Striking the Right Chord: IP Protection in the Indian MusicIndustry

By Reema Philip

I. Introduction

This article explores the effectiveness of India’s intellectual property (IP) framework in protecting the rights of musicians in the digital era. The music industry has undergone a significant transformation with the rise of digital platforms, artificial intelligence, remix culture, and streaming-based revenue models. While technology has made music more accessible, it has also led to growing concerns over low royalties, copyright infringement, and the dilution of authorship. The paper begins by explaining key IP concepts—such as copyright, moral rights, and neighbouring rights—and their application under Indian law. It then traces the evolution of IP protection in music, followed by a discussion on current challenges such as piracy, AI-generated music, and the unfair royalty distribution system. Through a detailed analysis of statutory provisions, landmark Indian and international case law, and the role of collective management organizations (CMOs) like IPRS and PPL, the paper highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the present legal framework. It concludes by offering specific reform suggestions aimed at improving licensing clarity, enforcing royalty transparency, addressing AI in authorship, and strengthening the governance of CMOs. Overall, the research underlines the urgent need for a future-ready legal system that respects artistic originality while adapting to technological change.

Music has always played an integral role in human life, from age-old folk songs to contemporary digital soundscapes. It brings comfort, expression, unity, and joy. Behind these melodies are its creators—musicians, composers, lyricists, and producers—whose intellectual and emotional labour deserves protection. With today’s technology, music can be created, shared, and accessed faster than ever much faster, but this ease also brings risks: unauthorized use, underpayment, and diluted recognition. In this digital age, intellectual property (IP) rights are vital to protect musical creativity.

India’s music industry is growing rapidly, yet many artists continue to face struggles ranging from poor royalty earnings to outright piracy. Platforms like Spotify and YouTube offer exposure but often fail to ensure fair compensation. AI has introduced new complexities, blurring the lines of authorship. This paper investigates whether the Indian IP framework effectively protects musicians in the face of such rapid technological changes.

To understand this, the paper first breaks down essential legal concepts like copyright, moral rights, and neighbouring rights. It then traces the journey of IP protection in music, explores the current challenges artists face, and critically examines relevant legal provisions and landmark cases. The role of collective management organizations (CMOs) such as IPRS and PPL is also evaluated to understand how they contribute to enforcing rights and distributing royalties. Finally, reform suggestions are offered to enhance clarity, enforcement, and fairness in India’s IP system for music. 

II. Conceptual Understanding of IP in Music

Copyright protects original musical works as soon as they are expressed in a tangible form. It gives the creators control over how their work is reproduced, performed, or distributed. In India, copyright law safeguards the melody, lyrics, and composition. Copyright holders can take legal action against unauthorized use, ensuring their creative efforts are not misused.

Moral rights, enshrined under Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, protect the personal connection between an artist and their work. These include the right to be credited (paternity) and the right to object to distortion (integrity). These rights persist even if the economic rights have been transferred. Courts, like in Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures, have reaffirmed the importance of moral rights across all creative fields.

Neighbouring rights protect those who contribute to the performance and distribution of music, such as singers, instrumentalists, producers, and broadcasters. These rights, too, are recognized under Indian law, allowing all stakeholders in music creation to be protected and compensated.

Indian law distinguishes between musical works and sound recordings. While composers own the music composition, producers own the sound recording. However, a permission is needed from the composers and lyricists before a recording is made, unless the work was done under a service contract,; in which case the producer becomes the first owner.

Copyright societies like IPRS, ISRA, and PPL facilitate collective licensing and royalty collection. They play a critical role in enabling artists to earn from public use of their work. These organizations are empowered under Section 33 of the Act and have been upheld by the courts in various cases.

III. Evolution of Music IP Protection 

The music industry began its journey with analog analogue technologies like the phonograph and gramophone. Over time, magnetic tape, multi-track recording, and eventually digital tools transformed how music was produced. The 1980s brought about the digital revolution with DAWs and MIDI, allowing for unprecedented creative freedom. Today, music can be created on laptops, distributed globally via streaming, and even generated by AI. Notable legal battles like Ilaiyaraaja vs. AGI Music underscore the continuing relevance of moral rights and copyright rights. The Courts upheld his rights over his compositions, reinforcing the principle that creators must be respected and compensated fairly.

