By Lucy Rana and Huda Jafri
The Two Routes to Music Licensing in India: An Overview
Any business that uses copyrighted music in India, whether in a mobile application, digital platform, live event, broadcast, or commercial production, must obtain authorisation from the relevant copyright holders. In India, there are two primary routes through which this authorisation can be obtained: (i) a direct licence negotiated with and granted by the rights holder (or its authorised representative), or (ii) a licence obtained through a registered copyright society that administers the rights of multiple owners on a collective basis.
Both routes are legally valid. Neither is inherently superior in all circumstances. The right choice for a specific business depends on the nature of the music usage, the identity of the rights holder, the territory of operation, and the degree of legal certainty required. This article examines both routes, identifies the factors that inform the choice, and explains how Indian courts have approached disputes arising at the intersection of the two.
What Is a Copyright Society Licence in India?
Under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright societies are registered organisations authorised to carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, or related works. The principal copyright societies relevant to music usage in India are:
- IPRS (Indian Performing Right Society Limited): Administers performing rights and communication rights in respect of musical works (melody) and literary works (lyrics).
- PPL India (Phonographic Performance Limited): Administers the public performance and communication rights in sound recordings.
A copyright society licence provides blanket authorisation to use any work within that society’s repertoire under the terms and tariff applicable to the user’s category of use. This blanket coverage is its principal commercial advantage: broad authorisation with a single payment and a single point of contact.
What Is a Direct Licence from a Rights Holder?
A direct licence is a contractual agreement entered into between a user and the specific rights holder, being the composer, lyricist, music publisher, or their authorised representative, for the use of a defined set of works in a defined manner within a defined territory. The rights holder grants permission directly, without the intermediation of a copyright society.
Direct licensing is particularly common in: international licensing arrangements where a foreign publisher grants a licence covering specific territories including India; film or entertainment synchronisation licences; branded or corporate content licences; and digital gaming or interactive entertainment, where specific musical compositions are embedded in a product and the rights holder is identifiable.
Comparing the Two Routes: Key Dimensions
Scope and Coverage
A copyright society licence provides blanket coverage across the society’s entire repertoire, operationally efficient for platforms using large volumes of music from diverse sources. A direct licence covers only the specific works identified in the agreement. For businesses using a defined, limited catalogue, a direct licence may provide all the coverage required; for platforms with extensive, varied catalogues, blanket licensing is often more practical.
Cost and Tariff Transparency
Copyright society tariffs are generally published and applied uniformly across defined categories of users, providing predictability but limiting negotiating room. Direct licences are commercially negotiated and therefore flexible, but they require legal resources to structure, negotiate, and document. Businesses should always request detailed tariff breakdowns from copyright societies and benchmark them against equivalent home-territory rates.
Legal Certainty
A direct licence provides a higher degree of legal certainty for the specific works it covers, but only if it is correctly drafted. This is precisely where many businesses encounter problems. A licence that appears comprehensive from a commercial standpoint may contain territorial, rights-layer, or copyright-society gaps that render it legally insufficient for the India market. The drafting requirements for a direct licence to be effective against IPRS are specific, and they are not standard inclusions in a cross-border commercial licence.
Risk of Double Payment
One of the most significant risks in the Indian context is double payment, a business paying royalties both to a foreign rights holder under a direct licence and to IPRS under a blanket licence, for the same works. This risk arises most acutely where the territorial scope of the direct licence is ambiguous, where the direct licence does not explicitly address the copyright society’s mandate in India, or where the business is unaware of the interaction between direct licensing and copyright society mandates.
When Does a Direct Licence Displace IPRS’s Collection Rights?
This is the most commercially significant question for digital businesses operating in India. The legal basis is Section 34 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which makes clear that the powers and functions of a copyright society are subject to the terms of the rights holders’ agreements with the society. Where a rights holder has granted a direct licence covering India, the copyright society’s mandate to collect for that use from that licensee is, in principle, extinguished for the duration of the direct licence.
For this displacement position to be legally robust, the direct licence must satisfy several specific conditions relating to its territorial scope, the completeness of the rights it grants, how it addresses the copyright society’s independent mandate in India, and how it is communicated to the relevant parties. These requirements go beyond what most commercial licence agreements include by default, and a licence that fails to meet them may not protect you at the point when IPRS actually comes knocking.
