Media Law Practice
Our media law practice covers copyright ownership structuring, content licensing across formats and platforms, talent agreement IP assignment, and enforcement against digital piracy — across the full content lifecycle from pre-production through platform distribution. We advise production houses, streaming platforms, broadcasters, music labels, and individual rights holders from our offices in New Delhi and Mumbai.
- Section 19(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 requires all copyright assignments to be in writing signed by the assignor. An oral commission or email confirmation has no validity as an assignment.
- Indian courts interpret licence scope by what was expressly granted, not by what the licensee assumed was included. We audit content licence portfolios against current and anticipated uses before clients commit to new platform deals.
- Performers’ rights under Section 38A of the Copyright Act vest initially in the performer and require specific written consent to transfer — distinct from the producer’s copyright in the film.
- Dynamic injunction orders before the Delhi High Court extend an existing website-blocking order to new mirror sites without a fresh application — the most operationally effective tool for sustained online piracy enforcement.
- Our Copyrights, IP Enforcement & Anti-Counterfeiting, and Media & Entertainment practices work as a single coordinated team across contracting and enforcement.
-
Copyright Ownership — What We Structure and Why
We advise producers on copyright ownership structuring at the outset of production. Copyright in a cinematograph film vests in the producer under the Copyright Act, 1957 — but copyright in the screenplay, musical score, and lyrics initially vests in those authors. The producer’s right to exploit those works rests on written assignments under Section 19 or exclusive licences. Section 19(1) is unambiguous: no assignment of copyright is valid unless it is in writing signed by the assignor.
Performers’ rights require separate structuring under Section 38A. This right vests in the performer and requires specific written consent or agreement to transfer — a step that is frequently missed in production agreements drafted without specialist copyright advice.
“Section 19(1) of the Copyright Act is unambiguous: no assignment of copyright is valid unless it is in writing signed by the assignor. We have resolved enough disputes arising from undocumented oral commissions to treat this as non-negotiable in every production agreement we draft.” Content Licensing — Multi-Platform, Multi-Territory Advisory
We advise content owners and platforms on content licensing across formats, territories, and distribution channels. Indian courts interpret licence scope by what was expressly granted — a licence for television broadcasting may not extend to streaming on demand. We audit existing licence portfolios against current and anticipated uses before clients commit to new platform deals, and draft new licences with express scope covering all intended platforms, formats, and territories.
Talent Agreements and IP Assignment
We draft and review production and talent agreements with directors, screenwriters, composers, lyricists, and performers, ensuring IP ownership is addressed with the same specificity as liability and payment terms. We address the recurring dispute scenarios: directors asserting moral rights under Section 57; screenwriters whose original assignment did not include sequel or remake rights; and composers and lyricists seeking separate streaming remuneration where their assignment was limited to a specific film.
Digital Piracy Enforcement — Our Approach
We enforce copyright against digital piracy through dynamic injunction orders before the Delhi High Court, platform takedowns under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and criminal prosecution under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 where the infringer’s identity is known. Dynamic injunctions extend existing website-blocking orders to mirror sites without requiring a fresh application — the most operationally effective mechanism for sustained enforcement. Our Copyrights, IP Enforcement & Anti-Counterfeiting, and Media & Entertainment practices operate as a single team from New Delhi and Mumbai.
Frequently Asked Questions
media-laws-practice-faq
Under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer of a cinematograph film is treated as the author and first owner of copyright in the film. However, the underlying works — screenplay, music, lyrics — are separately authored and their rights must be assigned to the producer in writing under Section 19(1) to give the producer full exploitation rights. Performers’ rights in individual performances vest in the performers under Section 38A and also require separate written transfer.
No. Section 19(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 explicitly requires every assignment of copyright to be in writing signed by the assignor or their duly authorised agent. An oral agreement to assign, an email exchange confirming a commission, or an informal understanding has no legal validity as an assignment.
The principal enforcement tools are: dynamic injunction orders before the Delhi High Court, which extend existing website-blocking orders to mirror sites without requiring a fresh application; platform takedown requests under the Information Technology Act, 2000; and criminal prosecution under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for wilful infringement. Dynamic injunctions are the most operationally effective mechanism for sustained enforcement against large-scale online piracy.
Under Section 38A of the Copyright Act, 1957, a performer has the exclusive right to make a sound recording or visual recording of the performance, to broadcast it, and to communicate it to the public. This right is initially vested in the performer and requires a specific written consent or agreement to be transferred to the producer. It is separate from the producer’s copyright in the film.
No. Indian courts interpret licence scope by what was expressly granted, not by what the licensee assumed was included. A licence for television broadcasting may not extend to streaming on demand; a licence for ‘India’ may not extend to diaspora viewers on a globally accessible platform. Licence scope must be expressly stated for all intended platforms, formats, and territories.