Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court granted interim injunctive relief in favour of the Plaintiff, holding that the copyright in the suit songs prima facie vested exclusively with the producer under valid contracts of service and copyright assignment. The Court restrained the Defendant from releasing, publishing, monetising, communicating to the public, or otherwise exploiting the suit songs across digital, electronic, or physical platforms, and further directed immediate takedown of all infringing content.
The Court also directed the Defendant to deliver all master recordings, stems, raw files, session data, lyrics, and related materials to the Plaintiff. Crucially, the Court held that delayed release of songs does not automatically result in lapsing or reversion of copyright when the contracts expressly exclude the operation of Section 19(4) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and provide that rights shall not lapse for non-exercise. The balance of convenience and irreparable harm decisively favoured the Plaintiff.
Facts
The Plaintiff, a film and music production company, commissioned the Defendant to write lyrics, compose music, and render singing services for ten songs under multiple agreements executed on 16 December 2023. These included a music director agreement, lyric writer agreement, and singer agreement. Each agreement categorically stated that the works were commissioned works or works made for hire, vesting first ownership of copyright in the Plaintiff, along with express and irrevocable assignment of all rights for the entire term of copyright and territory.
Disputes arose when the songs were not released for some time due to ongoing post-production. In July 2025, the Defendant asserted that, due to delay in release and alleged non-payment, he had reclaimed full ownership rights. On 8 August 2025, the Defendant unilaterally released the songs on various digital platforms with disclaimers claiming sole ownership. This prompted the Plaintiff to approach the Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court seeking urgent injunctive relief.
Issues
The primary issue before the Court was whether the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of exclusive copyright ownership in the suit songs, either as employer under a contract of service or as assignee under valid copyright assignments. A connected issue was whether delayed release of the songs entitled the Defendant to unilaterally rescind the agreements and exploit the works.
The Court also considered whether allegations of fraud, unfairness, or oral assurances contrary to written contracts could defeat copyright ownership at the interim stage, and whether Section 19(4) or Section 19A of the Copyright Act could be invoked by the Defendant to claim lapse or reversion of rights.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The Plaintiff contended that the suit songs were created under contracts of service and were commissioned works, making the producer the first owner of copyright under Section 17 of the Copyright Act. In addition, the Defendant had expressly and irrevocably assigned all copyright and allied rights through detailed contractual clauses, leaving no residual rights with him.
It was argued that the agreements specifically excluded the application of Section 19(4), providing that rights would not lapse for non-exercise or delayed exploitation. The Plaintiff also submitted that significant pre-production and post-production costs were incurred and that delay in release was partly attributable to the Defendant’s lack of cooperation. Unauthorised release of raw versions of the songs, it was argued, caused serious reputational and commercial harm.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Defendant argued that the agreements were obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and undue haste, without allowing him to read the documents. He contended that the agreed consideration was different from what was recorded in the contracts and relied on WhatsApp messages to assert oral assurances regarding payments and royalties.
It was further contended that prolonged non-release of the songs entitled him to rescind the agreements and reclaim ownership. The Defendant also questioned the Plaintiff’s claim of post-production work and alleged that some signatures in annexures were forged. Relying on principles of contractual fairness, the Defendant submitted that the agreements were exploitative and unenforceable.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined the statutory framework of the Copyright Act, 1957, including Sections 14, 17, 18, 19, and 19A. It reiterated that while the author is ordinarily the first owner of copyright, works created under a contract of service vest ownership in the employer unless otherwise agreed. The Act also permits assignment of copyright subject to contractual terms.
The Court emphasised that Section 19(4), which contemplates lapse of assignment for non-exercise within one year, expressly allows parties to contract otherwise. Where contracts clearly provide that rights shall not lapse notwithstanding non-exploitation, statutory lapse does not operate. Disputes regarding harshness or revocation of assignment must be addressed under Section 19A, subject to statutory limitations.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court that a person who signs a document is presumed to have read and understood it, absent clear and specific proof of fraud. It reaffirmed that oral assertions or WhatsApp communications cannot override clear written contractual terms at the interim stage.
The Court distinguished decisions where agreements were challenged as void or unenforceable through appropriate proceedings. It held that unless contracts are set aside or assignments revoked under the mechanism provided by law, copyright continues to vest with the assignee. Unilateral rescission and self-help measures such as unauthorised release of works are impermissible.
Court’s Reasoning
Applying these principles, the Court found that the contractual clauses unequivocally established that the suit songs were commissioned works and that copyright stood assigned wholly and without limitation to the Plaintiff. The Defendant was an educated individual, and there was no contemporaneous challenge to the agreements for nearly two years.
The Court noted that allegations of fraud were vague and lacked particulars. No proceedings had been initiated under Section 19A for revocation of assignment, and in any event, the statutory bar on revocation within five years applied. The correspondence showed that the Defendant was aware of assignment of rights and sought to “reclaim” them, which itself acknowledged their prior transfer.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that the Plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of exclusive copyright ownership in the suit songs. Delayed release did not entitle the Defendant to unilaterally rescind the agreements or exploit the works. Interim injunctions were granted restraining all unauthorised use and directing takedown and delivery of all materials relating to the songs.
Implications
This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of producer-centric copyright ownership in commissioned music works. It clarifies that artists cannot bypass detailed contractual assignments by invoking delay or alleged oral assurances. The ruling strengthens commercial certainty in the music and film industry and underscores that statutory remedies, not self-help, must be pursued in disputes over copyright assignments.