Sections 33 to 36A of the Copyright Act, 1957 regulate the institution that makes mass licensing of copyright workable in practice — the copyright society. The economics of copyright leave no choice. A composer cannot negotiate individually with every restaurant that plays his song; a literary author cannot police every classroom that photocopies his chapter. Collective management of rights through a registered society is the only operationally feasible model. Chapter VII of the Act is the statutory framework for that model.

The 2012 Amendment redesigned this Chapter. Pre-2012, the Act recognised "copyright societies" but allowed them to operate on the older "performing rights society" model, which was a private contractual arrangement among rights-holders with limited statutory oversight. The 2012 Amendment converted the regime into one of comprehensive statutory regulation: only the copyright society registered under Section 33(3) may carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of any work in which copyright subsists. Every existing society had to re-register within one year, and the Act introduced detailed accountability provisions under Sections 33A, 35 and 36, and an exit provision under Section 36A.

Statutory anchor and scheme

The Chapter VII scheme reads as follows:

  1. Section 33 — registration of copyright societies and the monopoly principle (only the registered society may grant licences for the class of works it administers).
  2. Section 33A — tariff scheme; mandatory publication of the rates a society proposes to charge; appeal to the Appellate Board against tariff orders.
  3. Section 34 — administration of rights of owner by the society; the society acts as agent of the rights-holders.
  4. Section 34A — payment of remuneration by the copyright society to rights-holders.
  5. Section 35 — control over the society by the author; mandatory members' meeting and members' approval for crucial decisions.
  6. Section 36 — submission of returns and reports to the Registrar of Copyrights.
  7. Section 36A — rights and liabilities of performers, applying the chapter to performers' societies.

Section 33 — registration as the gateway

Section 33(1) lays down the rule that no person or association of persons shall, after coming into force of the 1994 Amendment, commence or carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of any work in which copyright subsists, except under a registration granted under Section 33(3). The first proviso preserves the right of an individual owner to grant a licence over his own works in his individual capacity, consistent with his ownership. The second proviso requires that the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works incorporated in a cinematograph film or sound recording shall be carried out only through a copyright society duly registered under sub-section (3).

Section 33(3) empowers the Central Government to register a copyright society after consultation with the prospective members and after taking into consideration the interests of the authors and other owners of rights, the interest and convenience of the public and in particular of the groups of persons most likely to seek licences, and the ability and professional competence of the applicant. Ordinarily, only one society is registered to do business in respect of one class of work. The single-society principle prevents fragmentation that would defeat the very purpose of collective management.

Sub-section (3A), inserted in 2012, requires every existing copyright society and performing-rights society to get itself re-registered under sub-section (3) within one year of the 2012 Amendment. This re-registration provision is what made the Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) controversies arise: both bodies operated for some years after the 2012 Amendment without fresh registration, and the question of their locus standi to issue licences during that period was litigated repeatedly. The position eventually settled is that an unregistered or de-registered body cannot, of its own force, grant a Section 30 licence on behalf of its members; it can act only as an agent expressly authorised by individual rights-holders, and even then the lawful business of "issuing or granting licences" lies with the registered society alone. The licensing the society does is licensing of the exclusive rights under Section 14, ordinarily attaching to qualifying subject matter under Section 13.

The principle in Section 33 — only the society licenses

The 2012 Amendment to Section 33, especially the second proviso, has been read as a bar on cinema-film producers granting independent music-licensing rights for the underlying literary and musical works once those works are incorporated into a film. The position now is that the underlying authors retain their rights to receive royalty for utilisation of their works in any form other than as part of the cinematograph film exhibited in a cinema hall — the so-called underlying-works royalty. Section 33 then ensures that this royalty stream is channelled through the registered society. The structure is the corollary of the parallel changes to authorship and ownership under Sections 17–19A and to assignment, licence and compulsory licence under Sections 18 to 32B.

Section 33A — the tariff scheme

Section 33A, inserted in 2012, requires every copyright society to publish its tariff scheme in the prescribed manner. Any person aggrieved by the tariff scheme may appeal to the Appellate Board (now, post the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the Commercial Court / High Court), and the Board may, after holding such inquiry as it considers necessary, make such orders as may be required to remove any unreasonable element or anomaly. The Board may also fix interim tariffs, payable subject to the final order. Until then, the society's published tariffs operate.

