PROJECT FILE

OF

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

TOPIC- COMPULSORY LICENSING UNDER THE COPYRIGHT

LAW

Submitted to: Ms.Supreet Submitted by: Raham Bansal

Roll no: 275/15

Section: B

Semester :10,B.A. LL.B.(Hons.)

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my courteous gratitude and heartiest thanks to ma’am Supreet who has the attitude and
substance of genius and an excitement in regard to teaching. Without her guidance and persistent help this
project would not have been possible .

Some friends are never too busy to give us hands whenever they are needed. I express my sincere love and
affection towards all those benevolent souls and true friends who helped me in making this project
successfully.

The same was a learning experience and a deepest insight into the topic given .

At last I would like to thank my parents for their kind support and guidance.

Raham Bansal

2
 INTRODUCTION

Copyright is an ‘exclusive right’ exercised over a work produced by the intellectual labour of a person. As
in Sulmangalam R. Jayalakshmi v. Meta Musical,1the Madras High Court held that “the right which a
person acquires in his literary or artistic work which is result of his intellectual labour is called his
copyright.”Copyright is not restricted to literary or artistic work. Copyright applies to different other kinds
of work also like dramatic, musical, cinematographic film, computer programme, work of architecture and
sound recording and any other work which is produced by the intellectual labour of a person.

OBJECTIVES OF COPYRIGHT LAW

The Copyright Law achieves the following objectives:

 Protection of individual commercial interest in an intellectual work

 Protection of social interest.2

LICENCE IN COPYRIGHT

A license is the transfer of interest in copyright. In a license, the right to use a copyright is given to another
party with some restrictions on such usage. A license can grant the right in the copyright of work which is
already in existence or copyright in some future work which is yet to come in existence.  A licensee can use
the copyrighted work without any claim of infringement or unauthorized use being brought by the owner of
the copyright against the licensee.

Section 30 to section 32B of the Copyright Act,1957, provide for the grant of license which includes
compulsory license by the registrar of copyrights on the recommendation of copyright board under section
31 and 31A.

Compulsory License is the term generally applied to a statutory license to do an act covered by an
exclusive right without the prior authorization of the right owner. Compulsory licensing allowed was for
the use of protected without prior permission of the owner of the right.3 3

1
AIR 2000 Mad. 454
2
Meenu Paul,intellectual property Law, (Allahabad Law Agency,5th edition,2014)
3
Id,p.69
 A license agreement should contain the following details in order to be enforced:

 Identification of the work and rights licensed

 Duration of the license
 Amount of royalty payable
 Conditions relating to revision, extension and/or termination of the license.

The license should be in writing and should be duly signed by the owner of the copyright or his duly
authorized agent. Details about the present or future copyright work where the licensee of a future work
dies before such work comes into existence then his legal representatives will be entitled to the benefit of
the license, provided there is nothing contrary to it.4

A compulsory license is covered under Section 31 to 31B of Indian Copyright Act.

The compulsory license s are granted by the registrar of copyrights on the recommendation of copyright
board in the following circumstances:

 License in published works with held from public (section 31)

 License in unpublished works (31A)
 License for benefit of disabled (31B)

Compulsory license in works withheld from public-

(1) If at any time during the term of copyright in any Indian work which has been published or performed
in public, a complaint is made to the Copyright Board that the owner of copyright in the work-

a. has refused to republish or allow the republication of the work or has refused to allow the
performance in public of the work, and by reason of such refusal the work is with held from the
public, or

4
behest refused to allow communication to the public by of such work or sound recording] the work
recorded in such on terms which the complainant considers reasonable;

4
www.intepat.com,visited on 16th march,2020 at 5:30p.m.
The Copyright Board, after giving to the owner of the copyright in the work reasonably opportunity of
being heard and after holding such inquiry, as it may deemed necessary. May, if it is satisfied that the
grounds for such refusal are not reasonable, direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the complainant
a license to republish the work, perform the work in public or communicate the work to the public by as
the case may be, subject to payment to the owner of the copyright of such compensation and subject to
such other terms and conditions as the Copyright Board may determine, and thereupon the Registrar of
Copyrights shall grant the license of the complainant in accordance with the direction of the Copyright
Board, on payment of such fees, as may be prescribed.

Explanation - In this sub section, the expression "Indian work" includes-

i. an artistic work, the author of which is a citizen of India, and

ii. a cinematograph film or a  sound recording] made or manufactured in India.

