SAREGAMA LTD. Vs. NEW DIGITAL MEDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an action in infringement of copyright. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of sound recording and underlying literally and musical works in sound recording of fifteen songs forming the part of the films produced by the producer and/or production houses. The petitioner has disclosed fifteen several agreements between the producers and/or the production houses of the films with the plaintiff covering such fifteen songs. The petitioner claims to have obtained all available rights in respect of the fifteen films including internet and digital exploitation rights in accordance with the law. It is alleged that the lyricists and music composers of the said films since had written and composed the said songs under a contract of service with the respective producers and/or production houses and, accordingly, the said respective producers became the owner of the copyright of all rights, title and interest in the literary, musical works and all other rights including sound recordings of each of the songs embodied in the said films. The petitioners alleged that the respondents without any licence or authority were using and exploiting the said songs on a plea that the said respondents have obtained audio, musical and/or MP3 rights of the songs of about 11 films out of the 15 films forming the subject matter of the suit until an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner restraining them from using and exploiting the songs in any form. The petitioner asserts that the musical works and lyrics and all other rights of the said songs both physical, non-physical and otherwise have been duly assigned in favour of the petitioner by the producers and/or production houses under several agreements. By virtue of the said assignment, the petitioner has become the absolute owner of all the sound recordings, lyrics, musical works and all other rights of the songs of each of the cinematographic films under the Copyright Act, 1957.

(2.) Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner of the rights in the sound and lyrics of the cinematographic films by virtue of the ownership of the 'original plate'. Mr. Chatterjee has referred to the definition of the "author" before the amendment to the Copyright Act, 1957 in 1994 which was as follows:-

(3.) It is submitted that by virtue of Section 2(d)(vi) as it stood prior to 1994, the definition of "author" in relation to sound recording would mean the owner of the original plate as there was no separate definition of sound recording in the 1957 Act. It is axiomatic that the person who owned the original plate was the author of the sound recording. All the contracts of the petitioners forming the subject matter of the suit specifically transferred ownership of the original plate to the petitioner. The possession of the petitioner is really in the nature of an owner. Mr. Chatterjee has referred to the agreements produced by the respondents and submitted that the purported deeds and the purported documents relied upon by the defendant, namely, the agreements dated 16th October, 1984, 15th May, 1985, 5th January, 1987, 10th March, 1987, 25th March, 1987, 28th March, 1987, 15th April, 1987, 4th January, 1988, 25th February, 1988, 16th March, 1996 do not confer any right whatsoever on the defendant or its predecessor-in-interest. The said agreements do not establish assignment of any copyright or any right in favour of the said defendants. The said agreements even otherwise do not permit and/or authorize the respondent to use, apply or adopt the subject songs and the underlying musical and literary works contained therein otherwise than as part of cinematograph films. The respondent has no right to the sound recordings and underlying works separately. A bare perusal of the said agreements would make it abundantly clear that they were mere proposal to assign and/or agreement to enter into an assignment agreement and not an assignment per se as alleged. It is submitted that it is trite law that one cannot confer upon another a better title than he has. Therefore, all subsequent agreements entered in purported reliance of the parent purported agreements do not confer any title on any subsequent transferees including the present defendants.