The Calcutta High Court issued a stay on a ruling against Vodafone Idea regarding royalty payments for caller tunes. Vodafone Idea had appealed a May 17 decision that required them to obtain a license from the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) to use copyrighted music in caller tunes. The stay provides temporary relief to Vodafone Idea while the appeal is considered.
Calcutta: The Calcutta High Court issued a stay on a key directive from a May 17 judgment against Vodafone Idea (VI). The previous judgment restrained VI from using copyrighted music in caller tunes unless the company obtained a license from the India Performing Rights Society (IPRS) and paid royalties to it.
This stay issued by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprised of Justices IP Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury. The stay will remain in effect until June 24, or until further orders from the court, whichever comes first.
Read Also: Calcutta HC Rejects PIL on Mandatory Class XII for Muslim Girls Before Marriage
The stay was granted in response to an appeal filed by VI against the previous judgment. This effectively suspends the requirement for VI to obtain a license from IPRS and pay royalties for using copyrighted music in its caller tunes, at least until the court issues further orders on the matter.
The stay order issued on May 22 Stated,
“Temporarily suspends the injunction stated in paragraph 32(iv) on page 29 of the judgment dated May 17, 2024, until June 24, 2024, or until further notice, whichever comes earlier.”
It’s worth noting that in the May 17 judgment, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur highlighted that following the amendments to the Copyright Act in 2012, authors of literary or musical works entitled to receive royalties each time their work is communicated to the public.
The judge clarified,
“The underlying principle behind this, emphasizing that creative works should rightfully belong to the authors, and authors should receive a portion of the proceeds from all future commercial exploitation of their work, with the exception of cinema halls.”
The Court emphasized the significance of safeguarding authors of original works or individuals with limited bargaining power from being coerced into relinquishing their rights.
The Court highlighted,
“In this regard, ‘copyright is not simply viewed as a financial instrument or a property entitlement but rather as akin to an extension of the author’s identity, a provision for their advantage and that of their successors,”
The amended law aims to prevent the unlawful commercial exploitation of original works without obtaining a license from the IPRS (Indian Performing Right Society) and paying the required royalties. The court also noted that authors, now prohibited from renouncing their rights to royalties for the exploitation of their works in any form other than cinematographic films shown in cinemas.
The current dispute arose from a single-judge ruling that, challenged on appeal by Vodafone Idea (VI). The ruling delivered while dealing with three separate lawsuits filed by VI, Saregama India, and the IPRS.
The core issue pertained to the Value Added Services (VAS) provided by VI through its Caller Ring Back Tone (CRBT) service, which featured music recordings. Some of these recordings owned by Saregama, while others protected by the IPRS, which represents authors, publishers, and musicians.
The IPRS argued that VI needed a separate license and had to pay royalties to use these works. However, VI disagreed, claiming that it only needed permission from Saregama, the owner of the recordings.
The court heard the multiple lawsuits, including those filed by IPRS seeking royalties, Saregama seeking an injunction to prevent VI from using its copyrighted recordings, and VI’s claim that no permission or license required from IPRS for such activities. VI also sought to implead leading music labels like Sony and Tips as additional parties in the case.
On May 17, the Court, presided over by a single judge Bench, concluded that regardless of any agreement assigning certain rights to exploit sound recordings to VI, authors retain their entitlement to claim royalties under the amended law. Furthermore, Saregama deemed ineligible to issue any licenses concerning the musical and literary works contained in the sound recordings to VI, given that Saregama had previously assigned those rights to IPRS in 1993 and reaffirmed the assignment in 2017.
The Court’s conclusion on May 17 asserted,
“Hence, Saregama could not have conferred anything it lacked the rightful authority to grant. No one can transfer a better title than what they possess. Initially, Vodafone and Saregama seem to be collaborating with the underlying motive of undermining IPRS’s rights. Despite Saregama’s membership in IPRS, it has neglected the welfare of the authors of the literary and musical works and has acted in opposition to their interests.”
The appeal filed against the previous judgment scheduled to be heard on June 12.
Read Also: Calcutta HC permits Ram Navami procession in Howrah
The legal team representing Vodafone Idea in this case includes Senior Advocates S.N. Mookherjee and Ratnako Banerjee, along with Advocates Arunabha Deb, Soumabho Ghose, Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Ashika Daga, Samriddha Sen, Ashish Bhan, Kirti Balasubramanian, Aayush Mitruka, and Lisa Mishra.
Saregama India being represented by Advocates Debnath Ghosh and Avijit Dey.
The legal team representing the IPRS (Indian Performing Right Society) includes Senior Advocates Anindya Kumar Mitra and Abhrajit Mitra, along with Advocates Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Himangshu Bagai, Sarosij Dasgupta, R.K. Ganguly, Susrea Mitra, and S. Biswas.
Read Judgement: [Vodafone Idea Limited vs Saregama India Limited.]
Read Order