Lawsikho Blog

A recent Delhi High Court ruling stated that Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), not being a registered copyright society, cannot issue or grant licences for the sound recordings in its repertoire. If you have ever used a song publicly or negotiated a music licence, you must understand the implications of this ruling. This judgment does not merely affect PPL’s internal operations, it affects how you, as a music user or rights holder, navigate the legal framework of music licensing in India.

Introduction

Let us say you are a DJ at a premium hotel chain, or maybe a brand manager planning a product launch event. And what does this event need? 

Bollywood tracks. 

You want to play recorded music to set the mood, as always, you would want to approach Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) to obtain the necessary public licence. 

A little context here — the PPL has long been the go-to licensing body for sound recordings. It represented major music labels and held what were considered exclusive rights to license the public performance of their sound recordings. 

It was once a registered society under the Copyright Act, 1957. It failed to re-register after the amendment. Even after its registration lapsed, PPL continued to issue licenses based on exclusive assignment agreements from major music companies.

But here is the catch. 

A recent judgement of the Delhi High Court (Phonographic Performance Limited v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited & Ors), has reshaped the music licensing landscape in India. 

The Court held that PPL, not being a registered society, cannot issue or grant licences for the sound recordings in its catalogue as it is not a registered copyright society.

What does this mean? 

If PPL has been licensing music for public performance and commercial use for decades, does this mean that many businesses have been paying the wrong entity? And, who do they approach now? 

These are not rhetorical questions. They are urgent legal questions for every hotel chain, event manager, content creator, broadcaster, and music rights holder in India. 

Let us begin by understanding the foundation of this ruling.

Understanding the role of Copyright Societies

So, let’s say if multiple rights holders wish to collectively authorise the public use of their work. Can they, do it? 

And by multiple rights holders, I mean record labels or musicians. They cannot do so through a private company or intermediary acting independently. 

The law requires them to function under the umbrella of a registered copyright society.

Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 mandates that if any person or organisation wishes to carry out the business of granting or issuing licences in respect of any copyrighted work on behalf of the owners of such rights, they must be registered as a copyright society under the Act. But this applies only to collective licensing on behalf of multiple rights holders, while individual owners or exclusive licensees can license under section 30 without registration

This provision exists to promote transparency, fair royalty distribution, and regulatory oversight. A copyright society, therefore, is a not-for-profit entity recognised and governed by the Copyright Office. 

I will make this simpler. 

Let us say a bunch of musicians or music companies want to let people use their songs, like at parties, in shops, on the radio, or on apps, but they also want to make sure they get paid fairly for it.

Now, they cannot just pick any random company to collect the money for them. The law says, if you are collecting money for music on behalf of a group of artists or music companies, you have to be part of something special called a copyright society.

A copyright society is like a club that is approved by the government. It makes sure everything is fair, like keeping track of who owns what song, who is using the music, and making sure the money gets to the right people.

But by contrast, PPL has historically operated as a private company claiming to represent record labels and assignors of sound recording rights. It issued licences for the public performance of sound recordings, including those used in events, retail spaces, hotels, and on digital platforms.

However, PPL is not, and never has been, a registered copyright society under section 33. That is the core issue before the Delhi High Court.

The Court held that PPL, despite its longstanding role in the industry, lacks the legal authority to issue such licences unless it either:

• Becomes a registered copyright society, or
• Becomes a member of an existing registered society and routes licensing through that body.

This changes the current licensing landscape and has practical consequences for the entire ecosystem.

Who can license sound recordings now?

As of now, the only entity that is registered as a copyright society for sound recordings in India is Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL). It was registered in 2021 under the Copyright Rules, 2013, specifically for this purpose. 

Following the Delhi High Court’s ruling, only RMPL can issue licences for the public performance or communication to the public of sound recordings on behalf of its members. 

So now, if you are a music label or rights owner, and you want to license your music for such uses, what are your options? 

• License the works directly in your own name as the rights owner, or
• Assign the rights to a registered society such as RMPL.

You can no longer assign these rights to an unregistered intermediary (like PPL) and expect them to act on your behalf for public licensing. That model is now legally untenable.

Do digital platforms come into play?

Now I think it only makes sense to talk about social media platforms. Do they come into play? Like Instagram? 

Yes, and this is where things become even more relevant to content creators, advertisers, influencers, and digital media companies.

Under the Copyright Act, “communication to the public” includes making a work available by display, streaming, broadcast, or performance, whether physically or online. 

So this means it just does not apply to a physical public place, such as clubs and restaurants. When you use a song in an Instagram video, YouTube short, or social media advertisement, and that sound recording is played publicly, whether as background music, in a reel, or as part of a commercial campaign, it qualifies as a public performance or communication. 

