Understanding the Functions of Copyright Societies in India: From Licensing to Royalty Distribution

If a radio station wants to play your song, or a hotel wants to stream your music in its lobby, how do you – as a creator – ensure you actually get paid? Tracking every single use of your work across the country would be nearly impossible on your own. This is precisely where copyright societies step in. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, these registered bodies collectively manage rights on behalf of authors, composers, and other creators – handling everything from issuing licenses to distributing royalties. Understanding how they function is central to understanding how copyright actually works in practice in India.

What copyright societies are authorised to do 🔗

Before getting into the specifics, it helps to know the legal source of their authority. Section 34 of the Copyright Act empowers a copyright society to accept authorisation from authors and other rights owners to administer any right in any work – either by issuing licenses, collecting license fees, or both. This authorisation must be in writing and is granted for a specified time period. In other words, a society can only administer rights over works that owners have explicitly entrusted to it.

The three core functions that flow from this authorisation are: licensing, fee collection, and royalty distribution. Everything else – tariff schemes, record-keeping, audits – supports and reinforces these three pillars.

Licensing: the gateway function 🔗

The most visible function of a copyright society is issuing licenses to users who want to use copyrighted works. A license from the society grants legal permission to use specific works under defined conditions and for a specified fee. Without this license, the use of copyrighted works – whether playing music publicly, broadcasting a song, or reproducing a literary work – constitutes infringement.

Societies negotiate and issue these licenses on behalf of their members, which means individual creators do not need to enter into separate agreements with every user. Consider the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS), established in 1969. It is the sole authorised body to issue licenses for the use of musical and literary works in India, acting on behalf of composers, lyricists, and music publishers. When a radio station wants to broadcast Bollywood songs, it approaches IPRS – not each individual composer or lyricist – for a license.

Similarly, Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), founded in 1941, handles public performance and broadcast licenses for sound recordings. A hotel that plays background music in its common areas must obtain a license from PPL. The fee is typically calculated based on factors like the hotel’s star rating, seating capacity, and frequency of music use.

Collecting fees: the enforcement backbone 🔗

Issuing a license is only meaningful if the fees attached to it are actually collected. Copyright societies are responsible for collecting licensing fees from all users – broadcasters, streaming platforms, public venues, educational institutions, and others – who have obtained licenses.

This collective approach to fee collection is far more efficient than individual enforcement. A lyricist cannot realistically chase down every radio station, restaurant, or digital platform using their work. A copyright society, with its institutional resources and legal standing, can. Under Section 34 of the Act, societies are also empowered to enter into agreements with foreign organisations administering similar rights – allowing them to collect fees for the use of Indian works abroad and vice versa, without any discrimination between Indian and foreign rights holders.

There is one important limit on fee collection: as per the Copyright Rules, 2013, not more than fifteen percent of the fees collected for distribution purposes can be deducted as administrative costs. This cap directly protects the financial interests of creators by ensuring the bulk of collected fees reaches them.

Distributing royalties: where creators actually benefit 🔗

After collecting fees and deducting permissible administrative expenses, the society distributes the remainder as royalties to copyright owners. This is arguably the most impactful function – it is what makes membership in a copyright society financially meaningful for creators.

The distribution is not arbitrary. It follows a distribution scheme that each society is required to frame. This scheme sets out the procedure for distributing royalties as specified in the tariff scheme, and it applies to members listed in the Register of Authors and Owners. The guiding principle is proportionality: royalties are distributed in proportion to the actual usage of works, so a song that is played more frequently generates higher royalties for its creators.

The Copyright Rules further mandate that royalties must be distributed at least once in a quarter. Societies are also prohibited from making any payment in the nature of a minimum guarantee to members against their share of royalties – payouts must reflect actual usage, not estimated or guaranteed sums. Additionally, when royalties are collected from the licensing of literary or musical works included in a cinematograph film or sound recording, they must be shared equally between the authors of those works and the owners of rights in the film or sound recording, as required under Section 18(1) of the Act.

