Introduction:
The Indian music industry has always had a certain vibrant diversity, spanning classical and contemporary genres with ease. However, copyright issues mar this diverse harmony.
Background:
As per a report published by Ernst & Young in December, 2023, the Indian music industry generated approximately INR 12,000 Crores of revenue in 2022. This figure is roughly 6% of the overall revenue generated by the media and entertainment industry. India is the world's most populous country, as well as a consumer of music per capita which is higher than the world average. Moreover, seven of the top 10 songs on the YouTube top ten global charts for 2022 were Indian music, clearly evidencing the wide reach and liking for Indian music.
Being an extremely populous country with high per capita consumption of music should comfortably push India into the big leagues of revenue generation in the music industry, right? Wrong. India ranks a measly 14th for revenue generated from music.
Taylor's Revolution:
Since April 2021, one of the music industry's global icons started re-releasing music she had already released, suffixing all her re-released albums with (Taylor's Version). However, the re-release was preceded by further context, seemingly right out of a television drama. In 2019, Big Machine Records, the record label which owned the original masters to several of Taylor Swift's earlier albums, was bought by an industry giant, Scooter Braun. The sale gave Braun the rights to all the master recordings for Swift's old music, meaning that anyone who wanted to license one of Swift's old songs to play in a TV show or movie or an ad would have to ask for Braun's permission and pay him a licensing fee. Braun and his affiliates are people Ms. Swift has had clear ideological, and not so discreet differences with.
By re-recording and subsequently re-releasing her own music, Taylor Swift effectively side-stepped Braun and owned the masters of all the (Taylor's Version) albums released under a different label.
Why the brief and not so distant history discussion about Taylor Swift and her Hollywood feud? As a reminder that there needs to be effective, and sometimes, even dramatic action to protect the rights of artists. What Taylor Swift did as an independent artist is most probably unimaginable by an independent artist in India. The dismal state of revenue generated is just an outlier of how ugly the picture is for musicians and artists. There is no social security net for artists, and copyright compliance, specifically with respect to publishing revenue remains abysmally low at 1.2%. Copyright compliance for publishing revenue means paying a license fee for authorized streaming and publication of protected content.
Legal and Regulatory Framework:
The Indian regulatory landscape concerning music creators and copyright laws is governed primarily by the Copyright Act of 1957 (The Act), which was amended in 2012 to align with international standards and technological advancements. The Act grants copyright protection to original musical works, including compositions and lyrics, as well as sound recordings. Copyright protection is automatic upon creation, and no formal registration is required, although registration can serve as evidence in legal proceedings. In India, organizations such as the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) operate as Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) to collectively manage and administer the rights of music creators and publishers. They collect royalties from various users of music, such as broadcasters, restaurants, and digital platforms, and distribute them to rights holders. Users of copyrighted music, such as broadcasters, event organizers, and digital platforms, are required to obtain licenses from the relevant CMOs to legally use copyrighted music. These licenses typically involve payment of royalties, which are distributed to rights holders as compensation for the use of their works.
However, as is evidenced by proceedings before various judicial forums, the legal position in India is far from settled. In the case of Wynk Limited vs. Tips Limited before the Bombay High Court (Bombay HC), the court held that compulsory licenses are applicable exclusively to traditional broadcasting platforms such as radio and television and do not extend to internet-based services. The dispute in the abovementioned case arose from an interpretation of Section 31D of the Act, which is concerned with the broadcasting or performance of a literary or musical and sound recording, which has already been published. Broadcasting or performance of such works, qualifying under Section 31D can be done by issuing prior notice of the intention to broadcast the work and by paying royalty to the rights holder, as fixed by the Copyright Board. In another case before the same court, the IPRS filed an interim application before the Bombay HC, seeking relief of right to royalties against FM broadcasters. The Bombay HC stated that IPRS had established a strong prima facie case to seek royalties, and due to the same, the original authors of musical works are entitled to royalties for the literary or musical works used in film or sound recordings, equal to the producer for utilization of their works. Similar proceedings initiated by or against IPRS and other CMOs are pending across the country, seeking clarity and resolution of disputes that have now been pending for several years.
Potential Solutions:
Addressing copyright challenges requires a multifaceted approach. Strengthening enforcement through proactive monitoring and stringent penalties can deter violations. However, proactive enforcement and monitoring require significant investment in terms of both, revenue and manpower. Promoting awareness about copyright protection and licensing fosters a culture of compliance. Today, only 13,500 creators are registered with the IPRS out of a potential pool of more than 60,000 creators. That is an abysmal 22.5% of creators registered. While embracing technological innovations like blockchain for transparent royalty tracking can enhance accountability and streamline royalty distribution, settled legal positions in terms of royalties and rights as well as far greater legal awareness on the subject is the need of the hour. Imagine a Taylor Swift story where she was not aware of her rights?
Conclusion:
To increase compliance and revenue sharing, there are a number of items that need to be actioned upon. Litigation and undecided positions of law across the country need to be uniformly adjudicated and settled. There is also the need for an Indian Taylor Swift, or someone who makes such an impactful move, which would shake the copyright cobwebs off and make an irreversible impact for the benefit of the industry. The Indian audience clearly has a penchant for resonating with the dramatic, be it Taylor Swift or Poonam Pandey's cervical cancer vaccination advertisement campaign. Indian music clearly has the dynamism, the creators and the audience. While everyone enjoys the occasional "cringe" music on Instagram reels, Indian music could deal with a fresh dose of revenue, not injected via a FDI investment, but by giving rights to the innumerable artists currently lost in a swarm, unable to sustain themselves and generate revenue from what they are passionate about. Let's hope someone is able to shake off the music industry lull and work towards ensuring that the basic rights for artists and creators are protected and monetised in a fair and efficient manner.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
