Assignment, Licence, Compulsory Licence (Sections 18–32B)

Sections 18 to 32B of the Copyright Act, 1957 answer two doctrinally adjacent but commercially distinct questions: how does ownership of copyright move from one person to another, and how can a person other than the owner be authorised — voluntarily or against the owner's will — to use the work? The first question is the law of assignment under Sections 18 to 19A. The second is the law of licensing, which the Act splits into voluntary licences under Section 30, compulsory licences under Sections 31 to 31B, and statutory licences under Sections 31C and 31D. Sections 32 to 32B then deal with the special compulsory-licence regime for translation and reproduction of foreign works, an inheritance from the Berne Appendix.

The chapter is the commercial heart of the Copyright Act. Almost every transaction in which a creative work passes from creator to publisher, producer, broadcaster, streaming service or end-user implicates one of these provisions. The 2012 Amendment Act rewrote Sections 18, 19, 31, 31D and 32, in each case to redress an imbalance — between film producer and underlying author, between broadcaster and copyright owner, between rights-holder and the visually impaired user. A candidate must therefore hold the pre-2012 and post-2012 positions distinctly and be able to identify, on a fact-pattern, which of the three modes — assignment, voluntary licence, compulsory licence — is in play.

Statutory anchor and scheme

The relevant provisions in their proper sequence are:

1. Sections 18, 19, 19A — assignment of copyright (covered in detail in the authorship-and-ownership chapter; recapitulated here only insofar as needed to set up the licence provisions).
2. Section 30 — licences by owners of copyright; the basic voluntary-licence provision.
3. Section 30A — application of certain Section 19 rules to licences (writing, signature, royalty, term, territory, lapse).
4. Section 31 — compulsory licence in works withheld from the public.
5. Section 31A — compulsory licence in unpublished or published works of unknown authors.
6. Section 31B — compulsory licence for the benefit of disabled persons (inserted 2012).
7. Section 31C — statutory licence for cover versions (inserted 2012).
8. Section 31D — statutory licence for broadcasting of literary and musical works and sound recordings (inserted 2012).
9. Section 32 — licence to produce and publish translations.
10. Section 32A — licence to reproduce and publish works for certain purposes.
11. Section 32B — termination of licences produced by translation under Section 32 or reproduction under Section 32A.

Assignment versus licence — the conceptual line

An assignment under Section 18 transfers ownership of the copyright (or of a portion of it) from the assignor to the assignee. After assignment, the assignee is the owner of the assigned rights and may sue for infringement, grant further licences, and exclude the assignor from the assigned uses. A licence under Section 30, by contrast, is a grant of permission to use the copyright; ownership remains with the licensor, and the licensee's rights are personal and contractual.

The distinction maps closely onto the line drawn in trade-mark law between assignment and licensing of a registered mark. As the Supreme Court emphasised in Gujarat Bottling Co. v. Coca Cola Co. (1995) 5 SCC 545, the licence creates a continuing relationship in which the licensor retains the supervisory interest; the assignment is a one-time transfer of property. The distinction has practical consequences in copyright too. Where a licence is exclusive and is reduced to writing in compliance with Section 19, however, it operates almost as effectively as an assignment for litigation purposes — Section 30A imports the writing requirement, and an exclusive licensee may sue for infringement under Section 61 without joining the owner. The licence is, in form, an authorisation rather than a transfer of property — and that conceptual line drives almost every doctrinal consequence in the rest of the protected-works regime.

Section 30 — voluntary licences

Section 30 confers on the owner of copyright in any existing work, or the prospective owner of copyright in any future work, the power to grant any interest in the right by licence in writing signed by the licensor or by his duly authorised agent. The licence may be exclusive, sole or non-exclusive; it may be limited in time, mode of exploitation, territory, language and format; and it may be made subject to royalty.

Section 30A imports much of the Section 19 machinery. The licence must be in writing and signed; it must identify the work and specify the rights licensed; it must specify the duration, the territorial extent, the royalty payable; and the statutory defaults of five years (duration) and India (territory) operate where the parties are silent. Section 19(4)'s one-year non-exercise rule does not apply to licences in the same way it applies to assignments, but courts have read Section 30 as containing an implied requirement of reasonable exercise.