If the platform (such as Instagram) has not obtained a valid licence from the correct rights holder or a registered copyright society, then your use could be infringing. Even if the platform has some form of agreement with a body like PPL, this judgment calls the validity of that arrangement into question.

This also places an increased responsibility on platforms such as Meta (Instagram and Facebook), Google (YouTube), and others to revisit their licensing agreements in light of this judgment.

But you do not have to worry too much about it. Since you will only be using music which Instagram has already licensed. But if you are putting up your own video with a song of your choice, external to the ones built into it, then you must be careful.

This usually happens on platforms like YouTube. 

What the law actually says: A closer look at the Court’s reasoning 

To fully appreciate the Delhi High Court’s reasoning in the PPL ruling, you must turn to the statutory provisions that govern the assignment and licensing of copyright in India. In particular, sections 30 and 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957, form the legislative backbone of the judgment. The Court’s interpretation of these provisions directly influenced its conclusion that PPL could not issue licences for sound recordings without registration as a copyright society.

Let us examine these sections in detail.

Section 33: Registration of Copyright Societies

Section 33 is the cornerstone of collective copyright licensing in India. It reads in part:

No person or association of persons shall, after the coming into force of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994, commence or, carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of any work in which copyright subsists for the benefit of the owners of rights under this Act except under or in accordance with the terms and conditions of a registration granted under this section.

What does this mean? :

So, let’s say you are issuing licences on behalf of copyright owners (i.e., not as the owner yourself). And if you are doing so as a business or on a large scale, then you must be registered as a copyright society under this section.

The purpose of this provision is to ensure that entities engaged in public licensing are subject to statutory oversight, operate transparently in the distribution of royalties. 

And do not operate purely for profit, at the expense of rights holders.

How did this apply to PPL? 

PPL had entered into exclusive licensing arrangements with various record labels and claimed the right to license their works for public performance. However, PPL itself was not the owner of these works. It functioned as a representative or agent of multiple rights holders and carried on the business of public licensing.

The Court held that this activity squarely falls within the scope of section 33. Since PPL is not registered as a copyright society, it cannot lawfully carry out the business of public licensing on behalf of others.

Further, the Court reaffirmed that the purpose of registration is not a mere formality. It is a condition precedent for engaging in collective licensing. Without such registration, any licences issued are not backed by statutory authority and lack legal enforceability.

Section 30: Voluntary licensing by the Copyright owner

Section 30 of the Act addresses a different scenario. It permits the owner of copyright to grant licences directly to others. It states:

The owner of the copyright in any existing work… may grant any interest in the right by licence in writing… and the provisions of this Chapter shall, with any necessary adaptations and modifications, apply to a licence so granted.

This allows a rights holder, such as a music label or an independent producer, to grant licences in its own name. Importantly, this right is personal to the copyright owner or a party holding an exclusive right through a valid assignment.

Section 30, however, does not permit an unrelated intermediary to issue licences on behalf of multiple owners unless that intermediary has a legal status recognised under section 33.

What about the Bombay High Court’s view?

Just last year, the Bombay High Court in the case of Novex Communications Pvt Ltd. v. Trade Wings Hotels Limited, 2024 held that, organisations such as PPL and Novex Communications can grant licenses for the musical works owned by them even if they are not officially registered under section 33(1).

However, the Delhi HC disagreed with this and clarified that once the entity starts licensing works of multiple owners in the course of business, it must register as a copyright society. The Court also strongly held that PPL cannot bypass section 33 by invoking section 30.

It also spoke about systemic concerns. According to the Delhi High Court, accepting the Bombay High Court’s view would defeat the purpose of section 33.

How this ruling reshapes music licensing in India

The Delhi High Court’s ruling against PPL is not a mere procedural correction, it fundamentally reshapes how sound recordings are to be licensed and administered in India. Whether you are a copyright owner, a commercial music user, or an intermediary platform, this judgment alters your legal obligations and your strategic decisions.

Let us examine how the legal and operational landscape will change moving forward.

1. Greater emphasis on collective rights management

This ruling reinforces the primacy of registered copyright societies. It signals a clear shift away from private entities acting on behalf of multiple rights holders without statutory recognition.

If you are a rights holder, such as a music label, independent producer, or even an estate managing a legacy catalogue, you must now consider whether to:

• Join RMPL, the currently registered society for sound recordings
• Form a new society and seek registration under the Copyright Act
• Handle licensing individually, with clear attribution of ownership

This decision will no longer be dictated by informal industry practice. It must be aligned with statutory requirements.

In the long run, this will likely increase the use of collective rights management systems, where licensing terms are transparent, royalties are distributed equitably, and compliance is subject to regulatory scrutiny.