(2) Where two or more persons have made a complaint under sub section (1), the license shall be granted to
the complainant who in the opinion of the Copyright Board would best serve the interests of the general
public.

Compulsory license in unpublished Indian works-

(1) Where in the case of an Indian work referred to in sub clause (iii) of clause (I) of Section 2, the author
is dead or unknown or cannot be traced, or the owner of the copyright in such work cannot be found, any
person may apply to the Copyright Board for a license to publish such work or a translation thereof in any
language.

(2) Before making an application under sub section (1), the applicants shall publish his proposal in one
issue of a daily newspaper in the English language having circulation in the major part of the country and
where the application is for the publication of a translation in any language, also in one issue of any daily
newspaper in that language.
5
(3) Every such application shall be made in such form as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied with
a copy of the advertisement issued under sub section (2) and such fee as may be prescribed.
(4) Where an application is made to the Copyright Board under this section, it may, after holding such
inquiry as may be prescribed, direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant to the applicant a license to
publish the work or a translation thereof, in the language mentioned in the application subject to the
payment of such royalty and subject to such other terms and conditions as the Copyright Board may
determine, and thereupon the Registrar of Copyrights shall grant the license to the applicant in accordance
with the direction of the copyright Board.

(5) Where a license is granted under this section, the Registrar of Copyrights may, by order, direct the
applicant to deposit the amount of the royalty determined by the Copyright Board in the public account of
India or in any other account specified by the Copyright Board so as to enable the owner of the copyright
or, as the case may be, his heirs, executors or the legal representatives to claim such royalty at any time.

(6) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, in the case of a work referred to in sub
section (1), if the original author is dead, the Central Government may, if it considers that the publication
of the work is desirable in the national interest, require the heirs, executors or legal representatives of the
author to publish such work such period as may be specified by it.

(7) Where any work is not published within the period specified by the Central Government under sub
section (6), the Copyright Board may, on an application made by any person for permission to publish the
work and after hearing the parties concerned, permit such publication on payment of such royalty as the
Copyright Board may, in the circumstances of such case, determine in the prescribed manner.5

It is a term used for the statutory license which gives an exclusive right to do an act without the prior
permission of the owner of the copyright. Section 31 provides for compulsory licensing of copyrighted
work which is withheld from the public.

Section 31B has been added in the copyright act, 1957 in the year 2012. This section has been added so that
compulsory license may be granted for the benefit of the disabled as expeditiously as possible. As section
31 B(1) provides that an endeavour shall be made to dispose off an application for grant of license for the
benefit of the disabled within a period of two months from the date of 6receipt of the application. This

5
www.indialawjournal.org, visited on 16th march,2020 at 5:40p.m.
section holds importance for visually impaired persons as they require copies of a work in a different
format. The applicant under this section has to specify the format of publication.

In case a copyright owner has refused to:

 Republish or allow for the republication of the work or has refused to allow the
performance of the work in public due to which the work is withheld from the public;
 Allow communication of the work to the public by way of a broadcast of such work, or in
the case of a sound recording the work recorded in such sound recording on terms which the
complainant considers reasonable.

The copyright board, can after providing a reasonable opportunity to the copyright owner to be heard,
subsequently conducting an investigation and being satisfied, may order the Registrar of Copyrights to
issue a compulsory license to the complainant so that he can republish the work, broadcast or
communicate the work to the public, etc.

The primary objective of compulsory licensing is to make available the copyrighted work to the general
public. The copyrights give protection to the work of writers, artists, etc. so that they can benefit from the
results of their hard work and creativity. However, such work should be available to the people for access.
Sometimes, the owners of copyright are not willing to part from their work so in such a case, in order to
make the work available to the people, compulsory licenses are granted by the Registrar of Copyrights.

The supreme court in the case of Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v Super Cassette Industries held that
“by virtue of section 31(1)(b) if the owner of copyright refuse to allow communication to the public a
sound recording on terms which the complainant considers reasonable, then a complaint to the board
made in this regard for issuance of compulsory license is maintainable as it has jurisdiction to deal with
the same.

7
  Licenses can be exclusive and non-exclusive :An exclusive license means a license which confers on the
licensee or the licensee and the person authorized by him to the exclusion of all other persons (including
the owner of the copyright), any right comprised in the copyright in work. An exclusive licensee is one
who has got such a right [Sec 2(j)].

In the non-exclusive license, the owner of the copyright is not deprived of his right to grant a license to
persons other than the licensee. He may use the copyright himself as well.

