{"id":145209,"date":"2025-08-15T19:00:44","date_gmt":"2025-08-15T13:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=145209"},"modified":"2025-08-15T18:48:56","modified_gmt":"2025-08-15T13:18:56","slug":"music-creation-and-copyright-transfers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/music-creation-and-copyright-transfers\/","title":{"rendered":"Music Creation and Copyright Transfers"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the mid-to-late 1980s, music composer and producer Rajesh Jhaveri created and recorded three albums: Aah\u2026Alisha<\/i><\/em> (1987), Babydoll<\/i><\/em> (1988), and Alishaalisha (Kamasutra)<\/i><\/em> (1990). At the time, music was distributed on physical media such as tapes and gramophone records, and copyright assignments to record companies were common industry practice.<\/p>\n

For Aah\u2026Alisha<\/i><\/em>, the copyright assignment was executed on 26 February 1987 between Saregama (then Gramophone Company of India) and a private company where Jhaveri was a director. The agreement transferred \u201call rights including copyright\u201d in the literary and musical works, and, crucially, granted the right to exploit the works \u201cby any and every means whatsoever\u201d worldwide.<\/p>\n

For Babydoll<\/i><\/em> and Alishaalisha<\/i><\/em>, assignments were executed personally by Jhaveri in 1988 and 1990, transferring all copyright and performing rights in consideration of royalty payments.<\/p>\n

Years later, Jhaveri claimed that these agreements were intended only for exploitation in \u201cphysical formats,\u201d and that rights to digital and non-physical formats continued to be held by him. He relied on the fact that the agreements referred to records, tapes, and other physical media, and on the industry context in the 1980s when digital distribution did not exist.<\/p>\n

He also alleged that Saregama had defaulted in paying royalties, and in September 2006, he sent a notice purporting to terminate all agreements. Despite this, according to him, Saregama began exploiting the works online from 2006 onwards.<\/p>\n

In April 2017, Jhaveri filed suit in his personal capacity seeking a declaration that the assignments had been validly revoked and that Saregama had no right to exploit the works, along with an interim injunction to stop further use in any format, particularly on digital platforms.<\/p>\n

Issues for the Court<\/b><\/strong><\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. \n
      \n
    1. \n
        \n
      1. Did the assignment agreements restrict exploitation to physical formats only?<\/li>\n
      2. Could the assignments be terminated for royalty defaults?<\/li>\n
      3. Did Jhaveri have locus standi to sue personally for works assigned by his former company?<\/li>\n
      4. Did delay and acquiescence bar interim relief?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Analysis of\u00a0 Music Copyright Contract Language<\/b><\/strong><\/h2>\n

        The Court started by stating that the definition of \u201crecord\u201d in the 1987 agreement extended beyond then-current media to \u201cany other contrivance or appliance whatever bearing or used for emitting sounds.\u201d In the eyes of the Court, this language was intended to future-proof the assignment, permitting exploitation by any means, physical or digital.<\/p>\n

        The Court stated that these terms were materially similar to those in Rupali P. Shah v. Adani Wilmer Ltd.<\/i><\/em>, where such wording was interpreted as granting unrestricted rights, not confined to physical formats. Based on its interpretation of the contractual language, the Court concluded that the plaintiff\u2019s retention of rights to release albums in non-Indian languages did not limit the scope of rights granted to Saregama.<\/p>\n

        As per the Court, the 1987 agreement was executed by Jhaveri\u2019s company, not him personally, and therefore could not be revoked by him. Even for the agreements executed in his personal capacity, the Court said that royalty defaults\u2014if any\u2014did not result in automatic reversion of rights. Relying on Amteshwar Anand v. Virendra Mohan Singh<\/i><\/em>, the Court held that such defaults only create a money claim.<\/p>\n

        The Court stated that Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act, which limits unspecified assignments to five years, did not apply retrospectively to pre-amendment agreements. It also observed that Saregama\u2019s 2006 letter about paying royalties for non-physical sales reflected an industry practice to formalise revenue-sharing, not an admission of restricted rights.<\/p>\n

        On delay, the Court observed that alleged infringement began in 2006, the suit was filed in 2017, and the interim motion lay dormant for years. In the eyes of the Court, such delay and continued exploitation weighed heavily against granting injunction.<\/p>\n

        Findings & Order<\/b><\/strong><\/h2>\n

        Based on its analysis, the Court held that:<\/p>\n