Sound recording law is a combination of copyright, contract, privacy and new technology regulation. The law on sound recordings has undergone a major change due to the evolving music market and technological developments that have accelerated over the years. This article discusses the legal framework of IP rights in sound recordings as provided by the Copyright Act, 1957[1] with a special focus on ownership, assignment, licensing, and commercial exploitation of IP rights in sound recordings. It documents the change resulting from the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012[2] that has conferred greater statutory rights on the authors and composers for their ongoing rights to royalties for commercial use of their work. The article also reviews the ruling by the Calcutta High Court in Vodafone Idea Limited v. IPRS Ltd.[3] which reaffirmed that ownership of a sound recording does not automatically include the right to commercially exploit the underlying literary and musical works. Furthermore, in addition to copyright, the article discusses the new field of combination of IP, privacy, and data protection. As technology advances and new applications for voice emerge, like voice cloning, biometric technologies, and digital music platforms, a recorded voice has become more than a means of artistic expression and now it’s also a powerful part of a person’s identity. The increasing significance of the performers right, informed consent and privacy protection under the Constitution of India and Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is thus discussed. The article concludes that the future of sound recording law lies in striking a careful balance between encouraging innovation, ensuring fair compensation for creators, protecting investments made by producers, and safeguarding the dignity and autonomy of performers in an increasingly digital ecosystem.
Introduction
The first step in comprehending the ownership rights of intellectual property in sound recordings is to break down a song into its legal components. One audio track that has been released to the public for use is not a single property. It’s, rather, a collection of separate and independent rights layered one atop the other. Under copyright regimes globally, and specifically under Section 13 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, copyright subsists independently in three specific components of a musical track:
- The Literary Work: The lyrics written by the lyricist.
- The musical work: The original chord progression, music and arrangement by the composer.
- Final recorded audio track that is created by a music label or producer and contains lyrics and melody.
The multi-layered structure has caused significant friction in operations in the past. Often times, companies that bought a license from a music label thought they had the full package. But as far as the music producer is concerned, he or she owns the copyright to the sound recording, which is the physical or digital master recording, and the authors of the works, the lyricists and composers, have an inherent moral and economic interest in the work. It’s important to balance those rights to make sure artists know they’re being fairly compensated and payers of the music can legally distribute it downstream.
The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS): The Guardian Of Creators’ Rights
Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) is a copyright society registered as per Copyright Act, 1957. Its role is to advocate for composers, lyricists and music publishers by ensuring that they receive the royalties their work deserves whenever it is commercially used, whether it’s broadcasted on the radio, played on television or in a public setting, streamed online or used in value-added telecom services such as caller tunes.
It’s like a collective bargaining and collection agency. Rather than each composer seeking each radio station, telecom company, or restaurant that is playing music for background, IPRS will issue licenses on their behalf and collect the money and distribute the royalties to its member composers, lyricists and publishers. This is a collective model because if each of thousands of individual songwriters had to monitor and enforce their rights against thousands of commercial users, it would simply not work administratively and would be impractical.
Perhaps most importantly, the IPRS is not the owner or the controller of the copyright in the sound recording, it is the owner or controller of the copyright in the musical work. IPRS only protects the rights of the author of the underlying musical work (music) and of the underlying literary work (lyrics) of the composition.
The Historic Shift
The first significant yet notable debate on the issue of the ownership of any song took place in the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association[4] case before the Supreme Court. It was ruled that if the producer paid the lyricist/composer for valuable consideration for his work which he used in the cinematograph film, then the producer was the first owner of the copyright as per the provisions of Section 17(b) and (c) of the Act. The music labels and film producers thus argued for “composite ownership,” thereby eliminating the rights of original composers who wanted to have their music separately remunerated when it was included in a film or sound recording. This precedent existed for 35 years which gave creative professionals little to no financial leverage after they signed their first contract.
The Copyright Amendment Act, 2012
In view of the systematic exploitation of artists, the Indian Parliament enacted the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012. This amendment was made to create a structural change that does justice to the economic rights of creators by adding non-waivable provisos to Section 18 and Section 19 of the Act. The 3rd and 4th Provisos to Section 18(1) stipulate that an author of a literary or musical work which was incorporated into a cinematograph film or sound
recording has an inalienable, statutory right to receive equal sharing of royalties for any commercial use of his literary or musical work. Furthermore, by law, an agreement or assignment made by an author to waive or give up this right to receive royalties is contractually null and void. However, the statue makes one exception i.e., the physical screening of a cinematograph film within a commercial cinema hall. The creators of all other modern digital gigs whether it’s YouTube, Spotify or mobile caller tunes must be paid a royalty.