Exclusive, sole and non-exclusive licences

An exclusive licence is one that confers on the licensee, to the exclusion of all other persons including the owner, the right to exploit the work in the licensed manner; the licensor cannot grant overlapping licences nor exploit the work himself. A sole licence excludes other licensees but allows the licensor to continue to exploit the work himself. A non-exclusive licence permits the licensor to grant any number of overlapping licences. The Act expressly defines an “exclusive licence” in Section 2(j) as a licence which confers on the licensee, to the exclusion of all other persons including the owner of the copyright, any right comprised in the copyright in a work, and includes a sole licensee.

The exam-frequent point is locus standi. An exclusive licensee, by virtue of Section 61, has the right to sue in his own name, but the owner of the copyright is to be made a defendant unless he is joined as a plaintiff. A non-exclusive licensee has no independent locus and must rely on the owner to enforce — a position that often proves decisive when an alleged infringement under Section 51 straddles multiple licensees.

The 2012 lyricist-composer reforms — restated for the licence regime

Sections 18 and 19, after the 2012 Amendment, contain two protective restrictions that bear directly on the licence regime. First, the fourth proviso to Section 18 prohibits any assignment of the underlying musical or literary work for use in a cinematograph film from extending to royalties accruing on uses other than communication of the work along with the film in a cinema hall. Second, the fifth proviso applies the same protective rule to assignments of works for use in a sound recording that does not form part of a cinematograph film.

By Section 30A, these provisos apply mutatis mutandis to licences. The practical effect is that a film-producer's licensee for streaming or radio play of a film song must pay royalty directly to the underlying composer or lyricist (typically through a copyright society), and the producer cannot, by contract, channel that royalty to itself. Section 19(9) and (10) make the right unwaivable; an attempt to contract out is void.

Section 31 — compulsory licence in works withheld from the public

Section 31 allows any person to apply for a compulsory licence where the owner of copyright in a work that has been published or performed in public has refused to republish or allow the republication of the work, or has refused to allow the performance in public of the work, or has refused to allow communication to the public by broadcast of the work, on terms which the complainant considers reasonable. The forum was the Copyright Board until 2021; following the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, jurisdiction lies with the Commercial Court / designated appellate authority.

The licence is granted only after the forum has, after such inquiry as may be necessary, found that the owner has unreasonably refused. The forum must specify the royalty payable to the owner. The licence is not an automatic remedy; the applicant must demonstrate that he previously approached the owner and was refused on terms that were objectively unreasonable.

The drafting reflects a balance between the public's interest in access to creative works and the owner's monopoly. The provision is, in effect, the copyright analogue of compulsory licensing in patent law under Sections 84 and 92 of the Patents Act, 1970 — both regimes permit a State organ to override the IP-holder's refusal where access is being denied unreasonably. The contrast with the trade-mark licensing regime, where there is no compulsory-licence provision, is doctrinally instructive: trade marks indicate origin and quality, and forced licensing would corrode that function.

Section 31A and 31B — special compulsory licences

Section 31A applies to unpublished works whose author is dead, unknown or untraceable, or whose owner cannot be found. Any person may apply to the appropriate forum for a licence to publish such a work or a translation of it, after publishing in a newspaper a notice giving the owner an opportunity to object. The provision plays a small but useful role in literary archaeology — the publication of works by minor authors of the colonial era whose estates have lapsed.

Section 31B, inserted by the 2012 Amendment, is the disability-access provision. Any person working for the benefit of persons with disability on a profit basis or for business may apply for a compulsory licence to publish any work in any accessible format. The provision is the Indian implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty for the visually impaired and other reading-disabled persons, and operates alongside the relevant fair-dealing exemptions in Section 52 for accessible-format copies. The forum may grant the licence with conditions designed to ensure that the accessible-format copies do not leak into general distribution and that royalty is paid.

