FREE access to all copyright case briefs
Sign up now !International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) v. Aditya Pandey
[(2017) 11 SCC 437, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 967]
Note: In 2006, IPRS initiated legal action against Synergy Media Entertainment Ltd., a broadcasting company, its Senior Manager Aditya Pandey, and others, alleging copyright infringement. This litigation was consolidated with another case filed by IPRS and PPRS against CRI Events, an event management company. This latter suit addressed unauthorized public communication of works from the plaintiffs' work during an event.
Coram: Division Bench of Honorable Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Honorable Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Forum: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Case No.: Civil Appeals Nos. 9412-13 of 2016 (arising out of S.L.P (C) Nos. 2380-2381 OF 2014) with Civil Appeals Nos. 9414-15 of 2016 (arising out of S.L.P(C) Nos. 21082-21083 OF 2012) and Civil Appeals nos. 9416 of 2016 (arising out of S.L.P(C) No. 2379 OF 2014).
Date of Decision: September 20, 2016.
Conclusion
Facts:
- The Indian Performing Rights Society Limited (IPRS), representing authors and composers, was the Appellant in two of the appeals.
- The International Confederation of Societies, a non-governmental organization registered in France, was the Appellant in one appeal.
- Synergy Media Entertainment, an Event Management Company (Respondent no. 2), was represented by Respondent No.1, who was the Senior Manager (Finance).
- The Plaintiff/Appellant sought permanent injunction and associated remedies based on the assertion that authors of literary and musical works were the initial copyright holders for lyrics and musical compositions respectively, as per the Copyright Act, 1957. They claimed that this entitles them to restrain Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from infringing on their copyright.
Background/ Procedural Posture:
- The learned Single Judge had disposed of the Interim Applications in the above-mentioned suits as follows:
- a) In the synergy suit (i.e., CS(OS) 1185/2006), the applications for temporary injunctions (i.e., IA Nos. 6486/2006, 7027/2006, and 6487/2006) were disposed of by stating that the Defendants did not have to secure a license from the Plaintiffs.
- b) In the CRI suit (CS(OS) No. 1996/2009), the court ruled that the Defendants needed licenses from PPRS and IPRS to perform sound recordings and musical works publicly. For events involving both, authorizations from both were necessary. The Defendant was barred from such actions without proper authorization until the suit was resolved.
- All three appeals challenged a Delhi High Court decision from May 8, 2012, in which the court dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the single judge in two suits, CS (OS) No. 1185 of 2006 and Copyright Infringement Suit CS(OS) No. 1996 of 2009, regarding interim injunctions and directions.
Main Issues:
Whether an Event Management Company need a license from a lyricist and a musician to play a song in public, even after paying a Sound Recording Company to broadcast the song?
Go Top