2. Compliance burden shifts to users and platforms

As a music user, whether you represent a restaurant chain, OTT platform, event agency, or marketing firm, this ruling imposes a heightened duty to verify the source of your licences.

You can no longer take for granted that a licence issued by a long-standing industry player like PPL is valid. Instead, you must ask:

• Is the licence issued by the actual owner of the copyright?
• If issued on behalf of someone else, is the licensor a registered copyright society?
• Does the agreement specify the rights granted and their legal basis?

This shift places legal and compliance departments under greater pressure to scrutinise licensing chains and ensure that the organisation is not exposed to infringement liability.

It also calls for a re-evaluation of internal protocols, particularly where licences are procured for background music, marketing content, or large-scale event use.

3. Uncertainty for intermediaries and existing agreements

Intermediaries like PPL, which have been operating based on exclusive assignments or licensing contracts, now face an uncertain future. Their existing agreements with music labels must be reviewed in light of the judgment. If those agreements are not structured to comply with section 33, they will not support a continued licensing role.

Moreover, any platform or commercial entity relying on licences previously issued by PPL must now engage in damage control:

• Some may need to relicense the same content through RMPL or directly from rights holders
• Others may face claims of unauthorised use or duplication of the licence fees

If you are in such a position, you should initiate legal due diligence immediately to understand your exposure.

4. Greater role for RMPL and other societies

RMPL is now poised to play a central role in India’s public performance licensing of sound recordings. It will likely absorb a greater number of rights holders, increase its repertoire, and become the principal interface for users seeking lawful music usage.

At the same time, IPRS, which manages the rights of composers and lyricists, will continue to issue licences for underlying musical works and lyrics. You must ensure that you are not conflating these rights.

If you are licensing music for commercial use, you will often need:

• A licence from RMPL (for the sound recording)
• A licence from IPRS (for the composition and lyrics)

This dual-layer structure is now more important than ever to understand and implement.

5. Long-term legal and business consequences

Over time, this ruling will:

• Promote uniformity and accountability in licensing
• Discourage opaque private licensing practices
• Empower rights holders to demand proper representation
• Encourage compliance with statutory frameworks

It may also lead to future litigation, as parties seek to recover licence fees or enforce rights based on revised interpretations of the law.

If you are involved in any contractual arrangements involving public use of music, you must assess whether your agreements remain enforceable or whether they need to be renegotiated in light of this judgment.

What you should do now

This ruling is not only significant in principle, but it also demands practical action. Whether you are a rights holder, a content producer, a corporate licensee, or a digital platform, you must now reorient your licensing strategy to comply with the law as clarified by the Delhi High Court.

This section outlines the steps you should consider taking immediately.

Audit your existing licences

Begin by conducting a thorough review of all existing music licences that involve sound recordings. Focus on the following questions:

• Was the licence granted by PPL?
• Did PPL act on its own behalf or on behalf of others?
• Does the agreement cite any legal basis under the Copyright Act?
• Has the copyright owner been clearly identified?

If the answers raise doubts about the legal validity of the licence, it is prudent to seek legal advice and explore alternative arrangements.

You should also examine whether your licence includes both sound recording rights and musical composition rights. If your agreement addresses only one, it may be insufficient in law.

Establish licensing protocols with RMPL and IPRS

Now that RMPL is confirmed as the registered copyright society for sound recordings, and IPRS continues to manage the rights of composers and lyricists, you must realign your licensing processes accordingly.

If you are a content distributor or commercial user, consider formalising relationships with both societies. You should contact RMPL to obtain updated catalogues and licence rates. 

Execute fresh licensing agreements that are in line with statutory requirements. Also, verify whether works in your catalogue are covered by RMPL or need direct licensing from individual rights holders

This dual-society approach ensures compliance across all musical elements, sound, lyrics, and composition.

Engage legal counsel for ongoing content projects

If you are producing films, television shows, advertisements, or social media campaigns, ensure that your legal team is involved at the pre-production stage. Do not assume that a platform-level licence or a previously acquired blanket licence will suffice.

Ensure that every piece of music is properly cleared and licensed from the correct source. Also, make sure that it is supported by documentation showing legal authority.

This is particularly important if you plan to distribute content internationally or through revenue-generating platforms, where rights verification is subject to higher scrutiny.

Re-negotiate legacy contracts with labels or intermediaries

If you are a record label or music publisher who previously assigned exclusive rights to PPL or similar intermediaries, you must now reassess those contracts.

Key considerations include:

• Does the agreement allow the intermediary to act as a licensing agent?
• Has the agreement been affected by the legal finding that such a role requires registration?
• Are you prepared to either license works yourself or do so through RMPL?