Section 31C — statutory licence for cover versions

Section 31C, also a 2012 insertion, codifies what had previously been an uneasy area of practice — the making of cover versions of musical works. Any person desirous of making a cover version of a sound recording in respect of which a sound recording has already been made by, or with the licence or consent of, the owner of the right in the work may do so, subject to four conditions. First, the cover version must be made only after the expiration of five calendar years after the end of the year in which the first sound recording of the work was made. Second, royalty must be paid in advance for a minimum of fifty thousand copies of each work in a calendar year, at the rate fixed by the appropriate forum. Third, the cover version must not be sold in any packaging or with any cover or label likely to mislead or confuse the public as to its identity. Fourth, the cover version must not contain the name of, or depict in any way, any performer of an earlier sound recording of the same work.

Section 31C is described as a “statutory licence” rather than a compulsory licence because the forum's role is limited to fixing the royalty rate; the licence itself arises by operation of law once the conditions are satisfied. The mechanism trades certainty (a fixed entry condition) for control (no individual negotiation), and parallels the compulsory-licensing-cum-royalty-fixation models found in many comparative jurisdictions.

Section 31D — statutory licence for broadcasting

Section 31D, the most contested 2012 insertion, allows any broadcasting organisation desirous of communicating to the public by way of a broadcast or by way of performance any literary or musical work and sound recording which has already been published, to do so on payment of royalty at rates fixed by the appropriate forum. The broadcaster must give prior notice of intention, pay royalty in advance, maintain records of the broadcasts and the royalty paid, and allow the owner to inspect those records.

The provision was the legislative response to the long-running stand-off between FM radio operators and music labels over royalty rates, and is best read in conjunction with the special regime for performers' rights and broadcast reproduction rights under Sections 37 to 39A. Whether Section 31D extends to internet streaming was a live question in the Bombay High Court's decision in Tips Industries v. Wynk Music (2019), in which the Court held that internet streaming services are not “broadcasting organisations” for Section 31D purposes and must therefore secure voluntary licences from the rights-holders at market rates. The decision is the most significant judicial gloss on the statutory-licence regime to date.

Sections 32 to 32B — translation and reproduction licences for foreign works

Sections 32 and 32A descend from the Berne Convention's Appendix concerning special provisions for developing countries. Section 32 allows any person, after the expiration of seven years from the first publication of a work, to apply to the appropriate forum for a licence to produce and publish a translation of the work in any Indian language. Section 32A allows a similar licence after a longer period (typically seven years for works of fiction, three for natural sciences, five for other works) for the reproduction and publication of a work where copies of an edition have not been made available in India at a price reasonably related to that of similar editions, or have not been made available to the general public or to educational institutions.

The licence in either case must be applied for to the appropriate forum, must be subject to royalty fixed by the forum, and must contain conditions designed to prevent the licensed copies from being exported or otherwise undermining the original publication. Section 32B then provides for termination of licences granted under Section 32 or 32A where the licensee has failed to comply with the conditions, or where the original copyright owner has, in the meantime, made the work available in India at a reasonable price.

The Section 32 to 32B regime is more theoretical than practical in commercial volume. Major publishers now routinely license Indian-language editions on commercial terms long before the seven-year Berne window opens. But the regime remains doctrinally important as the marker of India's developing-country status in the Berne settlement and as a backstop for educational and translation access.

Exhaustion of rights and the licence regime

The licence regime interacts with the doctrine of exhaustion of rights in a distinctive way. Once a copy of the copyrighted work has been put on the market by the rights-holder or with consent, the rights-holder's distribution right in that copy is generally said to be exhausted — the purchaser may resell, lend or display the copy without further authorisation. The proposition, well-established in the trade-mark domain after Gujarat Bottling and the cluster of trade-mark licensing cases, has copyright analogues in Sections 14(a)(ii) and 14(b)(ii), which limit the right to issue copies “not being copies already in circulation”.

