TOPIC – COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

AND DIGITAL MEDIA: A CASE STUDY

OF INDIAN MUSIC INDUSTRY

NAME – MD NAZIR ALI

DEPARTMENT – LAW
PROGRAM – BA LLB (HONS)
SEMESTER – 5th SEMESTER
SUBJECT – INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
LAW
ENROLLMENT NO. – 2111215001007
REGISTRATION NO. – 210010079063
 INTRODUCTION
One of the sectors of the global economy that is growing the fastest is the music industry. Due to
its reliance on creative expression and associated materials, intellectual property plays a
fundamental role in determining its display. Music’s value is now recognised in several
agricultural countries, such as Brazil and India, despite its essential links and contribution to the
development of public culture. However, the music sector remains under-researched in the
majority of agricultural nations due to a lack of statistics or reliable information regarding its
financial presentation.

Copyright protection is condemnatory for any artist. Copyright Protection protects the sound and
the composed work of the artist for the lifetime of the proprietor of the copyright and afterward
an extra sixty years after the proprietor’s demise. On account of a gathering of proprietors, the
sixty years are added after the death of the last proprietor.

Songs, poetry, audio and video recordings, novels, and similar works are all protected by
copyright. This is derogatory to musicians or music makers. It serves as evidence of
proprietorship and prevents the producer or makers and artists from having their creations
plundered. The protection provided by intellectual property rights prevents others from copying
their creations. Reproducing the work is prohibited unless authorised by the account studio or the
artist. Additionally completed with the arranger’s consent, conveyance and broadcasting serve as
a source of revenue. Obtaining permission to use the creation for films and other media is
necessary.

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 had been generally evolved through the copyright laws of our
colonizers, the British. Not just the inferred rendition was uncertain with the wordings but in
addition unconventional to the emerging Indian music industry. Copyright in musical works has
consistently since 1957 been giving different translations, under the underlying Act just the
composer of the song had a copyright in the musical work, with the Act being revised in 1994 the
extent of the definition was extended to incorporate work comprising of music and any graphical
documentation yet does exclude any words or activities planned to be spoken. This specific
correction was more comprehensive and well fitted to the Indian Music industry situation.
 COPYRIGHT LAW AND THE MUSIC
INDUSTRY
The subject matters ensured in India under the (Indian) Copyright Act, 1957 are as follows:

• Compositions, models, drawings (such as outlines, maps, diagrams, or plans),

photographs, works of dramatic or creative approach, and dance, scripts, ballet
productions, dramas, and the like are examples of artistic work. In this domain, copyright
protects the proprietors' original creative works—such as those created by
choreographers, composers, screenwriters, and authors—from being replicated.
• Literary work (including PC programs, tables and PC information bases),
• Musical work (including a work which comprises of music and it is made of a mix of
graphical documentations or score that addresses music through visual images. The
creator of the musical work is known as a composer),
• Cinematograph film
• And sound recordings (which involve any individual’s speech, any song sung by any
individual with or without music, for example, any sound or any digital broadcast. These
are likewise exposed to copyright very much like the musical works.)

The music industry has a complicatedly woven relationship with the film industry. There has
been uncontrolled misuse and adaptation of music and artists by filmmakers and music marks for
quite a long while they have been denied the over the top measures of benefits that the producers
or music names make out of the exploitation of the music either by making individual or single-
covered music or incorporation of the song or music in a particular movie.

The 2012 correction, trying to shield the privileges of creators of scholarly, musical, and artistic
work framing a piece of a cinematograph film, has been given the un-waivable option to get
eminences. Section 18(1), embedded through Amendment Act 2012, gives that the creator of an
abstract or musical work fused in a cinematograph film or sound chronicle will not allot the
option to get sovereignties in any structure other than as a piece of the film or sound account.
Even after the all rights that are accessible to the creator of the innovative, musical or artistic
work under section 14 of the Act have been appropriately doled out to the music mark or the
maker, he can’t postpone off his entitlement to get eminence instalments once his work has been
put to use. Copyright enrollment awards legitimate status to the artistic work consequently
making it a protected innovation and making and conceding the proprietor lawful covers.

Understanding intellectual property rights is essential for makers and artists to ensure that their
creations are protected. This is what allows artists to profit from their own creations, whether
they are part of the original structure or have it altered. Although entering the legitimate music
industry may seem monotonous, it is crucial for artists to make informed decisions in order to
ensure that they are not taken advantage of.

Undoubtedly, a vital element contributing to the success of an artist is their support system, be it
a team or group. It is imperative that an artist ensure their music lawyer is a member of this
group. An expert legal advisor who is kept up to date on almost all transactions can be an
enormous asset to an artist. They can ensure that all agreements are successfully negotiated and
contribute to the creation of a highly educated group.

