The Supreme Court once held that lyricists and composers get no separate royalty when a licensed sound recording is played in public — but that ruling applied the pre-2012 law. The 2012 amendment then gave authors a royalty right that cannot be signed away. You need both halves of the story.
Important context: The Aditya Pandey litigation arose under the pre-2012 Copyright Act. The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 changed the position going forward — see the update below. Do not read the 2016 decision as the current rule for post-2012 works.
The Aditya Pandey decision (pre-2012 law)
In ICSAC (CISAC) v. Aditya Pandey & Ors. (Supreme Court, affirming the Delhi High Court), the question was: must an event organiser who has paid the sound-recording company for broadcast rights also license the lyricists and composers?
The Court’s answer, under the pre-amendment law: no. Producers of sound recordings hold independent copyright as “authors” of that recording, so royalties for the public communication of songs flowed to the recording companies, not the underlying creators — eliminating a dual royalty obligation for organisers. The Court did note that assignment does not, under Section 19(10), extinguish authors’ rights to an equal share of royalties for third-party utilisation.
What the 2012 amendment changed
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 rewrote this balance for new works. It introduced (through Sections 18 and 19(9)–(10)) a non-assignable, non-waivable right for the authors of literary and musical works used in cinematograph films and sound recordings to receive royalties on an equal-share basis for any utilisation other than exhibition in a cinema hall (for example, playing the song in a restaurant, on TV or online). In short: for post-2012 works, lyricists and composers do retain a statutory royalty right for most public uses, whatever the assignment says.
Why the distinction matters
- Timing decides the rule. Disputes governed by pre-2012 facts follow Aditya Pandey; post-2012 works carry the authors’ statutory royalty right.
- You may need multiple clearances. Beyond the sound-recording licence, the authors’ royalty entitlement (via their society, e.g. IPRS) can be engaged for public performance of post-2012 works.
- Assignments cannot strip the right. The 2012 right is non-waivable — a contract purporting to remove it does not bind.
Frequently asked questions
Do lyricists and composers get royalties when a song is played in public in India? For post-2012 works, yes — the 2012 amendment gives authors a non-waivable royalty right for uses other than in a cinema hall. The Aditya Pandey “no separate royalty” ruling applied the pre-2012 law.
What did the Aditya Pandey case decide? That, under the pre-2012 law, an organiser who licensed the sound recording did not owe a separate royalty to lyricists and composers.
Can authors waive their royalty right? No. The 2012 right to an equal share of royalties is non-assignable and non-waivable for the covered uses.
Who collects these royalties? Typically the authors’ copyright society (such as IPRS), for public communication of post-2012 works.
Useful official resources
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- Copyright Office, India