Sound Recordings as Subject Matter — Intellectual Property Rights II Notes

Sound Recordings as Subject Matter

When you buy a song online you are paying for three overlapping copyrights at once — the tune, the words, and the particular recording. The recording is a copyright in its own right, and the producer of that recording owns it. This is why a cover version needs fresh permission even when the song is old.

The sound recording as its own work

A sound recording (s.2(xx)) is one of the three heads of copyright in s.13(1)(c). It is the fixation of sounds — the master track — separate from the musical and literary works recorded in it. Three points carry the marks:

First owner — the producer. The producer (the person who takes the initiative and responsibility for making the recording, s.2(uu)) is the author (s.2(d)(v)) and first owner.
It is a layered right. Making a sound recording of a song requires the consent of the owners of the underlying works — the composer (musical work) and lyricist (literary work). Owning the recording does not give rights over the song itself.
The rights conferred — s.14(e). The producer may (i) make any other sound recording embodying it, (ii) sell, rent or offer copies, and (iii) communicate it to the public.

Section 2(xx): “sound recording means a recording of sounds from which such sounds may be produced regardless of the medium on which such recording is made or the method by which the sounds are produced.”

In Simple Terms: The recording is a distinct copyright, owned by the producer, layered on top of the song’s own copyrights. Copy the track and you infringe the recording; sing the song afresh and you may still need the composer’s permission.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — an unauthorised copy of a track

Facts. A music label produces a recording of a classic song. X rips and sells copies of that exact track online.

Rule. The sound recording is protected under s.13(1)(c); the producer holds s.14(e) rights to reproduce and communicate it.

Apply. X copied the producer’s recording — the very fixation — and communicated it to the public without licence.

Conclusion. X infringes the producer’s copyright in the sound recording (quite apart from any rights in the song), and is liable to injunction and damages (topic 13).

flowchart TD
    ROOT["A recorded song"]:::root
    ROOT --> M["Musical work (composer) — s.2(p)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> L["Lyrics (literary work, lyricist) — s.2(o)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> S["Sound recording (producer) — s.2(xx)"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

IPRS v Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (1977) — distinguishes the recording/film from the underlying musical and literary works.
Gramophone Co. of India v Super Cassette Industries (2010) — cover-version recordings require compliance with the statutory-licence conditions.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Intellectual Property Rights II topics