ITV

Tag: PPL

  • Rahul Dravid pads up for Paradeep Phosphates campaigns

    Rahul Dravid pads up for Paradeep Phosphates campaigns

    MUMBAI: Rahul Dravid has taken guard again, this time not on the pitch, but in the fields. Paradeep Phosphates Limited (PPL), one of India’s largest private fertiliser producers, has roped in the cricketing legend as its brand ambassador to champion innovative and sustainable farming practices.

    The partnership brings together two names known for trust, consistency, and performance. Dravid’s steady hand and PPL’s farmer-first ethos aim to inspire India’s growers to adopt smarter, more sustainable methods through two nationwide campaigns, “Kheti Ka Game Changer” and “NPK & Organic Fertilizers Ki Winning Team.”

    The campaigns use cricketing analogies to make agronomy simple and engaging. In the first, Dravid fronts Jai Kisaan Navratna Nano Shakti Nano DAP, likening nano fertilisers to game-changing strategies that improve yield and efficiency. In the second, balanced fertilisation takes centre stage with nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium playing star “team roles,” promoting soil health and stronger crops.

    “We are thrilled to welcome Rahul Dravid to the PPL family,” said Paradeep Phosphates managing director and CEO Suresh Krishnan. “His discipline and integrity mirror our values. Just as he led teams to victory through patience and planning, our products empower farmers to achieve winning outcomes season after season.”

    Dravid echoed the sentiment, saying, “Farmers and sportspersons share a similar spirit, both rely on patience, timing, and the right support to succeed. I’m proud to be part of an initiative that helps India’s farmers make practical, informed choices.”

    Backed by sister company Zuari FarmHub Ltd (ZFHL) in collaboration with TERI, PPL’s nano fertilisers have shown strong results in boosting crop yield while promoting sustainability. The new campaigns will roll out across television, print, and digital platforms, taking Dravid’s calm resolve and PPL’s innovation to millions of farmers nationwide.

    Looks like Dravid’s next innings will be played on fertile ground, where discipline meets growth and every crop has a shot at victory. 
     

  • PPL & Novex: The music royalty collection question

    PPL & Novex: The music royalty collection question

    Mumbai: Are music royalty collecting agencies like Novex Communications and Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) entitled to collect performance royalties on behalf of their clients from organisations such as hotels and others? Well, the Bombay high court (court) has adjudicated (decision) that they are in a bunch of matters, namely Novex Communications vs Trade Wings Hotels Ltd, Comip suit No. 264 of 2022 and others (said matters), despite them not being registered as a copyright society. A single judge bench passed a detailed judgement on 24 January 2024 in favour of the two (plaintiffs).

    In 2022, the duo had filed a bunch of suits against various third parties (defendants) seeking injunctions against them from using the sound recordings, wherein the former own copyright by way of assignments from the respective producers (said songs), without obtaining licences from the plaintiffs.

    The defendants raised a preliminary issue that the PPL and Novex cannot carry on the business of licensing without being registered as a copyright society under section (s.) 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Act”).

    Rival contentions:

    Plaintiffs inter alia contended the following:

    (i) As per s.18(2), Plaintiffs being the assignees are the owners of copyright in the said songs. Further, as per  s.30, the Plaintiffs, being the owners / duly authorised agents of the owners, are entitled to grant licenses;

    (ii) Relying on compulsory license and statutory license provisions under s. 31A to D, Plaintiffs contended that these provisions do not mention copyright societies which implies that copyright licensing business need not be done only through a registered copyright society;

    (iii) Chapter VII relating to copyright societies which was introduced by 1994 amendment to the Act did not affect the rights of a copyright owner to issue licenses for its work. This is corroborated by s.34 of the Act which allows a copyright owner to withdraw itself from the copyright society. Thus, the copyright society provides an additional option to the owners to grant licenses through a copyright society in addition to (and not in exclusion to) issuing licenses on their own;

    (iv) S.33(1) of the Act which provides that no ‘person’ shall carry on the business of licensing without being registered as a copyright society does not include the ‘owner’ of a work. If ‘owner’ is deemed to be included within the term ‘person’, then s.30 which empowers an owner to issue license will be rendered negatory;

    (v) Two conflicting provisions (s.30 which entitles an owner to grant license and s.33 which entitles only a registered copyright society to grant license) should be reconciled by restricting each to its own object. Relying on the headings of s. 30, 33 and 34, Plaintiffs contended that all that is required is if a copyright society wants to do business of issuing licenses, then it must be registered as a copyright society as per s.33 and this does not curtail the owner’s right to license under s.30;