The “Masakali 2.0” controversy further exposed the issue of remix culture. Original composer A.R. Rahman and lyricist Prasoon Joshi objected to the remake, arguing that their rights had been violated. Despite the same label owning the sound recording, Indian copyright law protected the artists’ underlying work, requiring permission from the original creators.

Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) like IPRS and PPL have gained prominence in enforcing rights and ensuring payment of royalty. They help bridge gaps in bridging the gaps between the creators and users of music. However, criticisms remain about delays, lack of transparency, and unfair practices continue to persist. 

IV. Contemporary Challenges

In today’s digital-first world, musicians face new forms of exploitation. Low streaming royalties make it difficult for independent artists to sustain careers. Platforms like Spotify, while boosting visibility, often pay fractions of a rupee per stream.

Piracy continues to plague the industry. - Songs are downloaded and shared illegally, directly affecting the incomes of artists and record labels. While legal actions exist, their enforcement remains weak and reactive.

Additionally, the rise of AI-generated music has blurred the boundaries of authorship. Since current laws only recognize human creators, the following questions arise: who owns a song created by an AI? The developer, the user, or no one? This legal grey area needs urgent attention.

Remix culture and sampling present another dilemma. While these practices foster creativity, they can infringe on original works. The lack of clarity on what constitutes "fair use" often leaves creators in legal limbo. Therefore, musicians need clearer guidelines to avoid unintended infringement.

V. Legal Framework and Case Analysis 

The Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended in 2012), forms the bedrock of music IP in India. Section 13 of the act outlines protectable works., Section 14 grants exclusive rights., Section 17 defines ownership, and, Section 19 mandates written agreements for rights transfer., and Section 38A adds covers performers’ rights.

A landmark Indian case, IPRS v. Aditya Pandey, clarified that once a song is recorded, the producer owns the rights to the sound recording, even though the composer retains moral rights. This distinction affects how royalties are distributed.

Internationally, the Blurred Lines case (Marvin Gaye v. Robin Thicke and Pharrell) set a controversial precedent by recognizing infringement based on “feel” rather than specific elements. It raised questions about the limits of originality.

In Gramophone Co. v. Super Cassettes, the court ruled that remixed recordings must meet strict conditions to be lawful. This case emphasized that copyright is not merely technical but rooted in creative integrity.

VI. Recommendations and Reform Proposals 

To address these complex challenges, the Indian IP regime must evolve. Firstly, licensing processes need to be simplified. Multiple permissions across stakeholders confuse users and delay creative projects. Instead, A a single-window system could ease this burden.

Secondly, royalty distribution must become more transparent. CMOs should publish regular reports detailing revenue, expenses, and actual payouts to its members. A dedicated regulatory body could audit CMOs and address grievances. 

Thirdly, legislation should recognise AI-generated works. Laws must clarify whether such works are copyrightable, and if so, who qualifies as the author. This will protect both innovation and ownership. 

LastlyFourth, stronger enforcement is needed against piracy. Real-time content recognition tools and a fast-track tribunal for digital IP issues could help. Finally, CMOs must be regulated better.; Governance standards, elections, and redressal mechanisms should be mandated to ensure they work for the artists they represent. 

VII. Conclusion 

As the music industry continues to evolve through digital disruption and technological innovation, India’s legal framework must keep pace. Though the Copyright Act, especially after the 2012 amendment, provides a strong foundation, its implementation and scope must be expanded to reflect current realities. Independent artists need more support, while major stakeholders must uphold fairness and transparency. Recognizing AI's role, strengthening collective management, and simplifying licensing are critical next steps. By making these reforms, India can create a music ecosystem where creativity thrives, rights are respected, and innovation is encouraged.

References:

1. Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, Act No. 27 of 2012, (India).

2. Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures, AIR 1987 Del. 13 (India).

3. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association, (1977) 2 SCC 820 (India).

4. Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., AIR 2010 Del. 546 (India).

5. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd., (2011) 48 PTC 134 (Bom.) (India).

6. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Debashis Patnaik, AIR 2007 Ori. 70 (India).

7. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Aditya Pandey, (2012) 50 PTC 251 (Del.) (India).

8. Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2018) (commonly referred to as the Blurred Lines case).

9. WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, WIPO Pub. No. 226.

10. WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, WIPO Pub. No. 227.

11. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.

12. Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, Oct. 26, 1961, 496 U.N.T.S. 43.