The license can be for an indefinite period or limited to a definite period. In case the license is to publish a
literary or some other work, then the publisher cannot be restrained from selling the unsold copies
published in the license period after the expiry of that period. This is subject to any agreement to the
contrary.

There can be an implied license, i.e., licenses can be implied by the circumstances or by a course of
conduct. If a person sends a letter to the editor of newspaper or magazine, then it is implied that the editor
has the right to publish it as well. This might be subject to any royalty payment.6

Validity of a license

If the licensee does not exercise the right granted to him in the license deed within one year, then the
license with respect to such right will be deemed to be lapsed after the expiry of one year unless otherwise
specified in the license deed.

If the period of the license is not mentioned in the deed, then it will be deemed to be for five years.

In the case of any dispute between the licensor and licensee, the aggrieved party can file a complaint with
the Copyright Board, which will hold an inquiry and pass suitable orders which may include an order for
any royalty payable.

8
An order for the revocation of the license cannot be passed before the expiry of a period of five years
unless the terms of the agreement are too harsh for the licensor and where the licensor is also the author
6
www.legalservicesindia.com, visited on 16th march, 2020 at 6:30 P.m.
Copyright might have more than one owner. In such a case, if a joint owner grants a license of the
copyright or any part of it without the consent of other owners/co-owners, then the co-owner can sue that
joint owner and the licensee to whom such right has been granted.

Consideration forms an important part of granting a license for copyright. If there is not a consideration,
then the license is revocable, however, if there is some consideration then it is irrevocable as interest is
created in the copyright.

Copyright law gives content creators certain exclusive rights over their works, including the exclusive
right to reproduce, perform, or distribute it. Content creators include, for example, sculptors, writers,
musicians, painters, and other creative professionals. Normally, in order for someone else to reproduce,
perform, or distribute a copyrighted work, permission must first be obtained from the copyright owner.

To understand how compulsory licenses operate, it is useful to consider an example, based on the music
industry. Once a song has been recorded and distributed to the public on recordings, any person or group
is entitled to record and distribute the song without obtaining the copyright owner’s consent, provided
they pay a fee and meet copyright law requirements.

In order to take advantage of this compulsory license, a notice must be sent to the copyright owner along
with a fee , known as the statutory fee or statutory rate. The fee for recordings (in 2019) is 9.1 cents per
song (or 1.75 cents per minute of playing time).7

Let's say a recorded song is three minutes long, and an artist makes 10,000 compact discs containing the
song. The fee paid to the song’s owner would, in such a case, come to $910. Note that these rates are
subject to change each year, so be sure to check the Copyright Office's latest fee schedule.

A recording artist is not required to use the compulsory license, and many recording artists seek
permission directly from the song owner and negotiate for a lower rate. This is particularly common in
situations where the companies or artists have a working relationship.

Remember that the compulsory license for recording music (known as the mechanical license) authorizes
9
the use of the song only for non dramatic musical compositions. One could not, under the compulsory
license, use it for dramatic purposes, such as in an opera or an overture to a musical. The compulsory

7
ibid
license applies only to phonorecords (sound recordings) distributed to the public. Therefore, it cannot be
used to record a song for use on a television show’s soundtrack. In such a case, permission would need to
be obtained directly from the copyright owner.

Under the terms of a compulsory license, the licensee is permitted to make a new arrangement of the
composition as long as the basic melody or fundamental character of the work is not altered.

In a different context, and without regard to the type of work involved, the concept of a compulsory
license can arise in a copyright infringement action. A court has the power to order a copyright owner to
grant a license to an innocent infringer instead of ordering the infringement stopped.

Examples of Compulsory Licenses

Compulsory licenses are easier to understand by considering examples. Imagine that Fran writes and
releases the song “Up the Stairs.” Later, Cappy decides she wants to record “Up the Stairs” exactly how
Fran performed it, taking Fran's version directly. If Cappy is willing to pay the statutory fee, she does not
need to ask Fran for permission—but if she wants to pay less per copy, she must obtain permission from
Fran.

Another example: Imagine that Sammy composes and records a country ballad. Later, Pauline, a punk rap
star, acquires a compulsory license and records Sammy’s song, but changes the words and eliminates the
melody. Sammy can have Pauline’s compulsory license revoked and prevent the recording from being
distributed further or played. As explained above, this is because she chose to edit the song, rather than
replay it "as is."8

In this way, the compulsory licensing system minimizes the transactional costs for using these
phonorecords, benefiting creativity and the economy. Individuals and businesses can safely reuse creative
content without worrying about liability, so long as they are willing to follow these rules and pay the
license fee.

