Calcutta High Court has upheld the rights of authors under the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) to royalties for commercial exploitation of their musical and literary works in ringtones and caller tunes.
In Vodafone Idea v The Indian Performing Right Society (2026) case, the court heard clubbed appeals seeking an injunction against telecoms service provider Vodafone Idea for violation of copyrighted material.
Saregama, a music production company, was seeking an injunction to protect its sound recordings and other copyrighted works from copyright infringement by Vodafone through its value-added services (VAS) where it allows subscribers to play sound recordings for caller tunes and ringtones on payment of fees.
The IPRS, a government authorised copyright society for music creators, was seeking an injunction to stop Vodafone from allowing public performance or communication of IPRS’ musical and literary works without payment of royalties. The IPRS also sought logs, data and related information on content being exploited by Vodafone.
Vodafone argued that it had an agreement for such usage with Saregama, and the IPRS and Saregama must resolve the matter between them.
Relying on the decision in IPRS v Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (1977), Vodafone argued that the IPRS did not have any rights over the musical and literary works. It also argued that the producer was the owner of a sound recording, which included musical and literary works embodied.
Therefore, when a licence has been granted for exploitation of the sound recording, a separate licence is not required for the musical or literary works. Vodafone also contended that royalties to the creators of musical and literary works embodied in a sound recording would arise only when such works were used independent of the sound recording.
The IPRS argued that the core issue was whether Vodafone had the licence to commercially exploit the underlying content of sound recordings, which it did not.
The IPRS also argued that the agreement for such exploitation relied on by Vodafone was of unspecified duration and according to other documents produced, did not continue after 30 March 2019. The IPRS also relied on ancillary contracts between Saregama and Vodafone. These contracts stated that Vodafone may be required to seek a licence from the IPRS and it should be Vodafone’s responsibility to do so when required.
The IPRS also relied on Saregama’s submissions that Vodafone’s obligation to the society was independent of the telecoms provider’s obligation to Saregama and it had not assigned the underlying works.
It was also brought to the court’s notice that Saregama did not have rights to the underlying musical and literary works of the IPRS as they had already been assigned to the society prior to the agreement between Saregama and Vodafone. The IPRS also argued that Saregama had restricted the rights to sound recordings only.
The IPRS relied on Bombay High Court’s decision in IPRS v Rajasthan Patrika (2023), to argue that Vodafone is required to obtain a licence from the IPRS.
Saregama argued that its claims against Vodafone had been settled and the telecoms provider was not required to pay any amount to IPRS.
The court observed that authors of underlying literary and musical works, embodied in a sound recording, are entitled to royalties and other considerations, when the sound recording is commercially exploited, except when it is a part of a film being shown in a cinema.
The court said producers could exhibit their films in a cinema, including the sound recording containing literary and musical works of authors, and did not have to pay royalties and other considerations if the authors were engaged for this purpose.
However, any other use of the literary and musical works would attract the liability of paying\royalties to the authors.
