Maharashtra National Law University Mumbai: Submitted By-Ayaskanta Parida Enr. No.-2017012
Maharashtra National Law University Mumbai: Submitted By-Ayaskanta Parida Enr. No.-2017012
Maharashtra National Law University Mumbai: Submitted By-Ayaskanta Parida Enr. No.-2017012
SIXTH SEMESTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................3
NEED FOR LICENSING.....................................................................................................................3
COMPULSORY LICENSING IN INDIA...........................................................................................4
BASIS OF GRANT OF COPYRIGHT................................................................................................5
COMPULSORY LICENCE IN WORKS WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC........................................5
COMPULSORY LICENCE IN UNPUBLISHED INDIAN WORKS...................................................6
LICENSE TO PRODUCE AND PUBLISH TRANSLATIONS IN ANY LANGUAGE......................7
LICENSE TO PRODUCE AND PUBLISH WORK AT A REASONABLE PRICE.......................8
SHORTCOMINGS OF THE STATUTORY LICENSING IN INDIA..............................................9
CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................10
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................11
2|Page
INTRODUCTION
Meeting of points are, in effect, what copyright licensing is all about. A Miltonic definition is
required between liberty and justice.1
Copyright is a bundle of right. A copyrighted work may be used in numerous ways. So, for these
different uses there is a need of different licenses for such uses. For example, a picture of a
flower can be used on a bed sheet, on a mug or even on a notebook. The owner of the copyright
has the right to restrict the use only on bed sheets and not mugs or notebooks by way of
licensing. Copyright license is an undertaking by the owner of the copyright that the licensee
may exploit the copyright work without fear of infringement.
Licensing is the most important activity that will take place in the life of copyright. The concept
of ‘copyright license’ brings to the mind the association with activities like book publishing, film
making, and music recordings etc. Such activities largely depend on copyright licensing which
have become highly specialized.
1
John Davies, “Publishers and copyright licensing”, Interlending and document supply 60, Vol.27 Iss: 2 (1990)
3|Page
or for the reduction in the litigation and negotiation the concept of non- voluntarily license has
been introduced. Earlier it was just compulsory licensing now it is extended to the statutory
licensing as well.
Under the Copyright act 1957 section 31C deals with the statutory licensing to make cover
versions and rules 23 -28 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 talks about the procedure which need to
be followed to get the license. The recording can only be made after the expiration of the year
after the publication of the copyrighted original work and for the person should need to disclose
his intention to produce the same in a prescribed manner, copies are supposed to be provided and
the royalty which is fixed by the copyright board need to be paid in advance and the royalty for
the minimum of 50,000 copies are need to be pay during each calendar year.
Section 31D2 provides for statutory licensing with regard to the broadcasting of the literary,
musical work and sound recording and Copyright Rules, 2013 (rules 29-31) has been disclosed
the procedure by which one can get the statutory license. It gives the right to the broadcasters. If
any institution or organization wants to broadcast a work which might include sound recording
can do the same but for that they are required to give the prior notice to the owner and need to
pay royalty in advance which is fixed according to the copyright board. The announcement of the
2
Copyright Act, 1957
4|Page
performers or authors name shall be done during the broadcasting. Records and book of account
need to be maintained and shall be presented to the owner when required.
A fee may be charged by the copyright board for granting compulsory license.
The copyright board may not grant the license Suo moto; it is on the basis of a complaint
application by an interested person.
The work is withheld because the owner has refused to republish or allow to
republication of the work, or the owner of the work has refused to allow the performance
in the public; or
The owner has refused to allow communication to the public by broadcast of such work
or in the case of sound recording, the work recorded in such sound recording, on terms
which the complainant considers unreasonable
3
Section 2(l) Copyright Act 1957
5|Page
After giving the owner a reasonable opportunity of being heard; and
May direct the registrar of copyright to grant a compulsory license to the complainant to
republish the work, perform the work in public or communicate the work to public by broadcast,
subject to payment to the owner of the copyright such compensation and subject to such other
terms the copyright board may decide.4
It is possible that two or more persons make a complaint and apply for the compulsory license
for the same right in a work under section 31. The reading of section 31(2):
Where two or more persons have made a complaint under sub-section (1), the license shall be
granted to the complainant who in the opinion of the copyright board would best serve the
interest of the general public.
Suggests that a compulsory license may only be granted to one person, the basis of selection
being public interest.
Though copyright board cannot take a suo moto action to issue compulsory licences under
section 31 of the act, it is nevertheless a watchdog of public interest- for it is under obligation to
select that complainant who would serve best for public interest. Therefore, the orientation of
section 31 is the furtherance of public interest5
Before making such application, the applicant shall publish his proposal in one issue of a daily
newspaper in English language having circulation in major parts of the country.7
4
Section 31(1) copyright act 1957
5
Tina Hart, Simon Clark & Linda Fazzani, Intellectual property law (2013)
6
Section 31A (1), copyright act 1957
7
Section 31A (2), Copyright Act, 1957
6|Page
Where any such application is made under section 31A, the board may, after holding such
inquiry as necessary, direct the registrar to grant a licence to publish the work or to make a
translation subject to the payment of such royalty and subject to such other terms and condition
the Board may determine.8 Such royalty must be deposited by the registrar to the public account
of India or any other account the board may decide so as to enable the untraceable owner or his
heirs to claim such royalty at any time.9
1. The application should be filed after a period of seven years, three years or one year as
the case maybe, from the first publication.