Having a pluralistic culture with people belonging to diverse religious and linguistic backgrounds, India
has a unique demography. Music is an essential part of the Indian culture, and the country is known for
having a rich heritage of folk and classical music. While the Copyright10law in India which provides
protection to literary, musical and artistic works has its origins in the British legislation.

8
ibid
The market of music recordings in India is different from the West, as most of the music is produced for
movies, and the sales are dominated by the film music. The recording industry in India has been
dominated by a few players, and the modern times have seen an increase in the role of collecting societies
which are authorized to collect royalties on behalf of the music companies. 

Indian copyright law, which is based on the Berne Convention, includes certain provisions for compulsory
licensing of copyrights in respect of certain works, which are withheld from the public. The authority for
entertaining complaints on such matters has been given to the Copyright Board, a statutory body
established under the Act. The purpose behind the provision is to prevent the abuse of monopolies granted
by copyrights, and to create a balance between individual rights and public interest. The Copyright Board
has also been given the authority to adjudicate disputes relating to issue of compulsory licenses in
copyrightedworks.

After the liberalization of the economy, the FM radio sector was opened for operation by the private sector
companies. A number of radio operators who got licenses to operate the stations approached certain music
labels for licensing of copyrighted sound recordings, for the purpose of broadcast on radio. As the
royalties demanded were not acceptable to the radio operators, they considered these as unreasonable and
approached the copyright board for grant of compulsory licences in respect of those works, contending
that demanding unreasonably high royalty rates amounted to withholding of the recordings from the
public.

This project looks into the law relating to compulsory licensing of copyrighted works, the recent royalties
disputes between radio operators and record labels, the impact of the decision by the copyright board

AN OVERVIEW OF THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IN INDIA

11
The Indian music industry is over a century old. The size of the industry is estimated to be about Rs.670
crores and is expected to touch Rs.777 crores by 2009. The turnover of the industry steadily declined from
Rs 1,150 crore in 1990s to Rs 450 crore in 2005 , as rampant piracy has adversely affected the revenues.
According to a study done by Ernst and Young, music is one of the worst hit sectors of the Indian
entertainment industry, with 64 per cent of the market estimated to be pirated and the total loss to the
industry being estimated at $325 million. There are many peer to peer networks and websites that allow
illegal download of digital music. Users are increasingly relying on P2P networks over individual
websites. 

The Indian music market is very different from other markets like USA or Asian markets, and the sales are
highly dominated by film and devotional music.

Source: http://www.indianmi.org/national.htm:

From the early 1900’s, one company, namely, the Gramophone Company of
12 India which was a subsidiary
of the Gramophone Company Ltd., London, had a virtual monopoly over the record market. The GCI
released its recordings under the HMV (His Master’s Voice) label.
In 1961, the arrival of Polydor dented HMV’s monopoly, but HMV still maintained hegemony with 60%
of the market. In the late 1970s, audio cassettes and cassette players flooded the country, and became
popular very quickly. These cassettes were cheap to reproduce and could be easily distributed, and this
created the piracy industry in India, a significant part of which was owned and operated by a new record
label, T-Series. The company quickly emerged as the biggest competitor to GCI, which even came close
to winding up its operations. By the mid 1980s, T-Series had reportedly stopped the pirated recording
business and 'shifted' completely to the legitimate businesses. Today, T-Series is the largest record label in
India, which has more than 80% market share in the music industry.

There are a number of other record labels in the country, and 160 of these are members of Phonographic
Performance Ltd. (PPL), is a Copyright Society which is entrusted with the task of administering the
Broadcasting / Telecasting and Public Performance Rights on behalf of these companies. Another
registered society, SIMCA (South Indian Music Companies Association), is an association of 86 music
companies set up in 1996 to look after the common problems faced by the Industry in South India.

Thus, the music market in India has been dominated by a very few number of record labels. The collection
of royalties for music recordings is entrusted to societies like PPL and SIMCA. There have been multiple
allegations of abuse of dominant position on record labels and collecting societies. The disputes relating to
royalties between broadcasters and music companies have been increasing; this is discussed in the
followingpart.

THE LAW RELATED TO COMPULSORY LICENSING IN COPYRIGHTED WORKS

Compulsory license is the term generally applied to a statutorily license to do an act covered by an
exclusive right, without the prior authority of the right owner. Compulsory license provisions afford the
13
facility of using protected material in certain circumstances, as provided by statute, without seeking the
prior permission of the right owner. Some of the terms (for instance those regarding rates of payment)
may be fixed by the court, or a tribunal, outside the provisions of the statute. The legislator, in introducing
such provisions, has often sought a means to establish a fair rate for the royalties to be charged, and a
system for avoiding abuse of exercise of rights in a monopoly situation.