The provision is a regulatory firewall against monopoly pricing. Because Section 33 makes the registered society the only gateway for mass licensing in its class of works, leaving the society's pricing entirely to itself would have produced an unregulated monopoly. Section 33A prescribes transparency (publication), participation (notice and hearing on appeal) and an external review (the appellate forum). The court in Music Choice India Pvt. Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Ltd. 2009 (40) PTC 1 (Bom) had earlier underlined this need for objective, non-discriminatory tariff-fixation; Section 33A now places that requirement on a statutory footing.

Section 34 — administration of rights

Section 34(1) provides that, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, a copyright society may accept from an author and other owners of right exclusive authorisation to administer any right in any work by issue of licences or collection of licence fees or both, and may enter into agreement with any foreign society or organisation administering rights corresponding to rights under the Copyright Act, to entrust to such foreign society or organisation the administration in any foreign country of rights administered by the said copyright society in India, or for administering in India the rights administered in a foreign country by such foreign society or organisation. Sub-section (3) makes the society act as an agent of the owner.

The agency framing is doctrinally important. Because the society acts as agent, the underlying ownership of copyright remains with the author or other rights-holder; the society holds no proprietary copyright of its own. The licences it grants are licences on behalf of the principal. This explains why, when a society's registration is in question, the rights-holder remains free to grant individual licences directly — the society's monopoly under Section 33 is over the business of mass licensing, not over the rights themselves.

TEST YOURSELF

Statute mastered. Now apply it to a tangled fact-pattern.

Topic-tagged MCQs from previous-year papers and original mocks — calibrated to actual exam difficulty.

Take the commercial-law mock →

Section 34A — distribution to members

Section 34A requires that all moneys collected by a copyright society be distributed to the rights-holders after deducting administrative expenses. The provision is the financial accountability backbone. It is supported by Rule 56 et seq. of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which prescribe the periodicity of distribution, the basis of distribution (proportional to the use of each member's works), and the maximum administrative deduction. The Rules also require that undistributed funds, after a prescribed period, be applied for the welfare of members or for cultural-promotion activities, not retained by the society as profit.

The mathematics of distribution is more complex than it sounds. A society receives a single blanket licence fee from a broadcaster, hotel chain or streaming platform, but must distribute it across thousands of works. Modern societies use a combination of usage logs, sample monitoring and statistical extrapolation. The 2013 Rules require the society's distribution scheme to be fair, transparent and non-discriminatory between members, and to be approved by the general body. A member-author who suspects under-distribution may inspect the records under Section 36 and, in extreme cases, move the Registrar for action.

Suspension and cancellation of registration

Section 33(4) empowers the Central Government, after holding such inquiry as it considers necessary, to cancel the registration of a copyright society if it is satisfied that the society is being managed in a manner detrimental to the interests of the owners of rights concerned. Sub-section (5) permits suspension of registration for a period not exceeding one year pending inquiry. The cancellation power is the ultimate disciplinary lever — it is rarely exercised, but its existence shapes the society's behaviour. A cancelled society loses its monopoly under Section 33(1) immediately; its members are then free to grant individual licences directly, or to organise themselves into a fresh society and apply for re-registration.

The interaction with Section 33A is significant. Where complaints about tariffs are widespread or sustained, the regulator can move from a tariff order under Section 33A to a registration inquiry under Section 33(4). The graduated response — publication, appeal, inquiry, suspension, cancellation — gives the regulator a calibrated set of tools rather than an all-or-nothing choice.

Section 35 — control by the author and the rights-holder

Section 35 places the society under the substantive control of the rights-holders it represents. It is a rare example of a statutory mandate of internal democracy in an Indian commercial entity. Sub-section (1) requires that every copyright society be subject to the collective control of the owners of rights under the Act whose rights it administers. Sub-section (2) requires the society to obtain approval of the rights-holders for: (a) the procedure for collection and distribution of fees, (b) the utilisation of any amounts collected as fees that cannot be distributed, and (c) any other matter as may be prescribed. The general body of members must meet at least once a year, and the rights-holders, not the management, set the rules of the game.

This was the legislative response to a long history of complaints — the management of pre-2012 societies was alleged to operate without meaningful member oversight, retaining undistributed funds and setting tariffs without consultation. Section 35 is the corrective: the society's management must answer to those whose rights it administers, both at the procedural-rules level and at the financial level.