Indian copyright law, however, has historically been hostile to international exhaustion in the parallel-imports context. The position was settled in the Penguin line of decisions, which treat the importation of legitimately-published foreign editions as infringement under Section 51 unless the importer can bring himself within Section 53 or one of the Section 52 fair-dealing exceptions. The compulsory-licence regime under Section 32A is the safety valve where parallel imports are not commercially available — but the threshold is high and the licence is rarely sought.

Leading authorities

The Supreme Court's decision in Indian Performing Right Society v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association AIR 1977 SC 1443 remains the doctrinal anchor for the licensing of music in films. The case was decided on the unamended 1957 Act but its treatment of the underlying-work / film-as-a-whole distinction is the conceptual frame within which the 2012 amendments now operate.

Entertainment Network India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (2008) 13 SCC 30 is the leading Supreme Court authority on the compulsory-licence regime under Section 31. The Court emphasised that a refusal to license must be unreasonable in the objective sense; commercial inconvenience to the owner is not, by itself, enough to justify a compulsory licence, but a refusal that frustrates the access purpose of the Act will be.

Tips Industries v. Wynk Music 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1378 is the leading recent authority on Section 31D. The Bombay High Court held that the statutory-licence regime does not extend to internet streaming services, which must accordingly secure voluntary licences from the rights-holder at market rates. The decision has been criticised in academic commentary but has been followed by the same High Court in subsequent matters.

Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) 1 SCC 212 — although primarily an originality decision — also illustrates the dynamics of exclusive licensing. EBC's case rested partly on its arrangements with the editorial staff and its rights to exploit the head-noted editions; the structure of those arrangements, contracts of service running to assignment under Section 17(c), is part of the architecture this chapter governs.

Distinguishing the four routes — exam table

Route	Section	Key trigger	Effect on ownership
Assignment	18, 19, 19A	Voluntary; written instrument	Ownership transferred to assignee
Voluntary licence	30, 30A	Voluntary; written	Ownership retained; permission granted
Compulsory licence (withheld works)	31	Unreasonable refusal by owner	Ownership retained; forum-fixed royalty
Compulsory licence (unknown author)	31A	Author dead/unknown/untraceable	Ownership retained; forum-fixed royalty
Disability-access licence	31B	For benefit of persons with disability	Ownership retained; forum-fixed royalty
Cover-version statutory licence	31C	5 years after first recording	Ownership retained; statutory royalty floor
Broadcast statutory licence	31D	Already-published work; broadcaster only	Ownership retained; forum-fixed royalty
Translation licence (foreign work)	32	7 years after first publication	Ownership retained; forum-fixed royalty
Reproduction licence (foreign work)	32A	Not available in India at reasonable price	Ownership retained; forum-fixed royalty

MCQ angle and exam pitfalls

Three pitfalls dominate examination questions on this chapter. The first is conflating compulsory licences with statutory licences. A compulsory licence under Sections 31, 31A or 31B requires an order of the appropriate forum after a finding of unreasonable refusal or disability-access need; a statutory licence under Sections 31C and 31D arises by operation of law once the conditions are satisfied, and the forum's role is limited to fixing the royalty rate. The terminology matters because examination questions reward precise vocabulary.

The second is forgetting that Section 31D does not extend to internet streaming, in light of Tips Industries v. Wynk Music. A question that asks whether a streaming service can rely on Section 31D as a substitute for voluntary licensing is therefore answered in the negative; the streamer must secure individual licences at market rates.

The third is overlooking the post-2012 unwaivable royalty rule for film and sound-recording uses of underlying musical and literary works. A question that frames a complete assignment as extinguishing the author's claim to streaming royalty is wrong; Sections 18 (fourth and fifth provisos) and 19(9) and (10) protect that royalty as a floor, and the protection extends, by Section 30A, to licences as well.

A higher-difficulty question may turn on the overlap between an exclusive licence and an assignment. An exclusive licensee may sue for infringement under Section 61 in his own name, must join the owner as defendant if not joined as plaintiff, and is bound by the writing-and-signature requirements of Section 19. The licensee is not, however, the owner of the right; he holds the right merely against the world during the licence term, and the owner remains free to assert reversionary rights upon expiry. The candidate should be prepared to identify, on a fact-pattern, whether the operative document is an assignment or a licence, and to map the consequences accordingly to civil remedies under Sections 55 to 62 and to criminal liability under Sections 63 to 70.