    (vi) The term ‘business’ in s.33 of the Act should be given a contextual meaning to read as ‘business of issuing licenses in respect of works which are not owned by such person’. If the term ‘business’ is given a wider meaning, then 99 per cent of the ownership rights will be taken away and the copyright owners would only be able to license their rights for philanthropy;

    (vii) Considering there is an apparent conflict between s.30 and 33 of the Act, s.30 is the leading provision and s.33 is a subordinate provision which must give way to s.30;

    (viii) The second proviso was needed since the Parliament was clear that s.33(1) did not prevent all owners including authors from licensing their copyrights for profit and since parliament wanted to draw distinction between the authors and the owners the second proviso became necessary. Hence it is specifically mentioned that licensing by the authors of the underlying works will only be done by the copyright society; ‘Parliament is deemed to know the law and therefore the fact that the Parliament has amended s.33(1) in 2012 by adding the second proviso shows that Parliament itself did not think s.33(1) barred every owner of a copyright from carrying on the business of licensing his works’.

    (ix) As per second  proviso to s.33(1), in case of underlying works forming part of sound recordings, the rights of owners to grant licenses have been taken away. Such a prohibition is not there for sound recordings. This means that rights of owners of sound recordings to grant licenses have not been curtained. With respect to Madras High Court order in Novex v DXC Technology (“DXC case”), the Madras High Court wrongly applied the second  proviso to sound recordings;

    (x) Defendants are rank infringers and they have no plausible defense;

    In response, the defendants inter alia contended the following:

    (i) The term ‘person’ in s.33(1) of the Act includes ‘owner’. Thus, without registration as a copyright society, no one can carry on the business of licensing;

    (ii) There is no conflict between s.30 and 33 of the Act. s.30 provides a right to an owner to grant license. Once the owner carries on business of licensing, then it has to first seek registration as a copyright society. Assuming there is any conflict, s.33 being a special provision must prevail over s.30 which is a general provision;

    (iii) S.33 does not take away the right of an owner to grant license as contended by the Plaintiffs. It merely regulates the same by way of providing an obligation to register as a copyright society;

    (iv) 1st proviso to s.33 which exempt owners in their ‘individual capacity’ from registration as a copyright society does not apply to Plaintiffs who are not acting in their individual capacity;

    (v) The assignment deeds in favour of the Plaintiffs are executed to circumvent the requirement of registration as a copyright society;

    (vi) Plaintiffs’ acts are in contravention of s.33(1), and therefore, they are not entitled to any reliefs from this Hon’ble Court;

    (vii) PPL was earlier registered as a copyright society and it is still trying to obtain registration. This shows that PPL is aware that it is required to be registered as a copyright society;

    (viii) If Plaintiffs’ contention is accepted, then s.33(1) would be rendered redundant;

    (ix) The law intends that there must be a single copyright society for one class of work to ensure a single window for end-users;

    (x) The law clearly seeks to address a mischief, i.e., of a person carrying on the business of licensing without regulation. Accordingly, Heydon’s Rule or Mischief Rule must be applied to suppress the mischief that was intended to be remedied, especially when Parliament has consciously made an amendment to the law;

    (xi) The Supreme Court’s decision in “ENIL v Super Cassette Industries Ltd”, the Parliamentary Debates and extracts from Copinger make it amply clear that the object of copyright societies is not just to promote rights of owners but to balance it with public interest by protecting the interests of users.

    Decision:

    After considering the rival contentions and provisions of the Act, the Court observed as follows:

       S.30 empowers an owner / duly authorised agent of an owner to grant license;

       The idea of a copyright society is to assist the owner and not take away rights from an owner.

       As per s.34(1)(b), an owner can either issue license through a registered copyright society or withdraw its authorisation to copyright society and grants license on its own;

       Chapter VII relating to copyright society does not take away the rights of owners to grant license. It only gives a choice to the owner to either exploit its copyright on its own or through a copyright society;

       The word ‘person’ in s.33(1) does not include the ‘owner’, otherwise s.33(1) would take aware the right of owner under s.30;

       S.33(1) applies to those entities which carry on the business of licensing of work which is owned by ‘others’;

       S.30 is the leading provision and s.33(1) is the subordinate provision which must give way to s.30;

       DXC case overlooked s.30 and wrongly applied second proviso of s.33(1) which relates to underlying works;

    In view of the above, the court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to carry on the business of copyright licensing without being registered as copyright societies. The court further clarified that the decision will also apply to ‘exclusive licensee’ as under s.54, the ‘owner of copyright’ also includes an ‘exclusive licensee’.