2. A translation of the work has not been published by the author or any person authorised
by him in the last 7, 3 or 1 year as the case maybe, or if a translation has been published it
is out of print now.
3. The applicant had requested and denied authorisation by the owner to produce and
publish such translation, or the applicant after due diligence was unable to fund the
original owner.
4. Where the owner is untraceable and the applicant has sent his request via registered air
mail post to the publisher not less than 2 months before such application is filed
5. A period of six or nine months has elapsed from the date of making the request or from
the date of sending the request.
8
Section 31A (3), Copyright Act, 1957
9
Section 31A (4), Copyright Act, 1957
10
Section 32, Copyright Act, 1957
7|Page
6. The Applicant is competent to publish a translation of the work and has the means to pay
the royalty fixed by the board
1. Where copies are not available in India or where the work has not been put on sale in
India after expiry of prescribed time periods.
2. The application must be for reproduction and publication of work in printed analogous
form at a price at which such edition is sold or at a lower price.
3. The application must be done in a prescribed form and must state the proposed retail
price of the copy.
4. The applicant along with application must deposit the prescribed fee.
6. The applicant should pay to the owner, royalties in respect of copies sold at a rate
determined byte board.
7. The license granted will not extend to the export of such copies.
11
Section 32A, Copyright Act, 1957
8|Page
SHORTCOMINGS OF THE STATUTORY LICENSING IN INDIA
According to the new amended law two specific sections 31C and 31D has been added which
attracts a lot of attention due to some shortcomings under the law. These two sections have been
specifically added to look over the matter of “licensing”. But instead of solving the existing
problem, the new amendment raises the eyebrows of many. There are still few problematic areas
which has not been addressed, few of them has been discussed below –
To decide the royalty rates, the power has been given to company board, but on what principles
the board will decide the royalties for statutory licensing has not been discussed. This will
definitely reduce the expensive and lengthy conversation, negotiation or litigation with the
copyright society or the rights owner. But still from a sensible point of view there should be
some criteria which need to look over while deciding the royalties for statutory licensing. Will it
be according to the nature of the work, according to the different territorial basis or suggestion
from the stakeholders will be invited to decide the same. Broadcaster will be more in the favour
of the copyright board then the tariff scheme after the amendment as it gives more power to the
copyright board, by not letting the parties to negotiate which in result neglecting the rights of the
rights owner. Further to challenge the rate fixed by the board for statutory licensing, no
procedure is expressly mentioned under the amended Act. Another problem which has been
faced by the Community Radio Rules stations in India is that there are different kinds of
broadcasters are active but neither in Copyright Amendment Act,2012 nor in Copyrights Rules
the distinction is mentioned. Which is becoming very crucial in present situation? There are
basically two kinds of stations - Corporate owned FM radio stations and Community radio
stations. Both work differently. No express distinction has been made between the commercial
radio broadcasters and the community radio broadcasters. They both have different functions and
motive behind broadcasting. Corporate owned station or commercial radio are basically profit
oriented and the business is depending upon the paid programs and advertisement. Whereas the
community radio stations are different in both ways, in terms of purpose and operating sense and
provided only to non-profit legal entities such as Krishi Vigyan Kendra’s and educational
institutions. The content is basically development. These stations normally struggle for financial
sustainability and depend upon small donations from the state, communities and specific
agencies. But this is not the same case with the commercial radio stations. There are also
complaints regarding the insufficient compensation/royalty provided to the copyright owner in
9|Page
exchange of their copyright work. The rights of the copyright owners have been denied. The
term “exclusive right” which is the basis of the Copyright Act has lost its significance.
CONCLUSION
As the music industry faces declining profits, the dispute between radio stations and music
companies relating to royalties is yet to see a final outcome. With multiple appeals pending in
this regard, there is a need for the legislature to ensure that the Copyright Board is constituted as
per certain minimum legal standards, so that the questions on its integrity come to rest. This is
essential as the dispute has continued for almost a decade now, and its conclusion will have
impact on a large number of interests in the industry, as well as the general public.
The growth of such statutory tribunals in India has been sporadic, and devoid of a uniform
pattern. The decisions given by these tribunals as well as their constitutional validity have been
questioned in a number of cases. This has led to doubts being raised about the transparency in
their working as well as fairness in the approach adopted by these tribunals. The method of
appointment of the members as well as the structure of the tribunals has been struck down by the
Courts from time to time. However, efforts must be made to regularise the procedures,
compositions, and review/ appeal of decisions of tribunals. The qualifications for the
membership for these tribunals must be laid down so as to ensure their independence from the
executive.
10 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Tina Hart, Simon Clark & Linda Fazzani, Intellectual property law (2013)
India Law Journal. Accessed April 6,2020
https://www.indialawjournal.org/archives/volume5/issue_4/article4.html.
Deepika Zaveria, Intellectual property rights and statutory licensing in India – critical
analysis.
Ramman Mittal, Licensing Intellectual Property: Law & Management
John Davies, “Publishers and copyright licensing”, Interlending and document supply 60,
Vol.27 Iss: 2 (1990)
Indian Copyright Act,1957.
11 | P a g e