▸ Whether your existing licence is sufficient to displace IPRS’s collection mandate in India requires a review of the licence against the specific legal requirements under Indian copyright law. If you are unsure about your position, the time to find out is before you launch, or before you respond to a notice. Contact S.S. Rana & Co. for a licence review.
Judicial Guidance: What Indian Courts Have Said
Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Music Ltd. (Bombay High Court, 2019)[1]
This decision is frequently cited in the context of digital music licensing. Wynk argued that it could rely on the statutory licensing provision under Section 31D of the Copyright Act to continue streaming Tips’s music catalogue after their direct licence expired. The Bombay High Court rejected this argument and held that Section 31D did not confer an automatic right on internet streaming platforms to exploit a musical catalogue without a valid licence. The court emphasised the need for valid authorisation and rejected reliance on Section 31D for internet streaming. The court underscored the primacy of direct contractual licences and the need for streaming platforms to obtain, and maintain, appropriate authorisation.
The lesson: a direct licence, once obtained, must be renewed or extended before expiry. Allowing it to lapse creates a window of infringement exposure that statutory licensing provisions will not fill.
Vodafone Idea Limited v. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited & Anr. (Calcutta High Court, 2024)[2]
Vodafone had licensed sound recordings from Saregama for use in its caller tune service. IPRS brought proceedings asserting that Vodafone also required a licence for the underlying musical and literary works. The court upheld IPRS’s position, confirming that a licence from a sound recording owner does not cover the underlying musical and literary works. Both layers of rights must be independently cleared.
The lesson: any direct licence must be reviewed to confirm it covers all layers of rights in the relevant music, not merely the sound recording, but also the musical composition and literary work. This ruling was upheld on appeal by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in May 2026, reinforcing the position.
Why Specialist Drafting Matters for India-Facing Music Licences
The gap between a licence that appears to cover your India usage and one that will actually protect you when challenged is almost entirely a question of drafting. Standard cross-border music licences, whether negotiated with a foreign publisher, a collecting society, or a rights management company, are rarely drafted with the Indian copyright framework in mind.
The specific provisions that determine whether a direct licence is effective against IPRS, and whether it covers all the rights needed for your India-facing digital product, are not intuitive. They reflect the interaction between the Copyright Act, 1957, the structure of copyright society mandates, and the practical realities of how IPRS enforces its claims. Getting these provisions right requires counsel with active experience in Indian music licensing.
Our Coverage on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7486390341147774976
[1] Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Ltd. & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 872.
[2] A.O (COM) No. 17 of 2024
Direct Licensing Faqs
Not necessarily. For platforms with diverse, large-scale music usage, blanket copyright society licences offer operational efficiency that individual direct licences cannot match. Direct licences are preferable for businesses using a defined catalogue where the rights holder is identifiable, the territorial scope is critical, and legal certainty is paramount.
The legal principle is that a copyright society’s mandate is subject to the rights retained by copyright owners and the terms of their own licensing arrangements. In practice, however, IPRS may still send notices and pursue claims even where a direct licence exists, and rebutting those claims requires demonstrating that your licence meets the specific legal requirements that make it effective against a copyright society. This is not a self-executing process; it requires a correctly framed legal position and active management of the correspondence with IPRS.
It can, but its practical effectiveness depends entirely on how it is drafted, whether the licensor has the financial standing to honour it, and how promptly it can be invoked. Many businesses discover that their indemnification clause, while present, does not cover the specific category of claim IPRS is making. Reviewing your indemnification provision before a notice arrives is far more effective than trying to enforce it after.
This is a genuinely complex question. The enforceability of a foreign-law licence as against a third-party Indian copyright society involves questions of private international law, Indian copyright law, and the specific terms of the licence. It is not a question with a single answer; it depends on the facts. We advise that any foreign-law licence intended to cover India usage be reviewed by India-qualified IP counsel before being relied upon.
The commercial timeline varies, but the legal process of ensuring an India-compliant licence is in place is often shorter than businesses expect, provided counsel is involved early. The principal risk of delay is operating without licensing cover in India, which is a position no business launching a digital product should accept.