    Comments:

    The court has analysed the provisions of the act in detail and passed the decision on a long pending question. However, the decision is diametrically opposite to the detailed judgment in DXC case against which appeals are pending before the division bench of the Madras High Court. It remains to be seen if the decision is carried in appeal. Considering the differing stands taken by the courts, it would be in the interest of all that the question is tested and answered once and for all, by the Hon’ble Supreme court.

    Written by Anushree Rauta – equity partner- head of media and entertainment practice, Shwetank Tripathi – associate partner, Shrija Verma- associate, and Savan Dhameliya – associate.

    This is an article sourced from the Indiantelevision.com group legal representative firm, ANM Global, and the group need not subscribe to the views contained in it.

  • SIMCA Members join PPL, for monetizing their Public Performance Rights

    SIMCA Members join PPL, for monetizing their Public Performance Rights

    mumbai: Members South Indian Music Companies Association (SIMCA) has entered into an agreement for monetizing its public performance rights with Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL). This tie-up gives PPL access to over 100,000 sound recordings from films, independent & devotional albums, songs from Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Sanskrit and Malayalam.

    With the likes of 5 Star Audio, Star Audio, Satyam Audio, Amudham Music, Millenium Audio, Symphony Recording Company, Mass Audio, Nadham Audio, Melody, Modern Cinema and 45 other record labels coming on board, PPL increases its offering in classics from maestros like S.P.Balasubramanyam, KJ.Yesudas, Chitra and M.S.Subbulakshmi. SIMCA members command more than 60% market share in the south Indian music market. SIMCA continues to monetize its content on Radio & Digital platforms directly.

    Mr. Rajat Kakar, CEO & MD of PPL says “We welcome SIMCA members and are proud to be associated with this important confederation covering all southern states. We are delighted to have a larger offering of popular South Indian music; as we attempt to make PPL a truly pan Indian sound recording performance society, representing music from member companies across the length and breadth of the country. It is a historic moment for the Indian music industry. With this our member count has exceeded 300”

    Mr Rajesh Dhupad, Joint Secretary, Simca shares “PPL has undergone a positive transformation in the last one year and hence our member’s decision to associate with PPL was a unanimous one. With the new professional management team in place, the policies and systems have become extremely transparent. We look forward to garnering revenues on the public performance platform & ploughing it back into content creation, thereby adding value to the entire music ecosystem in south. We will work closely with PPL in guiding the organization to greater heights.”

  • T-Series Chooses PPL As Its Exclusive Partner!

    T-Series Chooses PPL As Its Exclusive Partner!

    MUMBAI: Super Cassettes Industries India Pvt Ltd (T-Series), the leading Indian record label once again chose Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) to manage its public performance license in India. This is an exclusive arrangement with PPL. All Bollywood party anthems be it “BomDiggy” or “Abhitho party shuruhuihai” will be part of the PPL licensing bouquet.  With T-series on board, PPL controls the lion’s share of the Indian music market , as they already have major Indian players like Saregama, Sony Music, Universal Music, Venus, Aditya, Lahari Music etc. PPL exclusively represent all international Majors in the Country thereby offering a complete bouquet of International, New Hindi Film, Old Hindi Classics and Regional Hits to its License Holders.  

    Public performance license is taken by hotels, clubs, retail stores, for events  and background music usage so as to play their choice of music at the venue or event. Payment of such usage by obtaining a license from PPL is enshrined in the Copyright law. The tariffs for various usages are published on their site.

    Mr.Bhushan Kumar, Chairman and Managing Director, T-Series said, “We have had a long association with PPL and are further very happy with the positive changes taking place under the new management. I am honoured to be able to add value to the running of the Company by coming on the Board at this juncture when the Organisation is poised to harness its true potential in the coming years”

    Speaking about the tie-up Mr. Rajat Kakar, Managing Director, PPL said, “We are delighted to renew our association with T Series for Public Performance Licensing in the Country.  With its aggressive marketing, T Series is a powerhouse of Hits and no party is a success without playing hits from their roster. As we increase our licensing footprint, renewal of this mandate was eagerly awaited by our teams and licensees alike. This year also marks a decade of our partnership with T-Series. We also welcome Mr.Bhushan Kumar, MD of T-Series on the PPL board of directors. With him on board, we look forward to PPL scaling further heights in the years to come”

  • Phonographic Digital will license & collect fees from telcos & streaming services

    MUMBAI: Significant change is afoot in the Indian music industry. Almost unnoticed, a new organisation has cropped up to licence and collect fees from the various telcos and streaming services. Called the Phonographic Digital Ltd (PDL) it was incorporated in March 2017, just as the financial year was coming to a close, with its registered office in Kolkata.

