Perpetual assignment of music rights not limited to physical medium: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that copyright assignments made under decades-old agreements encompass exploitation through digital and non-physical mediums even if such technologies were not contemplated at the time of signing [Rupali Shah v. Adani Wilmar Limited]..The decision came in the case filed by Rupali Shah, daughter of late OP Ralhan, seeking to restrain Saregama Adani Wilmar from using musical works from films produced by her late father. The rights had been assigned to Saregama in perpetuity. Saregama had then licensed one of the songs to Adani Wilmar. In the judgment delivered on June 11, Justice Manish Pitale ruled that the assignee would be entitled to the sole rights, including those of use and performance (including broadcasting) throughout the world by any and every means whatsoever."The use of the aforementioned words in the above-quoted clause 10 of the agreement make it abundantly clear that the assignee had the right to exploit the works by all means," the Court stated..The dispute arose after Shah objected to the use of the iconic song 'Meri Duniya Hai Maa Tere Aanchal Mein' from the film Talash in an advertisement by Adani Wilmar. She claimed that the rights in the underlying musical works had reverted to her following the expiry of the original agreements and could not be exploited through digital or non-physical mediums. Saregama countered that it had been assigned the rights in perpetuity and had lawfully licensed the use of the song to Adani Wilmar.Rejecting Shah’s claim, the Court concluded that the 1967 agreement between Ralhan and Saregama’s predecessor assigned extensive rights, including the right to use, broadcast and reproduce the works “by any and every means whatsoever.” Although the Copyright Act was later amended in 1994 and in 2012 to introduce terms like “sound recording” and added a proviso to Section 18 limiting assignments of certain rights, the Court held that such statutory changes did not retrospectively affect rights that had already been lawfully assigned..The Court fundamentally rejected Shah's argument that perpetual assignments could have expiry dates. Justice Pitale found that "the assignment of rights in the subject works was in perpetuity and the restriction of time period was only to indicate that such rights were perpetually assigned in the context of works that were created within the said time period." The judgment clarified that time limitations in the agreements applied only to the creation of new works, not the duration of exploitation rights for existing compositions..The Court identified multiple factors confirming the perpetual nature of the assignment. The original producer OP Ralhan had included these rights as "property" in his will, suggesting that he believed that the assignments were indefinite.Additionally, both Ralhan and subsequently his daughter had accepted royalty payments over decades, including payments for digital exploitation, demonstrating consistent recognition of the defendants' ongoing rights across all platforms..The Court ruled that parties cannot retroactively claim that digital or streaming rights were not included in perpetual assignments made before such technologies existed. "The substance contained in the work being nothing other than sound, it would be inappropriate to hold that such substance was never assigned to the assignee," the Court concluded. Perpetual rights transfer the complete economic value of copyrighted works across all possible exploitation methods, the Court underscored."Defendant No.2 (Saregama) has proved that it has perpetual rights to exploit the music and the songs belonging to the estate of OP Ralhan and also holds perpetual right to grant licence to others in respect of the said music and songs," the Court said while dismissing the suit..Shah was represented by Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat and Advocates Rohan Kadam, Shirley Mody and Rucha Vaidya, instructed by K Ashar & Co.Adani Wilmar was represented by Advocates Naresh Thacker, Shailendra Poria and Samarth Saxena, instructed by Economic Laws Practice.Saregama was represented by Senior Advocate Veerendra Tulzapurkar with Advocates Gaurav Mehta, Chakrapani Misra, Jigar Parmar and Pranali Vyas, instructed by Khaitan & Co..[Read Judgment]