The Dispute: Vodafone Idea Limited V. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited
In the present case, Vodafone Idea Limited is a prominent telecom service provider which provides Value-Added Services to its mobile subscribers, where the subscribers download and set songs as ringtones and caller ring back tones for certain fees. Vodafone partnered with Saregama India Limited which is one of the India’s oldest and biggest music production houses which had a huge library of master sound recordings to run this service. Vodafone said it had discharged its obligations to broadcast the songs as it had paid Saregama for the sound recordings. The IPRS did intervene, however, stating that, although Vodafone had a valid licence for the sound recording of Saregama, it had not acquired a separate licence from the IPRS for the underlying literary and musical works of the recording (the lyrics and melodies). This resulted in a suit filed by Vodafone and a cross-injunction suit by Saregama and IPRS.[5]
The Roles of The Key Players
Saregama India Limited is an Indian music company that is one of the oldest and largest in the country with a long history of producing sound recordings. Saregama holds the copyright in the sound recordings under Section 2(uu) of the Act as the producer of such recordings. This allows Saregama to permit others to use its recorded music, for example, by a telecom firm to provide recorded music as caller tunes or value added services.
Vodafone Idea Limited was a telecom service provider whose subscribers were able to customise caller tunes, using songs from commercial music catalogues by making use of a Value Added Service. To provide this service, the company Vodafone signed a licence agreement with Saregama to use its sound recordings repertoire.
That’s where the whole controversy came in. Vodafone argued that its license from Saregama for the sound recording was enough for it to cover all that was included within it which included the underlying composition and lyrics. On this basis Vodafone argued that it had no separate obligation to pay to IPRS as it believed IPRS was no more than a collecting society doing nothing different to the mobile phone companies.
IPRS disagreed with the contentions of Vodafone. The rights arising from the musical and literary works of the original song (the composition and lyrics) were distinct from the rights in the sound recording and were not validly licensed out of the composer and lyricist and, therefore, Vodafone required a separate licence to exploit the music commercially via its caller-tune service.[6] However, Saregama played an impartial party in the last appeal. It said that its own arbitration proceedings with Vodafone had already been resolved and it had no further obligations with respect to IPRS. This left it up to Vodafone arguing that its sound recording licence was enough and IPRS arguing an independent and additional right to royalties on the underlying works to sort it out themselves.
The Calcutta High Court’s Ruling
The Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench presided by Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar rashidi rejected all of Vodafone’s appeals and confirmed the rights of creators. The High Court explained that the Copyright Act makes it clear that the copyright in a sound record does not limit the copyright in the underlying works as per Section 13(4). The Court highlighted that music labels such as Saregama do not have the legal authority to grant a ‘complete blanket license’ which would wipe out the unique right to royalties held by authors and composers. Furthermore, the Calcutta High Court noted that Saregama had transferred its musical and literary rights to IPRS way before Vodafone’s deals. The Court said that contractual agreements between a telecom and a music label can’t circumvent statutory safeguards. In conclusion, the Court ruled that “Saregama does not have any legal authority or competence to grant licence in respect of underlying musical and literary works incorporated in sound recording of Vodafone for commercial exploitation. Vodafone does not have licence to commercially exploit the underlying contents of sound recording incorporated in the sound recordings without express permission from IPRS.”
As a result, the court ordered the release of amounts paid to the Registrar and Joint Special Officers for IPRS subject to the condition that such amounts shall be refunded in case required at the final adjudication of the said suits. Furthermore, Vodafone’s request for a stay of the judgment was expressly rejected.
The Privacy Dimension
The rapid growth of digital technology and artificial intelligence has transformed sound recordings from mere creative works into valuable sources of personal data. A recorded voice is no longer an artistic performance, it also is a unique biometric identifier with a high level of accuracy. Moreover, the commercial potential of voice recordings is growing wider than copyright licensing, with the introduction of streaming services, virtual assistants, AI-generated music, voice cloning software, and digital archives. Thus, ownership of a sound recording now needs to be considered in conjunction with the privacy and personality rights of the individual whose voice is captured.
The Copyright Act 1957 primarily protects the economic interest of the sound recording by providing exclusive rights to reproduction, communication and commercial exploitation. But it is not a general right to use an individual’s voice in any way. The voice of the performer is his or her voice, and any other use of the voice that goes beyond the original consent may raise claims of privacy, contract or personality rights.
