Summary
Though copyright law promises to empower creators, music composers and lyricists in India continue to stand outside the circle of ownership and royalties. Despite the 2012 Amendment creating an inalienable royalty right for music creators, contractual practices and legal interpretations have kept control in the hands of producers and labels. As World IP Day 2025 celebrates music and intellectual property, this article questions whether the system truly delivers for those who create. It invites a moment of pause—to reflect on what copyright offers, and what it ought to.
With WIPO’s call to “Feel the Beat of IP” World IP Day 2025 brings music and creativity to the fore. Across India, institutions and organisations are gearing up to mark the occasion with events, sessions, and publications highlighting the role of intellectual property in incentivising authors, creators, and entrepreneurs.
Over the last few years, governments and international organisations have been actively promoting IP as a powerful tool to encourage innovation, creativity, and economic growth. This year’s focus on music and intellectual property is expected to amplify that narrative through discussions, talks, and events extolling the value of IP—particularly copyrights—in promoting music authorship, creativity, and entrepreneurship.
But does the copyright system genuinely serve the interests of creators?
Does it truly encourage authors and creators to create music?
Experience suggests otherwise. For many authors and creators, the copyright system remains more symbolic than substantive. As the celebrations unfold, it is worth reflecting on the role of authors and creators in music copyrights.
Authors and Creators in the Copyright System
The stated and promoted objective of copyright law is to promote the progress of arts and creativity by granting authors exclusive rights over their works. These rights are expected to provide commercial leverage, incentivising authors to create and disseminate their creative expressions. In theory, this framework empowers creators—but in practice, particularly in the music industry, it often fails to do so.
Though the Statute of Anne in 1710 sought to give authors control over their creations, the practical ownership of copyrights continued to remain with persons with monetary muscle. In India, though the Copyright Law states that authors are the first owners of their works, this principle has many exceptions. Works created under employment, commissioned works, and apprenticeships are specifically excluded. In such cases, ownership vests in the person who pays, not the person who creates.
This has enabled companies, publishers, and producers to claim ownership over a majority of creative outputs. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have interpreted the law in a manner that reinforces this outcome. Through a combination of statutory exceptions and judicial interpretations, the control that authors have over their works is significantly diluted. Ownership today often lies with those who fund the creation, not with those who bring it into existence.
Even in cases where authors begin as owners, control is rarely retained. In order to publish or communicate their works, authors are required to transfer their rights—often through assignments for lump-sum payments or minimal royalties. These transactions usually favour the transferee, and contractual terms are rarely negotiated on an equal footing. Once transferred, the author is left with little or no say in the exploitation or revenue from the work. Royalty structures, where they exist, are vague, and accounting is seldom transparent.
The result is that a substantial portion of copyrighted works does not belong to their authors. Most creators earn only a small fraction of the revenue their works generate. The situation is more severe in India, where the percentage of works controlled by authors is low, and institutional support for creators is weak. In the music industry, this disparity is particularly evident. Despite being the source of creativity, music authors often find themselves at the periphery of ownership and revenue. Their rights are routinely contracted away, leaving them with limited control and minimal benefit.
Music, Creators, and Copyrights
A substantial portion of music created in India today is for the film industry. Estimates suggest that nearly 80 percent of Indian music is produced for films, and only 20 percent is created outside the context of cinema. The process of music creation involves distinct categories of creators:
- Lyricists, who write the lyrics (literary works);
- Music composers, who create the musical score (musical works);
- Performers, who render the songs (performers’ rights); and
- Producers and/or labels, who create recorded music (sound recordings).
Each of these is recognised as a separate work or right under copyright law, and each gives rise to corresponding rights. The integration of all these elements results in the final musical product.
Traditionally, producers of films acquired rights in all the constituent works, and with limited exceptions, this model continues to dominate. As a consequence, most lyrics, compositions, and recordings are owned by film producers or music labels. Lyricists, composers, and performers are compensated at the time of creation or performance, and their participation in revenue streams beyond that point is minimal or non-existent.
In 2012, the Copyright Act was amended to address this imbalance. The amendment introduced an inalienable royalty share right for authors and performers to ensure their continued participation in the commercial exploitation of their works.
Lyricists, Composers, and Royalty Share
The 2012 Amendment granted authors and performers a right to receive equal share of royalty from commercial exploitation of their works outside cinema halls. To enable this, the amendment disallowed automatic transfer of copyright through employment or commissioning arrangements, and required that any transfer of ownership be made through written assignment. It inserted a statutory obligation that the royalty right cannot be waived or assigned, and must be administered through registered copyright societies.
Through this royalty right, lyricists and composers are entitled to equal royalty from revenues generated through commercial use of their works outside the movie theatre. The law made it clear that even if ownership rests with producers, labels, or other copyright owners, the royalty right would remain with the creator.
Despite the legislative intent, music creators continued to be deprived of their royalty share from commercial proceeds. Producers and copyright owners have employed contract structures and industry practices to sidestep the royalty provisions. Set-offs, one-time payments, and exclusions of music from the scope of societies have been routinely used to dilute the creators’ rights. For over a decade, producers and labels have retained the lion’s share of revenues from music, while creators have received negligible returns.
One of the most common arguments advanced by copyright owners is that sound recordings are independent works, and that lyricists and composers are not entitled to share in their exploitation. This view was accepted by several courts, enabling content owners to continue monetising music without sharing royalties with authors. With substantial legal resources at their disposal, they succeeded in sustaining this position across multiple forums.
This trend has, however, seen a shift in the last few months. Some courts have, at the interim stage, held that lyricists and composers are entitled to a share in the royalties from sound recordings, and that only copyright societies can issue music licences. These findings, though significant, are preliminary and remain subject to final adjudication.
Given the financial implications, these cases are expected to be litigated extensively, and a conclusive interpretation may take several years to emerge. Even if the courts eventually rule in favour of music creators, legislative amendments aimed at reversing or neutralising the effect cannot be ruled out.
Music Creators and the Beat of IP
Music creators do not compose songs or write lyrics with the objective of securing copyright protection. For most, intellectual property is incidental and relevant only when rights are transferred or contracts are signed. Conversations with creators reflect a consistent theme: “Copyright law plays little or no role in the creative process.”
Historically, music creators in India have received very little or no compensation from the commercial exploitation of their works. Even after the 2012 Amendment, several models have been employed to limit the benefits that are supposed to flow to them. They are neither incentivised by the law nor adequately protected by it.
In this context, music creators in India may not find good reason to celebrate the rhythm and beat of intellectual property this World IP Day. Rather than glorifying the role of IP and copyrights in enabling creativity, it may be more meaningful to pause and reflect on what the system has delivered for music creators, and what it must deliver going forward.
Perhaps such reflection can strike a better note, and bring the beat of IP closer to the origins of creativity.
Note: All views expressed in this article are my own, and do not represent those of BananaIP or its affiliates.
You Might Also Want To Read