The chapter rewards meticulous attention to the precise statutory route on which a fact-pattern turns. With ten distinct provisions covering four conceptually different modes of right-transfer or right-use authorisation, the candidate who can name the section and the trigger for any given commercial scenario will earn full marks consistently. The provisions are doctrinally rich, commercially live, and frequently litigated; a careful revision pays continuing dividends across the broader scheme of the copyright term and the infringement architecture.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between an assignment and a licence under the Copyright Act?

An assignment under Section 18 transfers ownership of the copyright (or of a portion of it) from the assignor to the assignee; after assignment, the assignee is the owner of the assigned rights and may sue for infringement, grant further licences and exclude the assignor. A licence under Section 30 is a grant of permission to use the copyright while ownership stays with the licensor; the licensee's rights are personal and contractual. The conceptual line tracks the trade-mark distinction laid down in Gujarat Bottling Co. v. Coca Cola Co. (1995) 5 SCC 545. Both must be in writing under Sections 19 and 30 read with 30A.

What is the difference between a compulsory licence and a statutory licence?

A compulsory licence under Sections 31, 31A or 31B requires the appropriate forum to make a positive order, on application, after finding that the copyright owner has unreasonably refused to license the work, that the author is dead or untraceable, or that disability-access requires it. A statutory licence under Sections 31C (cover versions) and 31D (broadcasting) arises by operation of law as soon as the licensee complies with the statutory conditions; the forum's role is limited to fixing the royalty rate. The terminology matters in examinations and the vocabulary reward is consistent — a compulsory licence is granted, a statutory licence is taken.

Does Section 31D cover internet streaming services like Spotify or Wynk?

No. The Bombay High Court held in Tips Industries v. Wynk Music 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1378 that Section 31D's statutory-licence regime is restricted to broadcasting organisations and does not extend to internet streaming services. Streamers must therefore secure voluntary licences from the rights-holders at market rates and cannot deposit a forum-fixed royalty in lieu. The decision has attracted academic criticism but has been followed in subsequent matters and is the present law. A question that suggests Section 31D is a one-stop solution for streamers is wrong on the present authority.

What is a cover version under Section 31C and when can it be made?

A cover version under Section 31C is a sound recording of a literary, dramatic or musical work that has already been recorded once with the consent of the rights-holder. It can be made only after the expiration of five calendar years from the end of the year of the first recording. The cover-version maker must pay royalty in advance for a minimum of fifty thousand copies in a calendar year at rates fixed by the appropriate forum, must not use packaging likely to mislead the public as to identity, and must not name or depict any performer of the earlier recording. Section 31C is a statutory licence, not a compulsory one.

Is an oral licence valid under the Copyright Act?

No. By Section 30 read with Section 30A and Section 19(1), a licence must be in writing signed by the licensor or by his duly authorised agent. The licence must additionally identify the work, specify the rights licensed, and state the duration, territorial extent and royalty payable. An oral licence is unenforceable from inception. The position parallels the assignment regime under Section 19 and was emphasised by the Calcutta High Court in Saregama India Ltd. v. Suresh Jindal 2007 (35) PTC 24 (Cal). Where parties have proceeded on an oral understanding, the appropriate forum may treat it as a permission for limited purposes only and not as a binding licence.

Can royalties payable to a lyricist or composer be assigned away?

No, not in respect of uses other than communication along with a cinematograph film in a cinema hall. The fourth and fifth provisos to Section 18, inserted by the 2012 Amendment, bar any such assignment; Sections 19(9) and 19(10) supplement the bar by making the royalty entitlement unwaivable. The protection extends to licences as well by virtue of Section 30A. A film producer's licensee for streaming, radio play or ringtone use must therefore pay royalty directly to the lyricist or composer, typically through a registered copyright society, and an attempt to contract out of this entitlement is void to that extent.