Copyright Infringement In The Music Industry

Posted On - 18 February, 2026 • By - Himanshu Deora

Introduction

Copyright infringement in the music industry represents one of the most persistent challenges in intellectual property enforcement, both in India and globally. Copyright protection for music in India is primarily viewed through the prism of the Copyright Act, 1957, with supplementing judicial interpretation and sector-specific licensing mechanisms. Courts have consistently highlighted that copyright infringement in music can be determined not just on a mechanical comparison of the plaintiff’s and defendant’s works but on a sensitive appreciation of statutory rights, contractual assignments, industry practices, and technological realities.

Copyright protection in music follows from a composite statutory regime and thus each element of a musical work is covered separately under the Act. Under Section 13, copyright subsists in:

  • original literary works: lyrics
  • original musical works (composition)
  • sound recordings (fixed recordings of performance).

This statute thus keeps these categories separate in an effort to avoid conflation of rights. Courts have explained that the owner in one layer does not automatically confer the right over another unless assigned specifically under Section 18.

The various rights conferred under Section 14 differ depending on the nature of the work. With respect to musical compositions, these rights include :

  • Reproduction by any means in any material form,
  • Publishing, which involves issuing copies to the public,
  • Public Information,
  • making adaptations or translations,
  • commercial renting or selling.

Any exercise of these rights, without authorization, attracts infringement liability under Section 51, except where saved by statutory exceptions.

Ownership, Assignment, and Licensing: A Source of Frequent Disputes

Ownership and right assignment confusions are one of the most ordinary sources of infringement litigation within the music industry. Section 17 prescribes default ownership rules, and Sections 18 and 19 address assignment.

What the courts have constantly emphasized is that:

  • Producers generally own the sound recordings,
  • Composers and lyricists retain rights in the underlying works,
  • There are performers’ rights provided independently under Sections 38 and 38A.

Amendment post-2012 gave significant teeth to the rights of authors and performers, and even for assigned works, the authors were entitled to a share in the royalties from the exploitation of their works. This amendment has been highly pivotal in digital infringement cases of streaming and broadcasting.

Failure to obtain licences from all relevant rights holders, particularly for public performances and digital dissemination, has been held to constitute infringement, regardless of commercial intent.

Various doctrinal tests have evolved in Indian courts to determine the infringement of a musical work. The tests need to be applied contextually rather than mechanically.

The basic question is whether the defendant has copied a substantial part of the plaintiff’s work. The courts do not demand identical reproduction; what they look for is whether material, unique elements have been taken.

For music cases, courts will most often apply:

  • The “ordinary listener” or “lay observer” test,
  • Qualitative rather than quantitative comparison,
  • Overall impression of similarity rather than technical dissection.

The access to the original work and striking similarity often weigh against defendants. While the defense of independent creation is recognized, the courts demand credible evidence of independent effort, particularly where commercial music with wide circulation is involved.

Music copyright infringement comes in many different, and often intersecting, forms that are carved out by industry practice and consumption habits in the digital era.

  • Unauthorized Sampling, Remixes, and Adaptations: Sampling portions of existing compositions or recordings without permission has been consistently held to infringe copyright, even where the sample is brief. Courts have clarified that recognizability, not duration, determines infringement. There are further concerns under Section 57, which protects the moral rights of authors, regarding remixes and adaptations. Distortion or mutilation of a musical work, particularly where it harms the creator’s reputation, may be restrained even if economic rights have been assigned.
  • Unlicensed Public Performances: Playing of copyright music in hotels, restaurants, clubs, marriage and other functions without licenses is infringement. The courts have refused incidental or non-commercial use arguments for use which provides ambiance and customer service. Licensing through collective management organisations such as IPRS for musical and literary works and PPL for sound recordings has been judicially recognised as a statutory necessity rather than a voluntary arrangement.
  • Digital Piracy and Online Exploitation: Digital infringement includes unauthorized uploads on any streaming or video platform, making available copyrighted music in social media content, and monetisation of infringing contents through advertisement.

They have noted that the scope and speed of digital distribution make an act of infringement far more deleterious than it might have been in earlier eras, and hence courts should grant injunctive relief more expeditiously.

Intermediary Liability and Safe Harbour

Digital platforms often use Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for intermediary protection. Indian courts have followed a more conditional approach. The safe harbour only applies where the intermediary:

  • Act as passive conduits,
  • Observe due diligence,
  • Removing infringing content upon notice.

For their part, the courts have warned that services that actively market, curate or monetize infringing content may forfeit statutory immunity. As a result, algorithmic amplification and revenue-sharing schemes are increasingly coming under scrutiny in determining the role played by the platform in infringement.

Conclusion

Copyright infringement in the music industry does not lie with the question of copying; it reflects deeper issues of ownership, licensing, technology, and enforcement capacity. Copyright Act, 1957 provides a sound statutory foundation developed through judicial interpretation and legislative amendments. Indian Courts have thus been consistently evolving a creator-centric yet context-sensitive approach in recognizing unique vulnerabilities of musical works.

With the industry continuously in evolution through digital platforms, AI-generated music, and global distribution, copyright enforcement has to make a balance between protection and innovation. Clear comprehension of statutory rights, along with efficient licensing and responsible platform governance, is required for making certain that creativity is adequately rewarded without stifling cultural growth.