    Earlier, the Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL), which was headed by Vipul Pradhan as its CEO, was mandated to assign licences on behalf of its Indian label members to the various telecom operators such as Airtel, JioMusic, Idea, Vodafone, and streaming services and collect royalties from them.

    The PPL will continue as in the past to be a collection organisation for public performance of sound recordings from establishments, events and radio.

    Read the full report here:

    Indian music industry sets up PDL, a new association for telco licensing

  • Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

    Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

    MUMBAI: It’s a judgment that has taken some time a-coming. For long Indian event organisers and agencies have been battling with the music licensing in various courts – the IPRS and PPL and Novex Communications – on their legal standing to collect royalties for music that is played out during ground events that the former organise. While the first two represent the interests of writers, authoris, composers and almost all Indian and international music labels, the latter collects royalties from event organisers for music from the YRF and Zee Music stable.

    With many parties and gigs planned by many event organisers planned for the new year – which is a plum time for these three bodies to collect revenues for live events and parties – the Event & Entertainment Management filed a petition with the Delhi high court on 21 December. It named the Indian government, the Copyright Off ice and PPL, IPRS, and Novex Communications as respondents to the case.

    The petition highlighted that despite the fact that currently neither of the bodies issuing ‘licenses’ are infact registered copyright societies – PPL / IPRS and Novex – however they still continue to grant licenses and continue to be in the business of granting licenses.”

    Two days later, on 23 December 2016, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva issued an order which reads. “..the respondent Nos.3 (PPL) to 5 (IPRS and Novex Communications) are restrained from acting in contravention of Section 33 of the Act and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Union of India and Copyright Office respectively) are directed to take action in accordance with law for any breach of provisions of Section 33 by the respondent Nos.3 to 5.”

    According to the EEMA , this effectively means that the three bodies have been barred from collecting money for music licensing for events until the next hearing which is scheduled for 24 April 2017.

    “The Music Licensing lobby (PPL / IPRS / Novex) has been engaged in illegal issuance of licenses since over two years now and flouts all laws by openly threatening venues to stop events unless the license is procured,” says EEMA secretary (legal) Ankur Kalra: “Venues in turn pressurise event managers to do the same who despite knowing that it is wrong are forced to procure these licenses in order to safeguard their events. The music licensing ‘societies’ today are private limited companies operating purely for profit and very little or no money actually reaches the artists. It has become an organised syndicate and when we highlighted the same to the court we got an injunction almost immediately. We will take this battle forward and ensure that all event managers, venues and police departments are educated on this matter so that they are not part of the exploitation.”

    Adds EEMA legal counsel Abhishek Malhotra: “The music industry has been going through a flux. While the law clearly provides that issue and grant of licenses can be done only through a registered copyright society, these three entities have been effectively carrying on this business in violation of the clear legal provisions. This order as well as the government of India’s endorsement of the issues facing the users of music is therefore a welcome development. “

    We contacted several senior professionals from the music industry. Most were in the dark about the Delhi high court injunction order. However, the IRPS head Rakesh Nigam exclaimed that the order does not concern “the IPRS as it has been functioning under section 30 of the Copyright Act. The High Court’s verdict concerns bodies working under section 33 of the Act.”

    (courtesy http://www.radioandmusic.com/biz)

  • Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

    Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year

    MUMBAI: It’s a judgment that has taken some time a-coming. For long Indian event organisers and agencies have been battling with the music licensing in various courts – the IPRS and PPL and Novex Communications – on their legal standing to collect royalties for music that is played out during ground events that the former organise. While the first two represent the interests of writers, authoris, composers and almost all Indian and international music labels, the latter collects royalties from event organisers for music from the YRF and Zee Music stable.

    With many parties and gigs planned by many event organisers planned for the new year – which is a plum time for these three bodies to collect revenues for live events and parties – the Event & Entertainment Management filed a petition with the Delhi high court on 21 December. It named the Indian government, the Copyright Off ice and PPL, IPRS, and Novex Communications as respondents to the case.

    The petition highlighted that despite the fact that currently neither of the bodies issuing ‘licenses’ are infact registered copyright societies – PPL / IPRS and Novex – however they still continue to grant licenses and continue to be in the business of granting licenses.”

    Two days later, on 23 December 2016, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva issued an order which reads. “..the respondent Nos.3 (PPL) to 5 (IPRS and Novex Communications) are restrained from acting in contravention of Section 33 of the Act and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Union of India and Copyright Office respectively) are directed to take action in accordance with law for any breach of provisions of Section 33 by the respondent Nos.3 to 5.”

