The show must not go on
A court recently restrained an unregistered copyright society from issuing licences on a late Ghazal singer’s music. Lucy Rana and Tulip De of SS Rana & Co report

In a recent case entitled Chitra Jagjit Singh v the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) and others, the Delhi High Court restrained the IPRS from issuing licences with regard to the musical works of the late Jagjit Singh, a renowned Indian Ghazal singer who passed away in 2011.

A concert was to be organised by Panache Entertainment and the IPRS at the Siri Fort Auditorium in New Delhi on 18 March 2016, in memory of the late and renowned Jagjit Singh. The concert, however, was entitled ‘Ek Ehsaas Jagjit Singh Live in Concert’ and had taglines to the effect that Jagjit Singh “sings again for charity”. The advertisements gave the overall misleading impression that the late singer would be performing live whereas, in reality, extracts from his various live performances were going to be played along with the live band that had played alongside him for more than two decades. Aggrieved by this, the late singer’s widow, Chitra Jagjit Singh, filed the present suit.

The main contentions of Chitra Jagjit Singh were:

The advertisements for the show gave the misleading impression that Jagjit Singh would perform live, whereas the event would be using Jagjit Singh’s voice and images from previous concerts.

The IPRS was not competent to grant licences for the works, in which the plaintiff claims copyright as her own works and the works produced by Jagjit Singh in respect of which she has obtained letters of administration from the Bombay High Court. The attention of the court was drawn to Section 33(1) and Section 33(3A) of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, and also to the letter written by the IPRS to the Indian government in which the copyright society claimed that it was no longer a registered copyright society within the meaning of the act as its registration had lapsed in 2013 and it had failed to get a new registration certificate.

As a result, the IPRS continued to issue licences even though it was no longer a copyright society registered under the Copyright Act.

Further, the plaintiff had not received any royalties from the IPRS or the event organiser for a similar concert previously held in Mumbai, for which the IPRS had collected a fee of INR 49,140 ($740).

Agreeing with the plaintiff, the Delhi High Court restrained the IPRS from granting any licence in respect of the works of the plaintiff and Jagjit Singh, and from recovering any licence fee from any third party in respect of the works. The order was passed ex parte with no representation from the defendants.

Subsequently, following representation from the defendants, the Delhi High Court considered the fact that the show was already booked, tickets were in fact sold out, and it was being held for charity. The Delhi High Court directed the defendants to discontinue their misleading advertisements, and stop using the name and picture of Jagjit Singh, much less portraying him to be “live in concert”. The court also told the event organisers to deposit an amount of INR 500,000 ($7,530) to secure the rights of the plaintiff on or before the date of the concert. The defendants were also directed to not hold any similar concerts in the future without prior permission of the court.

The case is a landmark one in the sense that the court has considered the incompetency of the IPRS in issuing licences and recovering license fees in respect of musical works. It was imperative for this to be clarified, as the 2014 Novex Communications decision of the Bombay High Court had still left some room for unregistered societies, if they could prove that they were acting as an agent, by holding that a ‘duly authorised agent’ under Section 30 of the Copyright Act of 1957 would not be hit by the prohibition under Section 33 of the act.

That provision states that no person or association of persons shall commence or carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of any work in which copyright subsists or in respect of any other rights conferred by the act, except under, or in accordance with, the registration granted under the act.

The ultimate repercussions in the Chitra Jagjit Singh case, with regard to the competency of the IPRS, are yet to be seen.
The latest features from IPPro The Internet
The US has listed Alibaba’s Taobao marketplace on its notorious markets list for the first time in four years. Alibaba’s Matthew Bassiur discusses why these negative feelings might be misdirected
Rights holders that want to protect their valuable intellectual property have to be willing to change
Join Our Newsletter

Sign up today and never
miss the latest news or an issue again

Subscribe now
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are not being used to their full potential, according to IPzen’s Julia Cytrynbaum
India's copyright societies are subject to interim measures that boost transparency. DPS Parmar and Aniruddh Singh of LexOrbis report
Courts are wrestling with the legal definition of users of social networks. Nathalie Dreyfus examines how they have done so far
The BRICS IP Forum and the IP Summit allowed intellectual property professionals to reflect on a topsy-turvy 2016, and hope for a simpler 2017
Experts discuss what brands can do to protect their trademarks online during the Cyber Monday sales, with fakes widely available
TM Cloud’s Practice Guide is the latest addition to a system that can help brands achieve robust protection in a world reliant on brand power
Country profiles
The latest country profiles from IPPro The Internet
While Indian fair use is not explicit, provisions exist for the fair dealing of copyright. Rohit Singh and Tina Canneth of Abu-Ghazeleh Intellectual Property delve deeper
An interpretation of the current events exception in Radosavljević is creative, say BDK Advokati's Bogdan Ivanišević and Marko Popović
IPPro Patents

Visit our sister site
for all the latest IP patents news and analysis
Yu-Li Tsai of Deep & Far examines how damages are calculated in patent infringement litigation
A recent amendment will make costly annulments a thing of the past. Gilberto Sanchez of SPECyF explains
New legislation in Turkey promises a swathe of trademark changes. Dr Cahit Suluk of Cahit Suluk Intellectual Property Law Firm explains
A trademark decision clarified ‘against the public order’ as an absolute ground for refusal. Sár and Partners – Danubia Patent & Law Office reports
Bogdan Ivanišević and Marko Popović of BDK Advokati review the recent squabble about copyright protection for ‘routinely created photos’
Alston & Bird recently expanded with a new office focusing on counselling Chinese companies on US intellectual property law. Yitai Hu explains what patent owners face when working across borders
The latest interviews from IPPro The Internet