You should consider revising your contractual framework to bring it in line with the ruling. This may include issuing direct licences, joining a registered society, or restructuring the relationship with former intermediaries.

Train internal teams and update licensing policies

Finally, this ruling must be treated as a compliance inflexion point. Your teams, whether legal, marketing, event management, or media production, must be informed of the implications.

You should update internal licensing policies to reflect:

• The statutory role of registered societies
• The invalidity of licences issued by unregistered entities acting on behalf of others
• The dual licensing structure is now required for sound recordings and underlying works

A simple internal compliance checklist may be useful:

• Is the licence source a registered society or the copyright owner?
• Does it cover both the sound recording and musical composition?
• Is there evidence of ownership or authorisation?

By implementing such a framework, you reduce the risk of inadvertent infringement and place your organisation on a stronger legal footing.

 Step-by-step guide 

So now, how can one become a “society”? 

Registration of a copyright society is not a simple filing, it is a government-recognised, multi-stage process involving scrutiny, transparency, and regulatory oversight. If you or your organisation wishes to issue licences on behalf of multiple copyright owners, here is how you must proceed under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Copyright Rules, 2013.

Step 1: Form a non-profit body representing a specific class of works

You must first incorporate a non-profit organisation (such as a section 8 Company or Society) consisting of members who own or control copyrights in the same category of work, such as:

• Literary works
• Musical works
• Sound recordings
• Artistic works
• Cinematograph films

The body must represent authors and owners, and not function for commercial profit.

Step 2: Draft foundational documents and licensing scheme

Prepare the following documents:

• Constitution/bylaws of the society
• Code of conduct for members
• Governance structure ensuring fair representation of authors and owners
• Draft licensing scheme showing how the society will issue licences, collect royalties, and distribute them fairly

These documents must demonstrate internal democracy, fair royalty sharing, dispute resolution mechanisms, and annual audit and compliance processes.

Step 3: Apply to the Central Government for registration

File a formal application to the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, along with:

• Foundational documents listed above
• Names and details of founding members and office-bearers
• Statement of objectives and need for registration
• Proof that no other society currently represents the same class of works (to avoid overlap)

There must be no existing registered society for that specific class of work, unless the government is satisfied that more than one is necessary.

Step 4: Government scrutiny and public notice

Once filed, the application is:

• Reviewed by the DPIIT for completeness
• Published for public comment
• Open to objections or suggestions from stakeholders

This process can take several months and may involve further clarifications or modifications by the applicant.

Step 5: Grant of registration and ongoing compliance

If the application satisfies the legal criteria, the Central Government will issue a Certificate of Registration, recognising the applicant as a registered copyright society under section 33.

Once registered, the society must:

• Submit annual returns
• Maintain transparent financial records
• Allow members to inspect documents
• Renew registration periodically
• Be subject to government audit and oversight

Application format under Rule 44: What must be submitted

Form VIII is the form for registration. 

Mandatory contents of the application

1. Name and address of the applicant organisation
2. Class of works for which the society seeks to be registered (e.g., sound recordings, literary works)
3. Proof that no other copyright society is already functioning for that class of works
4. Details of the composition of the governing body and decision-making structure
5. Statement of aims and objectives of the society
6. Copy of the draft statute (bylaws) governing the society
7. Code of conduct to be observed by members
8. Draft model licensing scheme
9. List of authors and owners who have consented to be members (i.e., proof of representation)
10. Any other documents required by the Registrar or the Central Government

The application is to be submitted in writing (in physical or digital form as notified), but there is no pre-notified “Form” prescribed like for other copyright filings.

Where to submit the application

The application must be submitted to:

Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT)
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Government of India
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011

Although submission may be made physically or by email (depending on prevailing DPIIT instructions), applicants are encouraged to reach out to the DPIIT Copyright Section to confirm the mode and address.

If you are someone involved in content creation, distribution, or rights management, you now face both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to unlearn past practice and restructure your compliance systems. The opportunity is to engage with a transparent, legally sound licensing framework that protects the interests of rights holders and users alike. This ruling does not merely change who can license music. It redefines how music is to be respected as intellectual property in a lawful, accountable, and equitable manner.

Supreme Court’s stay on Delhi High Court direction

As of April 21, 2025, there has been some development. The Supreme Court granted a stay on the Delhi High Court’s directions that required Azure Hospitality to pay PPL licence fees based on the tariff rates. 

This stay was issued while the Supreme Court considers PPL’s SLP challenging the Delhi High Court judgement. 

Please note that the Supreme Court clarified that this stay does not reinstate the earlier injunction that had restrained Azure from playing PPL’s music in its establishments. 

The Supreme Court’s final ruling will be pivotal in determining the PPL’s authority to issue licenses.