Furthermore, Indian courts have consistently recognized that personality rights (or the right of publicity) are rooted in the right to privacy. The Delhi High Court in ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises[7] expressly held that ‘the right of publicity has evolved from the right of privacy.’ The constitutional basis for this principle was strengthened by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India,[8] which recognized an individual’s right to control the commercial use of their identity as an aspect of informational privacy. This approach has subsequently been reaffirmed by the Delhi High Court in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.[9]
An individual’s voice is an intrinsic part of their identity, dignity and autonomy, such that any acquisition, storage or sale of voice data should meet the constitutional criteria of necessity, legality and proportionality. Thus, a lawful copyright holder of a sound recording is required to also protect future uses of the recording in which the biometric information is used for identification, training of an AI, or voice manipulation. This protection is further reinforced by the recognition of the rights of performers under the Copyright Act, 1957 sections 38, 38A and 38B. These provisions recognise that the producer is not the sole owner of the sound recording but that the performer also has rights over the performance. Thus, an unauthorized digital alteration, an AI-generated sound imitation or a misleading commercial use of the performer’s voice may infringe on these statutory rights even if the producer is the owner of the copyright in the sound recording.
These concerns aligned with the overall framework provided by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act). The Act does not explicitly define what constitutes biometric data but rather regulates any information relating to an identifiable person, when processed digitally. A voice recording which can identify a person would normally be personal information within the meaning of the Act. The DPDP Act is based on principles of informed consent, purpose limitation, data minimisation and accountability. Therefore, organisations that collect or process voice recordings should ensure that the processing is kept to the purpose for which consent was given. Where a recording was originally made for a musical performance it might be required to be re-consented for use in targeted advertising and/or biometric authentication or for training an AI system.
Conclusion
The evolution of sound recording law demonstrates that intellectual property is no longer confined to questions of ownership alone. Today a single sound recording is the product of a variety of creative thinkers and producers all of whom have legal rights that are different and should be recognized and protected individually. The law governing sound recordings needs to adapt as the music industry evolves into streaming services, artificial intelligence, and data-driven technologies to protect commercial interests and individual rights.
The understanding of the Calcutta High Court in Vodafone Idea Limited v. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited is another significant progress in this evolution. The Court reaffirmed that the rights in the literary and musical works were not automatically included in the rights of the sound recording which is the subject of the license. The Court reinforced the statutory protection provided under the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012. The judgment under review helps to uphold the principle that the author or composer has the right to fair remuneration whenever his/her work is exploited commercially and that the author/composer is not just a contributor to a commercial product. It also differentiates between the activity of music labels like Saregama that hold and license the sound recording rights and the copyright societies like IPRS that look after and defend the rights of lyricists and composers.
Meanwhile, the increasing application of AI music, voice cloning, biometric technologies and the distribution of digital content has brought copyright law into the discussion. The recorded voice is, first, a creative expression and, second, a component of one’s self. Copyright law will safeguard the value of the sound recording, but privacy law and the rights of performers and data protection principles will prevent the use of an individual’s voice and identity without informed consent. The coming together of these laws is indicative of a new and shared recognition that creativity is inextricable from the dignity and autonomy of those that produce it.
In conclusion, the music industry in India is on the verge of change, and it is essential to ensure a fair balance in the legal framework to foster creativity, justice, commercial viability and recognition for creators and performers. Procuring rights must therefore be more than simply acquiring licences. It must be an understanding of all of the layers of ownership that are inherent in a sound recording and an appreciation of each of those rights. If copyright is to continue to foster creativity and serve the interests of everyone involved in the digital and data-driven world it must be done in this balanced manner.
Footnotes
[1] The Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[2] The Copyright (Amendment) Act, No. 27 of 2012, Acts of Parliament, 2012 (India).
[3]Vodafone Idea Limited v. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited & Anr., A.O (COM) No. 17 of 2024 and APOT 300 of 2024.
[4] Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association , (1977) 2 SCC 820.
[5]Calcutta High Court Upholds Authors’ Royalty Rights in Digital Music Exploitation: Vodafone Idea v. IPRS, King Stubb & Kasiva, 13 June 2026.
[6] Calcutta High Court Says Vodafone Needs IPRS Licence To Use Songs As Caller Tunes , Live LawBiz, Riya Rathore 9 May 2026.
[7] ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, 2003 26 (PTC) 245.
[8] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[9]Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., Manu/Deor/248558/2023.