Tariff schemes: setting the rules for fees 🔗

For the licensing and collection process to work, there must be a clear, pre-determined structure for how much users are charged. This is governed by tariff schemes – documents that set out the fees applicable for different categories of use. Under Sections 36 to 36B of the Copyright Act, copyright societies are required to publish their tariff schemes, making them accessible to potential licensees and ensuring no arbitrary or opaque pricing.

The process involves consulting copyright owners to determine appropriate fee structures, getting the scheme approved through the society’s governing body, publishing the approved scheme, and reviewing it periodically to ensure it remains fair. If a user disputes a tariff, the Copyright Board (now the Intellectual Property Appellate Board) has jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes. This makes the tariff regime not just a pricing tool but also a transparency and accountability mechanism.

Record-keeping and accountability 🔗

To ensure that all of the above functions are carried out transparently, copyright societies are subject to detailed record-keeping obligations. As per the Copyright Rules, 2013, every copyright society must maintain:

A Register of Authors and Owners – listing all members on whose behalf the society is authorised to act. Separate registers for agreements entered into, royalties collected, and disbursements made. These records enable the society to accurately calculate each member’s share of royalties and provide an audit trail for regulatory oversight.

Beyond internal registers, every copyright society must hold an Annual General Body Meeting before the 31st of March each year. Members get to participate in decision-making, review the society’s functioning, and hold the governing board accountable. Following this meeting, the society must file an Annual Return with the Registrar of Copyrights within one month – detailing the date of the meeting, membership attendance, licenses issued, fees collected, and royalties distributed.

Accounts must be audited by a Chartered Accountant annually. This combination of internal governance, regulatory reporting, and external audit is designed to prevent the kind of mismanagement that led to IPRS’s registration being suspended in 2013 – a significant episode that underscored why accountability structures matter.

Collective control: the ownership of the society 🔗

One often-overlooked aspect of how copyright societies function is who controls them. Under Section 35 of the Copyright Act, every copyright society is subject to the collective control of the authors and other owners of rights whose rights it administers. This is not a passive arrangement – authors, in their capacity as copyright owners, must have an active role in governing the society. The renewal of a society’s registration is, in fact, contingent on this shared control being maintained. If the society drifts toward being controlled by publishers or producers at the expense of the original authors, its registration can be refused or cancelled.

This provision reflects a key policy intent behind the 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act: ensuring that the collective administration system genuinely serves creators, not just intermediaries.

The bigger picture 🔗

Taken together, these functions – licensing, fee collection, royalty distribution, tariff setting, record-keeping, and member governance – form an integrated system of collective rights management. No single function works in isolation. Licensing generates the fees; fee collection funds the royalty pool; tariff schemes ensure fair and transparent pricing; record-keeping enables accurate distribution; and collective member control ensures the system serves its intended beneficiaries.

As India’s music, film, and publishing industries continue to expand – and as digital platforms complicate how works are used and tracked – the operational effectiveness of copyright societies becomes ever more critical. Organisations like IPRS and PPL are increasingly grappling with how to monitor usage on streaming platforms and enforce licensing compliance in digital environments. The functional framework, while legally sound, must continually adapt to serve creators in a fast-evolving landscape.

What do you think? Given that royalty distribution is tied to actual usage of works, how should copyright societies handle situations where usage data from digital platforms is incomplete or inaccurate – and who should bear the burden of proving that data? Also, does the fifteen percent cap on administrative deductions seem adequate when societies are expected to also monitor and enforce rights across digital platforms?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1367
2. https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/417/Copyright-Societies.html
3. https://chambers.com/articles/evolution-and-functioning-of-copyright-societies-in-india
4. https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copyright_Societies.pdf
5. https://mytrademarkguide.com/copyright-societies-in-india/
6. https://www.biswajitsarkar.com/blog/role-of-copyright-societies-in-india.html
7. https://www.intepat.com/blog/evolving-role-copyright-societies-india
8. https://www.iprs.org/
9. https://www.pplindiamusic.com/