    According to the EEMA , this effectively means that the three bodies have been barred from collecting money for music licensing for events until the next hearing which is scheduled for 24 April 2017.

    “The Music Licensing lobby (PPL / IPRS / Novex) has been engaged in illegal issuance of licenses since over two years now and flouts all laws by openly threatening venues to stop events unless the license is procured,” says EEMA secretary (legal) Ankur Kalra: “Venues in turn pressurise event managers to do the same who despite knowing that it is wrong are forced to procure these licenses in order to safeguard their events. The music licensing ‘societies’ today are private limited companies operating purely for profit and very little or no money actually reaches the artists. It has become an organised syndicate and when we highlighted the same to the court we got an injunction almost immediately. We will take this battle forward and ensure that all event managers, venues and police departments are educated on this matter so that they are not part of the exploitation.”

    Adds EEMA legal counsel Abhishek Malhotra: “The music industry has been going through a flux. While the law clearly provides that issue and grant of licenses can be done only through a registered copyright society, these three entities have been effectively carrying on this business in violation of the clear legal provisions. This order as well as the government of India’s endorsement of the issues facing the users of music is therefore a welcome development. “

    We contacted several senior professionals from the music industry. Most were in the dark about the Delhi high court injunction order. However, the IRPS head Rakesh Nigam exclaimed that the order does not concern “the IPRS as it has been functioning under section 30 of the Copyright Act. The High Court’s verdict concerns bodies working under section 33 of the Act.”

    (courtesy http://www.radioandmusic.com/biz)

  • I&B ministry helpless on high music royalty

    I&B ministry helpless on high music royalty

    NEW DELHI: The government has literally washed its hands off radio FM players’ plea on high music royalty fee.

    In the absence of a single collection agency for music rights fee from FM radio stations, mangers of the 287-odd new FM frequencies had asked the government to intervene and help form a single company for music rights collection as this vexed issue was threatening to throw many a business model off gear.

    An official of the information and broadcasting ministry said, “The issue relates to IPR, which is in the domain of the human resources development (HRD) ministry. We cannot intervene on every aspects of a business.”

    The official added that the concerns of the private radio FM operators have been conveyed to the HRD ministry and now it’s up to it to do address the issue.

    Explaining further the I&B ministry’s helplessness in this regard, the official said, “Our business is to frame a regulatory framework. We cannot really help if other aspects of the business (in this case FM radio) fall within the jurisdiction of other government agencies.”

    Why is the music rights issue snowballing into a major controversy? First, multiplicity of organizations that claim to be protecting the rights of performing artistes and their works and second, the absence of a regulator, which could go into such matters in details quickly to come out with feasible solutions.

    For the FM radio companies, the music rights fee could well range between Rs 1.2- Rs. 1.5 billion this year and could touch Rs 7 billion by 2010 as operations expand and new programming lineups are rolled out.

    The new FM operators have also urged the I&B ministry to help rationalise the music right rates for A+, A, B, C and D category cities on the lines of target population as opposed to the fixed fee regime currently practiced.

    According to the Association of Radio Operators of India (AROI), since the levels of operations would differ from city to city, paying a flat fee for music rights for smaller players would not make business sense.

    According to AROI convenor Rajiv Misra, if a FM operator with a licence in Hissar (population approximately 150,000) in Haryana state, for example, pays Rs. 5 million as music royalty for basically film and Indipop songs, the “overheads would increase dramatically.”

    AROI had suggested in a petition to the I&B ministry that music fees should be graded on the lines the cities had been graded for licences, depending on socio-economic factors.

    Presently, to access music, fees have to be paid to the Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) for sound recordings, Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) for musical works and T-Series, a music company that has a huge library of film and devotional music.

    Because most FM radio stations depend heavily on film music, T Series, which began as a small company manufacturing cover versions of popular Hindi film songs, commands the leading market share of over 50 per cent.

    The I&B ministry official while expressing helplessness in intervening in such issues, said these are commercial deals that the industry players should try to sort it out themselves instead of approaching the government.

    Meanwhile, the ministry also made light of AROI’s protest against satellite radio operator WorldSpace seeking clearance for technology that would help it to broadcast terrestrially.

    Pointing out that the government is looking into the issue of WorldSpace, the ministry official said, “Private FM radio operators had existed earlier also and had competed well against satellite radio service. Why is this hue and cry now suddenly when the government hasn’t given any clearance to WorldSpace (to broadcast in the terrestrial mode)?”