After the 2012 amendment, the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) lost its registration as a copyright society — casting doubt over its power to license and to sue. The doubt has since been resolved.
Update: IPRS was re-registered as a copyright society under Section 33 in late 2017. With registered-society status restored, the authority questions discussed below were resolved. The analysis is retained for the legal principles.
The background
Copyright protects original creative works, and — since the 1994 amendment — performers’ rights too. Section 38 grants performers exclusive rights, and the 2012 amendment strengthened them; a “performer” includes “an acrobat, musician, singer, actor, juggler, snake charmer, a person delivering a lecture, or any other person who makes a performance.”
Performing-rights societies collect royalties between rights holders and public users (venues, broadcasters). In India, IPRS was registered as a copyright society under Section 33 — but lost that registration following the 2012 amendment, then re-incorporated as a company.
Why it mattered
IPRS grants “blanket licences” for public performance and broadcast. The 2012 amendment created ambiguity about IPRS’s authority to issue licences and to pursue infringement litigation:
- Leopold Café v. Novex (2014) held that an agent must disclose its representative capacity and issue licences in the owner’s name, not its own. (See agents vs societies.)
- Section 55 restricts infringement litigation to owners or exclusive licensees — not agents.
So the bind was real: without registered copyright-society status, IPRS could not function under Section 33; and taking agent status under Section 30 would strip its litigation capacity — disrupting India’s music-licensing model.
How it resolved
The tension was resolved when IPRS regained registered copyright-society status (2017), restoring its ability to license and enforce in its own capacity as a society. The episode is a lesson in how statutory status — society vs agent — determines both licensing authority and standing to sue.
The takeaways
- Status determines standing. Only a registered society (or owner/exclusive licensee) has the full toolkit to license and litigate; an agent does not.
- Licence in the right name. An agent must license in the owner’s name and disclose its capacity.
- Check current registration. Always confirm a body’s current copyright-society registration before relying on its licences.
Frequently asked questions
Did IPRS lose its copyright-society status? Yes — after the 2012 amendment it lost registration and re-incorporated as a company, before regaining society status in 2017.
Why did the loss of society status matter? Because only a registered society (or owner/exclusive licensee) can fully license and sue; an agent under Section 30 cannot litigate infringement (Section 55).
Can a licensing agent sue for infringement? No. Section 55 restricts infringement suits to owners or exclusive licensees, not agents.
Is IPRS a copyright society now? Yes — it was re-registered as a copyright society under Section 33 in 2017.
Useful official resources
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- Copyright Office, India