Section 36 — returns and reports

The supervisory framework also dovetails with infringement enforcement. The society's licence is what insulates a licensee from infringement liability under Section 51, and a licensee's defence of fair dealing under Section 52 only extends to the listed enumerated uses; for everything else, the society's licence is the gate. Section 36 obligates the copyright society to submit such returns to the Registrar of Copyrights as may be prescribed. The Registrar has power to call for any report and records of any copyright society for verifying that fees collected by the society have been distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and that the rules in respect of the society's administration are being complied with. The provision plugs the regulator into the society's books. Combined with the rule-making power that allows the Central Government to prescribe accounting and audit standards, Section 36 makes the Registrar an active oversight authority rather than a passive register-keeper.

Section 36A — extension to performers

Section 36A, inserted in 2012, extends the application of Sections 33 to 36 mutatis mutandis to performers' societies. The chapter therefore covers societies that administer not only the rights of authors of literary, musical and artistic works under Section 13, but also the performers' rights under Sections 38 to 38B. Performers — actors, singers, musicians, dancers, athletes — were given economic rights and moral rights for the first time as a substantive matter under the 2012 Amendment, and Section 36A ensures that they too can constitute a registered collective for the mass administration of their newly recognised rights.

The relationships across the licensing chain — between authors, the cinematograph-film producer, the broadcaster and the listener — turn ultimately on the definitions in Section 2, and on the duration of subsisting rights under Sections 22 to 29; the society can administer only what is in copyright. Three bodies dominate Indian collective management. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) administers the public-performance rights in the underlying literary and musical works. Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) administers public-performance rights in sound recordings, principally those of its member labels. Novex Communications, although originally not a registered society, claims to administer the public-performance rights in sound recordings and films of certain producers as an authorised agent. The contestation between these bodies has produced a steady litigation diet — the issue is recurrently whether a non-society can do the work that Section 33 reserves for the registered society, and the answer, after the 2012 Amendment, is that it cannot do so as a business; it can only act as an agent on a transaction-by-transaction basis with express authorisation from individual rights-holders.

The IPRS line of cases is instructive. In Indian Performing Right Society v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association AIR 1977 SC 1443, the Supreme Court held — under the pre-2012 scheme — that the producer of a cinematograph film, on commissioning a composer, became the first owner of the music incorporated in the film, and the composer's society could not claim royalty for in-cinema exhibition. The 2012 Amendment to Sections 17, 18 and 19 reversed that economic outcome for the underlying authors: composers and lyricists now retain the right to royalty for non-theatrical exploitation of their works, and Section 33's second proviso channels that royalty through IPRS. The doctrinal status of EIMPA on the question of first ownership remains intact for the older catalogue; the post-2012 catalogue is governed by the new dispensation.

The PPL line, by contrast, has been about the territorial reach of a society's licence and the relationship between the society and individual member labels. In Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Hotel Gold Regency 2008 (37) PTC 587 (Del) and similar cases, courts confirmed that public performance of sound recordings in commercial premises requires a licence from the registered society, and that operating without one is infringement under Section 51. Post-2012, where the society's registration itself was contested, courts have read the second proviso of Section 33 strictly and required the licence to flow either from the registered society or from the individual rights-holder directly.

The student must distinguish three terms that the older literature uses interchangeably. "Copyright society" is the post-2012 statutory expression for the registered collective under Section 33 — the only entity that may carry on the business of mass licensing in respect of works in copyright. "Performers' society" is a copyright society registered to administer performers' rights under Sections 38 to 38B, brought within the chapter by Section 36A in 2012. "Performing-rights society" was the pre-2012 expression for a body that administered the public-performance rights in literary and musical works; Section 33(3A) required every such body to re-register as a copyright society, after which the older nomenclature falls away.

The label matters because Section 33's prohibition is on "the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of any work in which copyright subsists" — and the post-2012 case law treats this expression as broad enough to capture any organised, repeated, fee-bearing licensing activity. A trade association that merely issues guidance to members is not caught; a body that systematically demands and collects fees from licensees on behalf of a class of works is. The line is between advisory representation and licensing as a business.