The lawyers understand the media and entertainment space from an Industrial and mechanical
perspective. We provide ferocious and expert IP acquisition, initiative, and requirement systems
in addition to sensible, cost-effective advice fit for a highly influential environment.

PROTECTION TO REMIX CREATORS

OR MAKERS UNDER ARTICLE 51 OF
THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
As indicated by section 51 of the Act, if any individual infringes the privilege presented upon the
proprietor of the copyright, it will be noted as an Infringement. Notwithstanding, it won’t add up
to an Infringement if:

• An individual duplicates musical work, creator or maker work, or some other work by
giving an earlier notification of his expectation and pays advance sovereignty to the
 proprietor of the first work. Much the same as on account of making the remix songs,
sovereignties are paid to the creator or maker ahead of time.
• The new work should not be showcased with names or bundling that may delude people
in general about the character of the craftsman.
• The new work ought not to be made until the lapse of two years after the year’s end in
which the first work was made.
• The writer of the first work ought to be given the option to review all the books of record
identified with the new work.

Remixes of songs in the music industry, when they are distributed legally and in accordance with
the aforementioned regulations, clearly need the same amount of securities as the original works.
The level of original dedication in the adaptation of more established works is a major problem
with “remixes,” and nowhere has the creator or makers’ measure of sovereignty been mentioned
that would lead to the inclusion of unrelated advertisements.

Among the new non-voluntary licenses proposed by the 2010 Bill was a license for cover
versions. The use of an underlying work in a film other than in conjunction with the film would
involve the exploitation of the underlying work through such media as video clips, wallpapers
and ringtones. The 2010 Bill proposed to introduce, into the copyright statute, a statutory license
for cover versions vide a new section 31C, 34 which was very similar to the ‘license’ provided
for in section 52(1)(j) of the earlier Act [which later in the 2010 Bill, was proposed to delete].
Both these amendments which had been contemplated by the 2010 Bill were retained in the 2012
Act, and made their way into law. Section 31C of the Act seeks to provide statutory license to
any person desiring to make a cover version of a sound recording in respect of any literary,
dramatic or musical work, where sound recordings of that work have been made by or with the
consent of the owner of the right in the work in the same medium as the last recording, unless the
medium of the last recording is no longer in current commercial use. Although a bare reading of
Section 52(1) (j) of the earlier Act would seem to make it clear that the consent of the owner of
the copyright in the concerned work is not required for a cover version of the work to be made,
in practice, there has been a significant amount of controversy and litigation on this subject.
INFRINGEMENT IN TODAY’S DIGITAL
AGE
These days, social media platforms have become one of the most recognisable ways to connect
people worldwide. Sharing of potentially copyrighted works is a part of these stages. The
widespread practise of sharing content, such as images, on social media has resulted in flagrant
copyright violations. One of the main causes of these infringements is the misconception that all
content published on the internet is free, which is compounded by people’s ignorance of the
copyright protections that apply to such works.

However, “Fair Use in Digital Media” is an exception in copyright law. Here are some acts
which cannot be considered as infringement in digital media:

• Directing Research or study and making duplicates of the material accessible on the web
for the sole reason for examining.
• An educator utilizing content from a film to make certain ironical focuses during class.
• Admittance to a diary from University site or library.
• To make reinforcement duplicates on Hard Drive as impermanent assurance against any
misfortune, annihilation or harm.
• The perception study or trial of the working of a PC program to decide the thoughts and
standard which underline any components of the program to decide the thoughts or
standards which underlies the component of the program while performing acts that are
fundamental for the working of a PC program.
• Making duplicates or adaption of PC program from a by and by lawfully involved
duplicates for non-business purposes.
• Utilizing CD, DVD, pen drive or any mixed media device for playing melodies in an
encased room or corridor implied for the basic utilization of inhabitants in any private
premises or as a piece of any club action for non-benefit purposes.
• Distribution of any discourse conveyed out in the public.
• Propagation or distribution of any electronic reports of any board of trustees, committee,
body or foundation set up by an Act of the law-making body or by state or local
government.
ANTIDOTE TO THE INFRINGEMENT OF
COPYRIGHT IN TODAY’S DIGITAL AGE
The dangers of infringement of Copyright in the computerized space have offered ascend to
certain preventive estimates which guarantee that the rights and interest of the proprietor or
makers are ensured. The significant remedies accessible are as follows:

(i) Block chain Technology

It has profoundly gotten a decentralized public record that is utilized to record
distributed exchange. In every exchange that happens, the gatherings consent to
subtleties to encode it into the square of computerized information which is
remarkably marked or distinguished. It is because of its working that it is viewed as a
magnificent innovation to determine the issue of copyright in Digital Domain.

