Exploring the Licensing Landscape of Copyright Law

Every song you hear on the radio, every textbook reprinted for a classroom, and every film broadcast on television involves a legal process most people never think about – copyright licensing. It is the bridge between a creator’s exclusive rights over their work and the public’s ability to access and use that work. Without it, copyrighted material would either stay locked away or be used without permission. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, India has built a structured framework of licensing that balances the interests of creators with the needs of society, education, and innovation.

What is copyright licensing? 🔗

A copyright license is a legal arrangement through which the owner of a copyrighted work grants specific rights of use to another person or organisation. Unlike an assignment – where the owner permanently transfers ownership – licensing allows the owner to retain ownership while permitting others to use the work under defined conditions. These conditions may cover how the work is used, where it can be distributed, for how long, and what royalties are to be paid.

The key difference is simple: assignment transfers ownership, while licensing merely grants permission to use. Once a license expires, any further use of the work without a fresh agreement amounts to infringement. This makes licensing a flexible and commercially powerful tool for creators across industries – from publishing and film to software and music.

Types of copyright licenses under Indian law 🔗

The Copyright Act, 1957 broadly classifies copyright licensing into three categories: voluntary licenses, compulsory licenses, and statutory licenses. Each serves a distinct purpose and is governed by specific provisions of the Act.

Voluntary licenses (Section 30) 🔗

Section 30 of the Copyright Act empowers the copyright owner to grant an interest in the copyright through a written license, signed by the owner or an authorised agent. This is entirely at the discretion of the owner, who decides the terms, scope, and duration of the license.

Voluntary licenses can take several forms:

Exclusive license – Defined under Section 2(j) of the Act, an exclusive license gives the licensee sole rights to use the work, excluding even the copyright owner from exercising those rights during the license period. Non-exclusive license – Multiple people or entities can be granted the right to use the same work simultaneously. Co-exclusive license – The owner grants licenses to a limited group of licensees rather than just one. Sole license – Only the copyright owner and the single licensee can use the work, with all other third parties excluded. Implied license – Arises from conduct rather than a written agreement. For instance, when a person sends a letter to a newspaper editor, an implied license to publish it may exist.

A robust voluntary license agreement typically specifies the rights being licensed, the territory, the duration, the royalty or fee structure, and any restrictions on use. Voluntary licensing is the most common form of copyright licensing and underpins most commercial transactions involving creative works – from book publishing deals to music synchronisation rights for films.

Compulsory licenses (Sections 31 and 31A) 🔗

Sometimes, a copyright owner may refuse to make their work available to the public, creating a situation where important creative works remain inaccessible. This is where compulsory licensing steps in. Under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, if a copyright holder refuses to republish, publicly perform, or broadcast a work – and this results in the work being withheld from the public – any person may file a complaint with the appropriate authority (now the Commercial Court, following the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021).

After conducting an inquiry and giving the copyright holder a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the authority can direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant a compulsory license. This allows the complainant to republish, perform, or communicate the work to the public. Where multiple complainants exist, the license is granted to the one deemed most capable of serving the public interest.

Compulsory licensing essentially overrides the owner’s refusal in specific circumstances, ensuring that copyright does not become a tool for suppressing public access to creative works.

Compulsory license for unpublished and orphan works (Section 31A) 🔗

A particularly important provision is Section 31A, which deals with unpublished works or works whose authors are dead, unknown, or untraceable. These are often called “orphan works” – works that exist but have no identifiable owner to grant permission for their use.

Under this section, any person can apply for a license to publish or translate such a work. Before applying, the applicant must publicly advertise their intention in a national English-language daily newspaper. If the work is to be translated, the advertisement must also appear in a newspaper in that language. Upon being satisfied that the conditions are met, the authority may grant a license, subject to the payment of royalties. These royalties are deposited in a public account so that the copyright owner or their legal heirs can claim them at any time.

Section 31A also empowers the Central Government to require the legal heirs of a deceased author to publish a work if it is considered desirable in the national interest. If they fail to do so within the specified period, a compulsory license can be issued to a third party.

Compulsory license for persons with disabilities (Section 31B) 🔗

Introduced to promote inclusivity, Section 31B allows for the use of copyrighted works for the benefit of persons with disabilities. This enables the creation of accessible formats – such as Braille books or audio versions – when such access is not feasible through normal channels. Royalties are still payable to the copyright owner, but the provision ensures that disability does not become a barrier to accessing knowledge and culture.

Statutory licenses: a special category 🔗

While compulsory licenses require specific conditions and authority approval, statutory licenses operate on a more standardised basis. They are created by law to address specific, recurring needs – particularly in the broadcasting and music industries – and do not require the owner’s individual consent. The owner is, however, entitled to royalties at rates determined by law or the relevant authority.

Statutory license for cover versions (Section 31C) 🔗

Added through the 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act, Section 31C permits the creation of sound recordings of literary, dramatic, or musical works using the same medium as the last recording – commonly referred to as “cover versions.” This provision ensures musical diversity by allowing artists to create new recordings of existing compositions, provided they pay the prescribed royalty. It has been particularly significant for the Indian music industry, where cover versions and remixes are common.