Article 9 of the Berne Paris Text provides the basis for the provisions concerning compulsory licensing.
This provision provides the Convention’s exclusive basis for equitable remuneration and provides for the
conditions which should be met before a member country can entirely excuse a use which includes the
equitable remuneration and not prejudicing the reasonable interests of the author.

Section 31(1) provides for the compulsory license of the Indian work and provides the authority to the
Copyright Board in this regard. The Copyright Board, a quasi-judicial body, was constituted in September
1958. Adjudication of disputes pertaining to grant of Licenses in respect of works withheld from public
falls within the jurisdiction of Copyright Board. The Copyright Board was reconstituted under the
Chairmanship of Dr. Raghbir Singh for a period of five years with effect from 5thApril, 2006 till the year
2011.

The section provides that after the publication of any Indian work, on satisfaction of certain conditions,
the Copyright Board may direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant a license for that particular work
subject to the payment of compensation to the holder of copyrights license (which may be fixed by the
CopyrightBoard).

The conditions are:

(1) The work for which the copyright is being claimed must have been published or performed in public.

(2) The author must have refused to allow the publication or performance of the work in public or in
case of sound recording has laid down unreasonable conditions.
3. The work is held from public by meant of such refusal

The objective behind the section is to provide for the mechanism to prevent
14 the abuse of monopoly by
the copyright holder and to ensure that the general public is not deprived of the copyrighted work,
solely because of the unreasonable demands of the copyright holder.
 The Copyright Board has been conferred certain powers under this section:

i. The Copyright Board may hold an enquiry as to whether a compulsory license may be issued to the
complainant to republish the work, perform the work in public or communicate the work to the public by
broadcast, the Copyright Board is to direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant such a license on its being
satisfied that the grounds for such refusal are not reasonable;
ii. The Copyright Board has been authorized to fix the amount of compensation to be paid to the
owner of the copyright for republishing the work, or for performing the work in public or for
communicating the work to the public by broadcast, and the board may determine such other terms and
conditions which would be applicable for granting such license to the complainant.

Thus, the justification of compulsory licensing is based on drawing a mid line on a spectrum where the
market domination is one side and the incentive-less intellectual property system is on the other side.

LITIGATION BETWEEN FM STATIONS AND MUSIC LABELS IN INDIA

Certain private companies, who obtained licenses in 1999 for establishing FM Broadcasting Services,
approached M/s. Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL), which holds copyright in sound recording for
grant of licence. But the terms or rate demanded by PPL were not acceptable to these persons and
therefore, they presented their complaints under Section 31 of the Act before the Copyright Board for
grant of compulsory licence for broadcasting sound recording.

According to the complainants, PPL had refused to grant licence to the complainants on reasonable terms.
The Defendant PPL raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Copyright Board to entertain these
complainants on the ground that the sound recordings had not been withheld from the public by the PPL
as licence in relation to these sound recordings had been granted by the PPL to All India Radio.

15
The Copyright Board overruled the objection raised by the PPL to its jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint. In so far as fixation of the amount of compensation was concerned, it held that it has power to
fix the amount of compensation according to its own valued judgment and proceeded to fix the amount of
compensation. Being aggrieved by the order, both the complainants and defendant filed an appeal .

A number of similar complaints were filed by several radio operators under Section 31(1)(b) of the
Copyright Act, 1957, before the Copyright Board praying for a compulsory license in relation to the
"sound recordings" held by certain record labels. These orders subsequently went in appeal to the High
Courts and were finally taken up by the Supreme Court in

Entertainment Network (India) Limited

SuperCassetteIndustriesLimited .9

In the case, the jurisdiction of the Copyright Board under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957, to direct
the owner of a copyright in any Indian work or a registered copyright society to issue compulsory licences
to broadcast such works was questioned, where such work is available to the public through radio
broadcast. While PPL argued that a compulsory license could issue only if the “work” had never been
made available to the public earlier, the radio stations argued for an almost automatic Compulsory licence
ground i.e. it was to be granted upon request and the only point for consideration was a determination of
“reasonable royalty”. In an elaborate judgment, Justice Sinha held in favour of the latter interpretation.

