Copyright Societies And The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012


Copyright Societies are formed to collectively administer the work in order to protect its copyright, these societies are formed and managed by authors and owners of such works. It is not practically possible for every author or owners to keep a track of all the uses of their work. When a person becomes a member of national copyright society, his work is being kept under better vigilance and track of all the uses of his work are kept strictly because of the powers and facilities granted to copyright societies, also, collection of all the royalties for the usage of the work becomes easier. Moreover, our country being a member of the international conventions, the Indian copyright societies have a chance to collaborate with foreign societies and this facilitates the collection of royalties in those countries for usage of the work as well. It is therefore, in the interest of copyright owners to join copyright societies to get maximum economic benefit of their works.

Copyright Societies in India

In India a copyright society is registered under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Such societies are formed by authors and owners and only one society can be registered to do business in respect of the same class of works. Formation of a copyright society requires minimum of seven members.

The business of providing licence for any dramatic, artistic, musical or literary work incorporated in cinematic or sound recording form should be carried out only through a copyright society duly registered under this act. The period for registration granted to a copyright society is five years and it can be renewed bore expiry of this period or at the end of it.

Effect of Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 on Copyright Societies

The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 (2012 Amendment) came into force with the primary objective of establishing an equitable and just framework for administration of copyright and sharing of revenue to protect the rights of owners and authors incorporated in cinematography and audio recordings.

The amendment of 2012 added to the burden with respect to “issuing or granting licence” in respect to the above mentioned works. Previously, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 added Section 33 to the Act which made it mandatory that only copyright societies can grant licence or issue copyright licence. As a part of the 2012 Amendment, section 33(3A) was added, which laid down a new guideline that any copyright society carrying out the business of granting or issuing copyright licence must register itself again within the period of 12 months from the date of the amendment. Therefore, any copyright society which existed prior to the amendment has to re-register itself within the given time frame. Also, there was no punishment prescribed in case any copyright society fails to do so.

Problems with the Amendments in 2012 and 1994

There are always 2 sides of every coin. Though the attempt of government in the amendments was genuine, there are certain ambiguities that jeopardise the interest of non-author owners of a copyright in case of creative works. Section 33 which was inserted by the 1994 Amendment mandated only the copyright societies to carry in the business of “issuing or granting licence” for creative works. But, it does not say anything about the copyrightable work. Also, it has to be taken into consideration that Section 18 of the Act says that the owner of creative work can assign the copyright to any “person”.

Therefore, an owner or author has the right to assign his copyright to a production company and also has the right to assign it to any other person at the same time. So, in such a process, forming a copyright society is not necessary. However, a specific bar is created by Section 33 on any other person or entity who may be assigned any such right as stated in Section 18 to issue these licence as a copyright author or owner of a copyrightable work. The ambiguity is that only a copyright society has the right to get involved in business of issue of licence by virtue of Section 33, even when under Section 30 the copyright owner has the valid right licence a work. Section 30 and 18 are provisions of the act since it came into existence. The impact on these sections by Section 33 which was added later has not been clarified either by the statue or any of the amendments. It is still ambiguous as to whether Section 18 and 30 will prevail over Section 33 or not, this ultimately leads to high legal ambiguity while deciding the matters by the courts.

It is a mandatory for the production companies in the music and film industries to engage third parties for collecting and licencing and for collecting public performance licences as well for collection of fees in that respect. Alternatively, there is an option to assign, in terms of Section 18, public performance rights to third-party collecting and licencing bodies who can monitor such right so as to ensure that no infringement of any copyright is done by the non-owners. The third party due to their specialization in such activities make sure that no infringement in any form is done in country like India with such a massive population.

A fine example of such a scenario is the case of Novex Communication (P) Ltd., a company, which as per its website, in terms of Section 30, is holding authorization as agents or is assigned with rights under Section 18 for administration of copyright and licencing purposes.

There is a presence of legal vacuum upon the interests of the third party licencing entities carrying out the work of issuing and granting licence in respect of creative works. The 2012 Amendment might have clarified the position with regard to the same but it has only added up to the ambiguity by providing a new sub-section (1) of Section 33. Now, according to this section, only a copyright society can carry out the work of business of granting licence for issuing or granting of any copyright with respect to any dramatic, artistic, literary musical or artistic work incorporated in a film or sound recording. This proviso leaves bodies like Novex on an uncertain footing legally.


Copyright societies which are formed for a specific purpose of granting/issuing licences for usage of any artistic work are being put up at a more ambiguous position after the 2012 amendment. This ambiguity has not being resolved by any judicial pronouncement till date. There are few judgement by some High Courts on the said issue but they too are contradictory and indecisive. Given the developing stage of the copyright laws in India, there are high chances that the subsequent licencing disputed will allow High Courts and even Supreme Court to interpret the law and lay down proper position in order to avoid any form of ambiguity.

Author: Mr. Akash Gupta, Intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

nine − 7 =


  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010