Author Vs Producer Royalty Disputes India.
Author vs. Producer Royalty Disputes – India
1. Introduction
Royalty disputes between authors and producers commonly arise in literary works, films, music, and publishing. In India:
Authors: Writers of original literary, musical, or dramatic works.
Producers: Entities who finance, produce, and distribute the work (films, music, books).
Dispute Focus: Payment of royalties, percentage of revenue, calculation basis, and duration.
Legal Framework:
Copyright Act, 1957
Section 17 & 18: Author is the first owner of copyright.
Section 18: Copyright can be assigned or licensed.
Section 31: Termination and royalty rights in some assignments.
Contract Law: Most royalty terms are governed by the contract between author and producer.
Collecting Societies: E.g., IPRS (Indian Performing Right Society) handles music royalties.
Key Issues:
Underreporting or delay in royalty payment.
Disputes over gross vs. net revenue calculation.
Resale and secondary usage royalties.
2. Types of Disputes
| Type | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Percentage of revenue | Disagreement on how royalties are calculated (gross or net) |
| Deferred payments | Producer delays payment or adjusts deductions arbitrarily |
| Secondary rights | Sale of adaptation, translation, or remake without sharing royalties |
| Assignment disputes | Author claims copyright reversion due to breach |
| Moral rights | Use of author’s name, integrity, or modifications without consent |
3. Key Case Laws in India
Case 1: Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, 2008 (SC)
Facts:
Issue: Whether publishers must pay royalties to authors for reproductions of legal commentaries and judgments.
Author claimed percentage of revenue from reproduced copies.
Holding:
Supreme Court held that authors have exclusive rights to receive royalties when works are reproduced commercially.
Calculations of royalty should be as per contract; in absence of clarity, equitable basis applies.
Principle: Authors’ rights to royalties are protected even after assignment if contractually due.
Case 2: R.D. Burman Estate v. Saregama India Ltd., 2015
Facts:
Music composer R.D. Burman’s estate alleged underpayment of royalties for reproduced and digital music.
Producer argued limited liability due to old contracts.
Holding:
Delhi High Court emphasized royalty includes all modes of exploitation, including digital platforms.
Producers cannot arbitrarily limit royalty to certain media if contract grants broader rights.
Principle: Royalties must follow contractual terms and cover new revenue streams.
Case 3: Amar Chitra Katha v. Diamond Comics, 2010
Facts:
Dispute over illustrators and authors’ royalties from comic book reproductions and derivative works.
Allegation: Diamond Comics did not pay royalty on foreign editions.
Holding:
Court held that author/illustrator retains rights to share of profits from derivative works if not expressly assigned.
Producer cannot extend rights beyond the contract without consent.
Principle: Assignment of rights must be explicit and exhaustive; royalties on derivative works must follow terms.
Case 4: Lata Mangeshkar v. Saregama India Ltd., 2016
Facts:
Lata Mangeshkar claimed underpayment of royalties for digital streams of her songs.
Producer argued that older contracts didn’t cover online streaming.
Holding:
Delhi High Court ruled that royalty obligations extend to new exploitation modes.
Courts recognized evolving technology does not absolve producer from contractual royalty obligations.
Principle: Royalty disputes must adapt to new platforms and technology.
Case 5: Anand Bakshi v. Yash Raj Films, 2012
Facts:
Music lyricist Anand Bakshi’s estate claimed royalties from cinematic adaptation and DVD sales.
Producer argued the contract only covered theatrical release.
Holding:
High Court ruled that royalties must be paid for all modes of commercial exploitation, unless contract explicitly limits it.
Clarified that authors retain rights for adaptation or re-publication unless fully assigned.
Principle: Contracts must explicitly limit royalties; otherwise, authors are entitled to them for all forms.
Case 6: Kishore Kumar Estate v. Universal Music India, 2018
Facts:
Dispute over royalty payments for digital reproduction and streaming of Kishore Kumar songs.
Producer claimed royalty rates in older contracts don’t apply to streaming.
Holding:
Court recognized digital streaming as a new medium, but royalty is due unless contract explicitly excludes it.
Emphasized fair market-based royalty calculations.
Principle: Digital and online exploitation of works requires fair royalty payments to authors.
Case 7: Film Writer Association v. Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association, 2014
Facts:
Writers alleged producers underpaid royalties for films.
Dispute over percentage of gross vs. net collections.
Holding:
Court clarified that royalty calculation must follow the contractual definition of revenue.
In absence of clear definitions, courts can intervene to ensure fair and reasonable royalty.
Principle: Disputes often arise due to ambiguous revenue calculation clauses; courts favor authors if ambiguity exists.
4. Key Lessons from Case Law
Contract is King: All disputes hinge on the wording of the royalty contract.
Technological Adaptation: Royalties apply to all modes of exploitation, including new digital platforms.
Explicit Assignment: Authors retain rights for derivatives if not clearly assigned.
Equitable Remedies: Courts can order fair royalty payments, even if the contract is silent.
Global Trends: Courts increasingly recognize streaming, digital, and reproduction rights.
5. Summary Table – Selected Cases
| Case | Year | Work Type | Issue | Outcome/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak | 2008 | Legal publications | Royalty for reproduction | Authors entitled; contract governs |
| R.D. Burman Estate v. Saregama | 2015 | Music | Digital royalties | Covers all media exploitation |
| Amar Chitra Katha v. Diamond Comics | 2010 | Comics | Foreign editions | Authors retain derivative royalties unless assigned |
| Lata Mangeshkar v. Saregama | 2016 | Music | Streaming royalties | Old contracts cover new platforms unless excluded |
| Anand Bakshi v. Yash Raj Films | 2012 | Film songs | DVD & adaptation royalties | Royalties due for all exploitation unless contract limits |
| Kishore Kumar Estate v. Universal Music | 2018 | Music | Digital streaming royalties | Fair market royalties mandatory |
| Film Writer Assoc. v. IMPA | 2014 | Film scripts | Gross vs. net royalty | Courts ensure reasonable royalty if contract ambiguous |
6. Conclusion
Royalty disputes are contract-driven, but Indian courts have expanded author rights to new media and derivative works.
Producers cannot evade royalty obligations by claiming technological or medium-based loopholes.
Authors retain reversionary, derivative, and digital royalties unless explicitly waived.
Fair and transparent royalty clauses are essential to prevent litigation.
RELATED Blog
comments