A second issue was whether such a compulsory license can be issued to more than one complainant in the
light of Section 31(2)? Here again, although a literal reading of the section made clear that there could
only be one such applicant, the court held that, “Sub-section (2) of Section 31 would lead to an anomalous
position if it is read literally. It would defeat the purport and object of the Act. It has, therefore, to be read
down. Purposive construction therefore may be resorted to.” The case was referred back to the copyright
board:

While the judgment faced some criticism , it came as a positive development for the FM radio industry.
The decision also put the ball back in the Copyright Board’s court for deciding royalties, a decision on
16
which would alleviate the need for any future negotiations between radio stations and the record labels or
collecting societies.

9
JT 2008 (7) SC 11
The dispute between the Copyright Society PPL & radio stations was decided by the Copyright Board on
the 25th of August, 2010, and the board ordered all music owners in the country to compulsorily licence
all of their music to the radio station/applicants at a fixed 2% royalty.

CONCLUSION

As the music industry faces declining profits, the dispute between radio stations and music companies
relating to royalties is yet to see a final outcome. With multiple appeals pending in this regard, there is a
need for the legislature to ensure that the Copyright Board is constituted as per certain minimum legal
standards, so that the questions on its integrity come to rest. This is essential as the dispute has continued
for almost a decade now, and its conclusion will have impact on a large number of interests in the
industry,

The growth of such statutory tribunals in India has been sporadic, and devoid of a uniform pattern. The
decisions given by these tribunals as well as their constitutional validity have been questioned in a number
of cases. This has led to doubts being raised about the transparency in their working as well as fairness in
the approach adopted by these tribunals. The method of appointment of the members as well as the
structure of the tribunals has been struck down by the Courts from time to time.

It must be accepted that the tribunals have come to stay, as the Supreme Court has pointed out that it is
well within the power of the legislature to constitute such bodies and these are not per se violative of the
doctrine of separation of powers. However, efforts must be made to regularise the procedures,
compositions, and review/ appeal of decisions of tribunals. The qualifications for the membership for
these tribunals must be laid down so as to ensure their independence from the executive.

There is also a dire need for the Indian music industry to reinvent itself and overhaul its operating model if
it is to stay competitive in an ever-changing global scenario. As more and more means of digital
17
distribution of music increase, finding alternative revenue streams for various delivery platforms is a must.
The rapid growth of the telecom sector in India has helped the industry by providing ways of getting
revenue apart from traditional sources like sales of physical CDs. Websites that offer streaming audio
services and digital music downloads have recently gained popularity in the west, and similar business
models have a great potential to save the dying art in India as well. However, an efficient mechanism to
settle copyright disputes and to prevent abuse of monopolies by the record labels must be put in place, if
we want this noble art to support the cultural and economic growth of the country.

Termination of licenses issued under this Chapter-

If, at any time after the granting of a license to produce and publish the translation of a work in any
language under sub section (1-A) of section 32 (hereafter in this sub section referred to as the licensed
work) , the owner of the copyright in the work or any person authorized by him publishes a translation of
such work in the same language and which is substantially the same in content at a price reasonably
related to the price normally charged in India for the translation of works of the same standard on the same
or similar subject, the license so granted shall be terminated.

Provided that no such termination shall take effect until after expiry of a period of three months from the
date of service of a notice in the prescribed manner on the person holding such license by the owner of the
right of translation intimation the publication of the translation as aforesaid.

Provided further that copies of the licensed work produced and published by the person holding such
license before the termination of the license takes effect may continue to be sold or distributed until the
copies already produced and published are exhausted.

If , at any time after the granting of a license to produce and publish the reproduction or translation of any
work under section 32-A, the owner of the right of reproduction or any person authorized by him sells or
distributes copies of such work or a translation thereof, as the case may be, in the same language and
which is substantially the same in content at a price reasonably related to the price normally charged in
India or works of the same standard on the same or similar subject, the license so granted shall be
terminated.

Provided that no such termination shall take effect until after the expiry of a period of three months from
18 the license by the owner of
the date of service of a notice in the prescribed manner on the person holding
the right of reproduction intimating the sale or distribution of the copies of the editions of work as
aforesaid.
Provided further that any copies already reproduced by the licensee before such termination takes effect
continue to be sold or distributed until the copies already produced are exhausted.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Meenu Paul,intellectual property Law, (Allahabad Law Agency,5th edition,2014)

WEBLIOGRAPHY
19
 www.legalservicesindia.com
 www.indialawjournal.org
 http://www.intepat.com

20