The copyright society sits inside a wider rationalising architecture. The 2012 Amendment also introduced statutory licences for cover versions (Section 31C) and for broadcasting organisations (Section 31D), and retained compulsory licences for works withheld from the public (Section 31). The four mechanisms together form a graded licensing toolkit. Voluntary licensing under Section 30 is the default; the compulsory licence under Section 31 is the exception for refusal cases; the statutory licence under Section 31C and 31D is the standardised licence for the cover-version and broadcaster cases; and the copyright society under Sections 33 to 36A is the institutional channel that delivers all three for the mass-licensing market.

International benchmarks — Berne, Rome, WPPT and TRIPS

The copyright society regime in India is not designed in isolation. Article 11bis(2) of the Berne Convention permits Member States to determine the conditions under which the right of broadcasting and communication to the public may be exercised, and contemplates collective management. The Rome Convention, 1961 — which protects performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations — contemplates collective administration of remuneration rights for the public communication of phonograms. The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996 (WPPT) reinforces this for performers and phonogram producers in the digital environment. Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement, by incorporating these neighbouring-rights protections, locks the obligation in for WTO members. Section 36A's extension of the chapter to performers' societies, and the 2012 reforms of Sections 38 and 38A, are India's downstream implementation of these treaty commitments. The Indian regime is therefore not just a domestic regulatory creation; it is the operational machinery through which India discharges its international obligations to authors, performers, producers and broadcasting organisations.

Exam angle — points the question paper returns to

Five propositions cover almost every examinable question. One: only the society registered under Section 33(3) may carry on the business of mass licensing of works in which copyright subsists — the gateway principle. Two: the society acts as agent of the rights-holders under Section 34; ownership of copyright remains with the author. Three: Section 33A requires publication of the tariff scheme and provides an appeal against the tariff. Four: Section 35 mandates members' control over the society — the procedural-rules and financial-rules approval. Five: Section 36A extends the chapter to performers' societies. Read this chapter alongside the civil remedies for infringement under Sections 55 to 62 — the society is, in practice, the most active enforcer of the rights it administers — and alongside registration of copyright under Sections 44 to 50A, since registration is what most member-works of the society carry on their evidentiary face.

Frequently asked questions

What is a copyright society under the Copyright Act, 1957?

A copyright society is a body registered by the Central Government under Section 33(3) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of works in which copyright subsists. After the 2012 Amendment, only such a registered society may carry on the business of mass licensing in respect of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works incorporated in cinematograph films or sound recordings. The society acts as the agent of the rights-holders it represents and is subject to their collective control under Section 35.

Why was the 2012 Amendment to Section 33 considered transformative?

The 2012 Amendment closed the gap that had let pre-existing performing-rights societies operate on a private-contractual basis. It introduced sub-section (3A), requiring every existing society to get re-registered under sub-section (3) within one year. It also added the second proviso, channelling all mass licensing of underlying literary and musical works in cinematograph films and sound recordings exclusively through the registered copyright society. The combined effect was to convert collective management from a private arrangement into a statutorily regulated regime with mandatory transparency, accountability and member-control.

What does Section 33A of the Copyright Act provide?

Section 33A, inserted by the 2012 Amendment, requires every copyright society to publish its tariff scheme in the prescribed manner. Any person aggrieved by the tariff may appeal to the Appellate Board, which (now substituted by the Commercial Court or High Court following the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021) may pass such orders as required to remove any unreasonable element or anomaly. The Board may also fix interim tariffs payable subject to the final order. The provision is a transparency-and-review check on what would otherwise be unregulated monopoly pricing by the only entity authorised to license en masse.

Can a non-society like Novex Communications grant a copyright licence?

After the 2012 Amendment, a non-society cannot carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of works in which copyright subsists — that is the exclusive function of a copyright society registered under Section 33(3). However, the first proviso to Section 33(1) preserves the right of an individual owner to grant a licence in his individual capacity. A non-society can therefore act only as an express agent of identified individual rights-holders on a transaction-by-transaction basis, not as a generalised licensing body for a class of works.

How does Section 35 ensure rights-holder control over a copyright society?

Section 35(1) requires that the society be subject to the collective control of the owners whose rights it administers. Sub-section (2) requires the society to obtain approval of the rights-holders for the procedure for collection and distribution of fees, the utilisation of undistributed amounts, and any other prescribed matter. The general body of members must meet at least once a year. These provisions internalise democratic control inside the society and were the legislative response to long-standing concerns about opaque tariff-fixing and undistributed funds in pre-2012 collectives.