Can a company that isn’t a registered copyright society still issue music licences? Yes — if it issues them in the owner’s name, as the owner’s agent. The Bombay High Court drew that fine but decisive line.
The question
Businesses that play music must be licensed. The Act channels licensing through copyright societies (Section 33) — but an owner can also license directly or “through duly authorised agents” under Section 30. So can an agent like Novex Communications issue licences on behalf of owners (Yashraj, Shemaroo) without being a society?
The case: Leopold Café v. Novex
Novex claimed to act as the owners’ agent, so Section 33’s channelling did not bar it — but it had issued licences in its own name, not the owners’.
The court’s distinction:
- “Carrying on the business” of licensing is not prohibited to agents by Section 33.
- Prohibited: an agent issuing licences in its own name.
- Permitted: an agent issuing licences in the copyright owner’s name.
The court reasoned that Section 30 would be rendered ineffective if agencies were barred altogether — so appointing agents lets owners issue valid licences without society registration.
The rule, distilled
- Copyright societies may issue licences in their own name.
- Authorised agents must issue licences in the principal (owner’s) name, and clearly disclose their agent status.
What it means in practice
- Agents can license lawfully — but the paperwork must be in the owner’s name, with the agency disclosed.
- Licensees should check that whoever licenses them is either a registered society or a properly authorised agent acting in the owner’s name.
- This is the foundation the later public-performance rulings built on.
Frequently asked questions
Can an authorised agent issue copyright licences in India? Yes — an owner’s authorised agent may issue licences under Section 30, provided they do so in the owner’s name and disclose their agent status.
What is the difference between a society and an agent here? A registered copyright society may license in its own name; an authorised agent must license in the copyright owner’s name.
Why couldn’t Novex license in its own name? Because Section 33 reserves carrying on the business of granting licences in one’s own name to registered societies; an agent must act in the owner’s name.
Does this mean owners can avoid societies? Owners can license directly or through agents under Section 30, so society registration is not the only lawful route.
Useful official resources
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- Copyright Office, India