Statutory license for broadcasting (Section 31D) 🔗

Perhaps the most debated licensing provision in recent years, Section 31D was also introduced in 2012. It allows broadcasting organisations to broadcast published literary or musical works and sound recordings by issuing prior notice to the copyright owner and paying royalties at the rate fixed by the designated authority. This provision was enacted in compliance with India’s obligations under the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, and the Rome Convention.

The central controversy around Section 31D has been whether it covers internet broadcasting and streaming services – or only traditional radio and television. In 2016, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) issued a memorandum suggesting that Section 31D should be broadly interpreted to include online platforms. However, the Bombay High Court in the Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Music Ltd. case (2019) ruled that the statutory license under Section 31D does not extend to internet streaming. The court observed that when Parliament amended the Copyright Act in 2012, it was aware of digital technologies but chose not to include internet broadcasting under Section 31D. In 2024, the DIPP formally withdrew its 2016 memorandum, largely settling the matter.

This means that internet streaming platforms like Spotify, Gaana, or Wynk must negotiate voluntary licenses directly with copyright owners rather than relying on statutory licensing – a requirement that significantly affects how the digital music industry operates in India.

Licenses for translation and reproduction 🔗

Two additional licensing mechanisms under the Copyright Act specifically promote educational access and knowledge dissemination.

License to produce and publish translations (Section 32) 🔗

Section 32 allows any person to apply for a license to translate a literary or dramatic work into another language. For Indian works, the application can be made seven years after the work’s first publication. For foreign works, the waiting period is three years, and it drops to just one year if the target language is not commonly used in any developed country. This provision is closely tied to India’s multilingual reality – with over 22 official languages, it ensures that significant literary and academic works can reach audiences beyond the original language of publication.

Translations produced under this license are restricted to non-commercial use within India, primarily for teaching, scholarship, or research. Copies cannot be exported outside the country, except under specific government-approved circumstances.

License to reproduce and publish works for certain purposes (Section 32A) 🔗

Section 32A targets situations where copies of a literary, scientific, or artistic work are not available in India or have not been on sale for at least six months. In such cases, any person may apply for a license to reproduce and publish the work for systematic instructional activities. The waiting periods vary depending on the type of work – seven years for fiction, three years for science and technology, and five years for other categories.

The copyright license agreement 🔗

At the heart of every voluntary licensing transaction is the copyright license agreement – the legal document that defines the relationship between the licensor (copyright owner) and the licensee. A well-drafted agreement is essential to avoid future disputes and should clearly cover several key elements.

These include the specific rights being licensed (reproduction, distribution, adaptation, public performance, digital use), the territorial scope (whether the license applies within India, a specific state, or globally), the duration of the license, the royalty or fee structure, and any restrictions or conditions on how the work may be used. Recent amendments to the Copyright Act have strengthened protections for authors – particularly authors of literary and musical works used in films or sound recordings – ensuring they cannot be deprived of their right to an equal share of royalties.

While registration of a license agreement is not always mandatory, it can provide additional legal protection. The cost of a copyright license varies widely depending on factors like the type of license, the commercial value of the work, the mode of use, and the duration of the agreement.

Why does copyright licensing matter? 🔗

Copyright licensing serves multiple purposes that go beyond just protecting the creator’s financial interests. For creators, it provides a steady revenue stream while retaining ownership of their work. For businesses, it opens doors to partnerships, content-sharing arrangements, and new markets. For the public, it ensures access to knowledge, entertainment, and culture without encouraging piracy or unauthorised use.

Compulsory and statutory licensing provisions add another layer of public interest by ensuring that works are not indefinitely withheld from society. Whether it is a textbook that needs to be translated for regional students, a song that a radio station wants to broadcast, or an orphan work of historical significance, the licensing framework ensures that creative works remain in circulation – benefiting both the creator and the community.

In the digital age, licensing has become even more critical. With content flowing freely across platforms and borders, a well-structured licensing regime helps define the boundaries of legal use, reduces infringement disputes, and promotes fair compensation for creators. The ongoing debates around Section 31D and internet broadcasting show that the law must continue to evolve alongside technology.

Licensing vs. assignment: a quick comparison 🔗

It is worth reiterating the distinction between licensing and assignment because confusion between the two can have serious legal consequences. In an assignment, the copyright owner permanently transfers their rights (or a subset of them) to another party. The assignee effectively becomes the new owner. In licensing, the owner merely permits someone else to use the work under specified conditions, and ownership never changes hands. Once the license period ends, all rights revert fully to the owner. This distinction is critical in commercial negotiations, particularly in media, publishing, and entertainment industries where intellectual property is a primary asset.

What do you think? As streaming platforms continue to grow and digital content consumption reshapes the entertainment landscape, should India expand Section 31D to include internet broadcasting under statutory licensing – or would that unfairly dilute the negotiating power of copyright owners?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15356/1/the_copyright_act,_1957.pdf
2. https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/854828/assignment-and-licensing-of-copyright
3. https://thelegalschool.in/blog/compulsory-licensing-under-copyright-law
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1288659/
5. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cd73f9de-0681-4d55-8b3c-9b7d42b0340f
6. https://thelegalschool.in/blog/section-32-copyright-act
7. https://kayserlegal.com/copyright-licensing-in-india/