Introduction: Copyright assignment contracts, particularly those intended to last indefinitely, have been subject to interpretation and scrutiny by various court judgments. One key provision is Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act, which deems a copyright assignment to last for five years in the absence of a specified duration. This article explores the insights provided by different courts on the interpretation and enforcement of copyright assignment contracts, shedding light on important considerations for parties involved.
Please refer to the judgments on Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act:
As per the Para 24 of the Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanguine Technical Publishers and Ors. 2013, Manmohan Singh, J. the high court of Delhi that Section 19(5) must be read judiciously and not mechanically. It was highlighted that more weightage must be given to the intention of parties as against the clauses mentioned in the agreement. The Court, verbatim decided that
“Thus, I am of the view that the enquiry as to presence or absence of the term under the agreement relating to the copyright grant cannot be merely an exercise which can be done by not finding the clause relating to term under the agreement and straightaway arriving at the conclusion that there is no term and thus the agreement was aimed for 5 years. The fair and meaningful reading of the agreement is essential in order to find out what the parties actually intended and whether they intended to assign the rights in perpetuity or for limited period and what is the indication of the term under the agreement. Thus, the judicious approach should be adopted while interpreting the agreement. Ultimately, the grant of the copyright is also an agreement so much shall be dependent upon on the intention of the parties. If the straightforward conclusion as to absence of term is arrived at such cases without judiciously analyzing the agreement by giving meaningful reading and finding out the indication as to term of the rights, then the said reversion of rights will disturb several important commercial arrangements without the parties really intending to do so.”
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh of the Delhi high court in Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. Vs. Amrit Sharma and Ors. 2012 placed importance on the words used in the contract to determine the intended term of an assignment rather than the strict application of Section 19(5). The court stated the following
8 The said clause 3A further uses the expression “All other right, title and interest”, likewise it also uses the expression “All rights of publication, sound, television, public performance”. Furthermore, the said clause 3A while assigning the rights uses the expression “absolutely” and “worldwide”. All these wordings used in clause 3A are prima facie indicators of the intent of the parties to the agreement which is to assign the rights absolutely and worldwide and all the rights available with the producers.
Subbiah, J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS in Ilaiyaraja Vs. B. Narsimhasn and Ors. 2015 mentioned that the act of receiving royalty past the 5 year default period is not sufficient to prove that the assignment is valid. It was clarified that assignment agreements must be written and signed to be enforceable.
……mentioned that the act of receiving royalty past the 5 year default period is not sufficient to prove that the assignment is valid. It was clarified that assignment agreements must be written and signed to be enforceable.
Once the plaintiff loses the status of owner of the copyright, the subsequent act of the plaintiff’s signing on the label of Hard Disc and receipt of royalty, certainly will not ratify the original assignment dated 24.11.2007 executed in favour of his wife. In my considered opinion, when the plaintiff himself did not have any copyright over his work after execution of the assignment in favour of his wife, it cannot at all be stated by any stretch of imagination that either receipt of royalty or signing on the CD format & Label of the Hard Disc, would go to the extent of ratifying the original assignment deed dated 24.11.2007.
Soumen Sen, J., IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Saregama Ltd. Vs. The New Digital Media and Ors. 2017 highlighted that the absence of a time period cannot mean absolute assignment by default. In order to understand the intentions of the parties, one has to look at all clauses of the contract and not just the one defining the duration. The court mentioned that:
The owner of copyright in a work may assign copyright either wholly or partially for the whole or any part of such copyright to any person. The assignment of copyright may be a limited assignment both in content and period. An assignment does not automatically mean that it is an absolute assignment. The intention of the parties with regard to the nature and extent of the assignment is required to be gathered and ascertained from the agreement itself. If on a proper construction of the agreement, it appears that the assignment is for a limited duration then it cannot be contended that simply because an assignment of copyright has been made by giving absolute ownership with regard to the copyright it has to be for an unlimited period. This has been the view of our Court in Saregama India Ltd. v. Suresh Jindal & Ors. reported at MANU/WB/0255/2006 : 2007 (34) PTC 522(Cal).
The Clauses of the agreement are required to be carefully read and analyzed to find out the real intention of the parties. The copyright grants are misused by the owners of the copyright by selling the copyright time and again in the market by creating multiple rights affecting the commercial transaction. The courts have held that use of expression like “full rights” in the agreement, an only conclusion could be reached is that the agreement contemplates a permanent arrangement as it used the expression “full rights” than the limited term. The use of the expressions like “absolutely” and “worldwide” are considered to be prima facie indicators of the intent of the parties to the agreement to assign the rights “absolutely” and “worldwide” and all the rights available with the producers. In Suresh Jindal & Ors. (supra) it was held that the owner of the copyright or the prospective owner of the copyright in a future work may assign the copyright to any person either wholly or partially for the whole of the copyright or any part thereof and once an assignment is made the assignee for the purpose of the said Act is treated as the owner of the copyright. The Copyright Act, 1957 makes it clear that where the assignee does not exercise the rights assigned to it under any of the provisions of Section 19, within a period of one year from the date of assignment, the assignment in respect of such rights shall be deemed to have been lapsed after the expiry of the aforesaid period unless otherwise specified in the agreement.
Conclusion: Court judgments on copyright assignment contracts in perpetuity emphasize the importance of discerning the true intentions of the parties involved. While Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act provides a default duration, courts have stressed the need to examine the entire agreement comprehensively. Clauses such as “absolutely” and “worldwide” indicate an intent for permanent arrangements, while the absence of a specified time period doesn’t inherently imply absolute assignment. These insights underscore the significance of clarity and precision in copyright assignment contracts, ensuring fair and equitable arrangements for all parties involved.
Author Bio