(ii) Digital Watermarks

Probably the most straightforward method created by the creator of copyright, since it
motivates the owner to protect his creation and prevent copying. This tactic involves
adding a watermark to the author’s initial creation so that unauthorised copying of the
work can be recognised.

(iii) Access control and duplicate control

It empowers a client to check the maker on free or unlawful utilization of his work.
WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR A CHANGE
IN COPYRIGHT LAW IN THE MUSIC
INDUSTRY IN THIS DIGITAL AGE
India’s substance utilization is moving on the web at a consistent speed. Around 95 percent of
Indian customers tune in to music through on-request streaming, as per the Music Consumer
Insight Report, 2018 delivered by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.
Customers are likewise getting used to OTT stages as a way to get to movies and TV
arrangement. A FICCI-EY report on Media and Entertainment in 2020 notes that membership to
OTT stages multiplied in 2019. Their commitment to add up to advanced fragment incomes
expanded from 3.3 percent in 2017 to 13 percent in the very year. Wide web infiltration, low
information costs, and a multiplication of cell phone clients are answerable for this move in
buyer conduct. The Covid-19 pandemic has made the move to advance a goal, and has revived
various discussions on copyright on the web.

Copyright plans to find some kind of harmony between encouraging makers to create more new
substance, and augmenting community to them. To empower advancement, the Copyright Act
gives an intentional authorizing component, which permits the copyright proprietor to make
his/her works accessible to the general population at various costs. Simultaneously, the Act
contains instruments that can guarantee admittance to content in the event of market
disappointment. For instance, obligatory permitting arrangements secure against the imposing
industry model of substance by copyright proprietors. Copyright is likewise exposed to a
constraint time of 60 years for generally content in India, so they become unreservedly open after
the maker has had the chance to adapt it. ‘Reasonable use’ special cases shield such works from
Infringement suits on the off chance that they are being gotten for private use, exploration,
intellectual or editorial purposes, in addition to other things. These models show how the
copyright system empowers industry misuse while adjusting public interest.

In any case, the development of the web disturbs the harmony among motivating forces and
admittance to new creator or maker substance. This is on the grounds that the digitization of
copyright ventures, for example, prints and general media, brought down appropriation costs,
taken out passage hindrances to the market and decreased profits for innovative substance. While
this is a help for crowds and buyers, it has additionally made it hard for makers and to flourish in
an inexorably serious market. The availability of substance on the web requires a move towards
an advanced copyright system that restores the motivation to make new substance.

Late government activity to endorse a compulsory information sharing system and expand legal
authorizing past its authoritative expectation, are instances of state intercession that takes steps to
weaken copyright assurance. These progressions overlook the harmony among impetuses and
access under the Copyright Act, by empowering access and utilization of licensed innovation,
bypassing the need to haggle with copyright holders.

CONCLUSION
While the improvement of the music industries in India has taken extraordinary ways, the nation
faces difficulty in refreshing their copyright laws for the 21st century to accomplish their separate
social, monetary, and social objectives. However the underlying contrasts in the industry have
consistently prompted the spotlight tumbling off the creators or makers who made the music and
falling on the producers or music marks that appear to have been impolite while offering the
commendations to the one who deserves it.

With artists being more vocal about such issues and the revisions being made in the
demonstration there have been some significant improvements to shield the privileges of artists
who make such unique work. The 2012 Amendment Act generally satisfies the said viewpoint; it
guarantees that artists are granted for their unique work as eminences. Despite the fact that it
very well may be known as a reformist advance however the way forward appears to be hazy in
light of the equivocal phrasing of the stipulation to area 18 that indicates installment of
sovereignties yet doesn’t determine the element that is obliged to it, however it is reasonable that
the gathering utilizing the administrations is obligated to pay for it yet the appointees are
exploiting the poorly phrased record for their advantage.

Giving due credits to an artist’s work goes about as a fuel for him, it urges him to improve on the
grounds that consolation isn’t sufficient to run studios; the returns and gains from the artist’s
work should be properly imparted to him to keep him roused. Copyright protection given to his
work shields his persistent effort from being abused and encroached by unapproved sources and
if there should be an occurrence of infringement he has the ability to turn to legitimate cures and
demonstrate that the work was made by him in any case. An individual who gets low
advancement from others work ought not be permitted to profit by the equivalent, in this way, the
privilege of creators to get sovereignties and advantages ought to be ensured and monetarily
abusing created by a creator ought to be appropriately trailed by him accepting credit for the
equivalent by the installment of eminences.

REFERENCES
• The Copyright Act, 1957.
• Legal services India.
• IPleaders.
• The IP Press