Sampling Disputes Judicial Approach India
1. Meaning of “Sampling” in Indian Copyright Law
Sampling refers to:
Taking a portion of a sound recording, musical composition, lyrics, or audiovisual work
Re-using it in a new song, remix, film, advertisement, or digital content
Sampling disputes in India arise mainly under the Copyright Act, 1957, especially:
Section 14 – Exclusive rights of copyright owners
Section 51 – What constitutes infringement
Section 52 – Fair dealing exceptions
India does not have a separate statutory provision on sampling, so courts apply:
Substantial similarity test
Qualitative and quantitative assessment
Purpose and intent of use
Market impact
2. Judicial Tests Applied in Sampling Cases
Indian courts typically examine:
Whether the sampled portion is substantial
Whether the sample is recognizable
Whether the use is commercial
Whether fair dealing applies
Whether the new work competes with the original
Even very small portions can amount to infringement if they represent the “heart” of the work.
3. Landmark Indian Case Laws on Sampling
Case 1: Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (1997)
(Delhi High Court)
Facts
Super Cassettes used portions of sound recordings owned by Gramophone Company without authorization.
Issue
Whether partial copying of sound recordings amounts to infringement.
Judgment
The Court held:
Copyright infringement does not depend on the length of the copied portion
What matters is whether the copied portion is substantial and identifiable
Sampling of sound recordings without license constitutes infringement
Judicial Approach
Zero tolerance for unauthorized sampling
Commercial exploitation weighs heavily against fair dealing
Importance
Established the principle that sampling ≠ safe just because it is short
Case 2: Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Mars Recording Pvt. Ltd. (2000)
(Delhi High Court)
Facts
Mars Recording reproduced parts of existing sound recordings in new compilations.
Issue
Whether rearrangement or remixing avoids infringement.
Judgment
Court ruled:
Rearrangement does not destroy originality of the original work
Sampling even after modification still infringes if the source is recognizable
Judicial Approach
Recognizability test is crucial
Transformation does not automatically confer originality
Importance
Highly relevant for remixes, mashups, and DJ culture
Case 3: Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd. (2011)
(Delhi High Court)
Facts
A television network used short clips of songs during programs and advertisements.
Issue
Whether short excerpts qualify as fair dealing.
Judgment
Court held:
Commercial sampling in broadcasts does not qualify as fair dealing
Repeated use of short clips increases infringement severity
Judicial Approach
Context and repetition matter
Sampling for branding or commercial programming is infringing
Importance
Sets boundaries for media houses and broadcasters
Case 4: Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Music Ltd. (2019)
(Bombay High Court)
Facts
Wynk Music streamed and cached copyrighted songs without valid licenses.
Issue
Whether digital reproduction and temporary storage amount to infringement.
Judgment
Court held:
Digital storage and reproduction require authorization
No implied license exists for sampling or storing music digitally
Judicial Approach
Strong protection for copyright owners in digital environments
Sampling and caching treated as reproduction
Importance
Directly impacts digital sampling, streaming, and remix platforms
Case 5: Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Lookpart Exhibitions & Advertising Pvt. Ltd. (2016)
(Delhi High Court)
Facts
Music was played at events without licenses, including short excerpts.
Issue
Whether partial performance amounts to infringement.
Judgment
Court ruled:
Any unauthorized public performance of sound recordings infringes rights
Duration of music is irrelevant
Judicial Approach
Strict liability standard
No de minimis defense for public performance
Importance
Reinforces the no-threshold rule for sound recording rights
Case 6: Eastern India Motion Pictures Association v. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (1977)
(Supreme Court of India)
Facts
Dispute over rights of composers and producers when songs are incorporated into films.
Issue
Who controls music rights after incorporation into cinematograph films.
Judgment
Court held:
Producer becomes owner of sound recording rights
Sampling film music requires producer’s authorization
Judicial Approach
Ownership clarity before assessing infringement
Sampling must respect chain of title
Importance
Foundational case for film music sampling disputes
Case 7: Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (2015)
(Supreme Court of India – indirectly relevant)
Facts
Dispute related to venue jurisdiction and music rights enforcement.
Judgment
Court reaffirmed:
Music copyright enforcement applies strictly
Commercial exploitation cannot hide behind minimal use arguments
Judicial Approach
Courts discourage defenses based on technical loopholes
Importance
Strengthens enforcement of sampling rights across jurisdictions
4. Fair Dealing and Sampling – Indian Position
Sampling rarely qualifies as fair dealing in India because:
Sampling usually targets the most recognizable part (hook, chorus, beat)
It is generally commercial
It affects the market of the original work
Indian courts have consistently rejected:
“Very small portion” defense
“Transformation” without permission
“No market harm” arguments when commercial intent exists
5. Judicial Principles Emerging from Sampling Cases
| Principle | Indian Judicial Position |
|---|---|
| Length of sample | Irrelevant |
| Recognizability | Decisive |
| Commercial intent | Strong evidence of infringement |
| Fair dealing | Very narrow |
| Digital sampling | Requires license |
| Transformation | Not a defense if source identifiable |
6. Remedies Granted by Indian Courts
Permanent and interim injunctions
Damages and accounts of profits
Seizure of infringing copies
Blocking of digital content
Criminal prosecution in serious cases
7. Conclusion
The Indian judicial approach to sampling disputes is strict and rights-holder friendly:
No de minimis rule
Recognizable sampling = infringement
Licensing is mandatory
Fair dealing exceptions are interpreted narrowly
Indian courts prioritize:
Protection of creative labor
Market integrity
Prevention of unauthorized commercial exploitation
RELATED Blog
comments