutory licences 🔗

Statutory licences differ from compulsory licences in an important way: they do not require an examination into the copyright owner’s conduct. Statutory licences attempt a wholesale grant of permission once the work falls within a broader class of works eligible for such licensing, regardless of whether the owner has been unreasonable. The Copyright Act currently provides two categories of statutory licences:

Cover version recording licences (Section 31C): Any person who wishes to make a cover version of a sound recording (where the original work has already been recorded with the copyright owner’s consent) can do so by following the prescribed procedure and paying royalties, without needing the copyright owner’s fresh permission.

Broadcasting licences (Section 31D): Added by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, this provision allows any broadcasting organisation to communicate a published literary or musical work and sound recordings to the public by way of broadcast, subject to paying royalties at rates fixed by the Appellate Board.

Key terms in a licence agreement 🔗

Because Section 30A applies the requirements of Section 19 to licences (with adaptations), a well-drafted licence agreement under Indian copyright law should address the following:

The work: The specific work being licensed must be clearly identified. Rights granted: The exact acts the licensee is permitted to perform – reproduction, distribution, translation, broadcast, etc. – must be specified. Territory: The geographical area in which the licence operates. If the territory is not specified, it is presumed to be restricted to India only. Duration: The period for which the licence is valid. If not stated, the term is presumed to be five years. Royalty: The consideration payable to the licensor. Termination, revision, and extension clauses: The conditions under which the licence may be modified or ended.

Licence vs. assignment: a fundamental distinction 🔗

The terms “licence” and “assignment” are sometimes confused but they are legally distinct and not interchangeable. An assignment transfers an interest in and deals with the copyright itself, whereas a licence does not convey the copyright but merely offers permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal.

The table below summarises the core differences:

Ownership: In an assignment, copyright ownership passes to the assignee. In a licence, the licensor retains ownership throughout.
Nature of transfer: Assignment is generally a permanent or long-term transfer. A licence is temporary and purpose-specific.
Sub-licensing: An assignee, as the new owner, can deal with the copyright further. A licensee generally cannot sub-licence without the copyright owner’s express consent.
Revocability: A licence can typically be revoked under conditions agreed upon by the parties, or where the law permits. An assignment, once made, cannot ordinarily be reversed except through specific legal provisions.
Signature requirement: An assignment must be signed by the assignor. A licence must be in writing and signed by the licensor, but the licensee’s signature is not mandatory.

Licensing involves temporarily transferring some of the exclusive rights to a licensee, while assignment involves a permanent transfer. This is why, in practice, copyright owners who wish to retain long-term control over their work – and who want to be able to re-enter the market once a licence expires – prefer the licensing route over assignment.

Can a licensee sub-licence the rights? 🔗

This is a practically important question. As a general rule, a licensee cannot sub-licence or further assign the licence to a third party without the express written consent of the copyright owner. The licence is a personal permission – it flows from the owner’s trust in and choice of a specific party. Allowing the licensee to unilaterally pass on those rights to someone the owner has never agreed to deal with would undermine that relationship. This also reinforces why a licence does not operate as a transfer of ownership: the licensee holds no proprietary interest that they can freely pass on.

Licences for future works 🔗

One nuance worth noting is that a licence can be granted not only for existing works but also for future works. In that case, the licence takes effect only when the work comes into existence. Further, if the licensee of a future work dies before that work comes into existence, their legal representatives are entitled to the benefit of the licence – unless the agreement provides otherwise. This makes copyright licensing a forward-looking tool, useful in the creative industries where works are often commissioned or developed over time.

Practical significance of the licensing framework 🔗

The licensing framework under Indian copyright law is what makes the creative economy function. Film producers licence music from composers, publishers licence translation rights to regional presses, software companies licence their code to end-users, and broadcasters licence content from content owners – all under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. The compulsory and statutory licensing provisions ensure that private copyright interests do not become a barrier to public access to knowledge, education, or culture. At the same time, the voluntary licensing framework respects the autonomy of creators to choose how, and with whom, they share their work.

What do you think? If a copyright owner grants an exclusive licence but later finds that the licensee is not actively using the rights – say, a publisher who has licensed a book but never actually prints it – should the law allow the owner to revoke the licence even without a contractual termination clause? And given how easily digital content crosses borders, do you think the default assumption that a licence is restricted to India (when territory is unspecified) still makes practical sense in today’s internet-driven marketplace?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15356/1/the_copyright_act,_1957.pdf
2. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/854828/assignment-and-licensing-of-copyright
3. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ef8e848b-753c-4eb3-a9e6-198564494f23
4. https://lawbhoomi.com/assignment-and-licensing-of-copyrights-under-copyrights-act/
5. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15814
6. https://legitimateindia.com/study-material/law-notes/intellectual-property-rights/assignment-and-licensing-under-copyright/
7. https://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copyrightrules1957.pdf
8. https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/assignment-and-licensing-of-copyrights-14988.asp
9. https://legalwindow.in/licensing-of-copyright/