Intro:

Definition of dramatic work and sound recording from bare act section 2.
Argument for inclusion of SR in dramatic work:
Section 2 (h) defines the position of dramatic work with regard to Indian law, the position is
of vast ambit. The crucial aspect is the judicial determination of the fixation element as it
constitutes an important element for the purpose of satisfying the provisions of the act. There
exists mutual similarity between various types of work such as dramatic and
cinematographic. In a work produced such as a film, it constitutes of independent works such
as music, sound recording that is added later or is added in the beginning can possess
independent identity and be held to be copyrightable. The relation has to be seen for
determining under which statute the relevant work comes under which is a subject of judicial
determination. The dramatic work was discussed to limited extent in the Academy of General
Education v. B. Malini Mallaya and Mehdi Norowzian v. Arks Ltd. The position of
yakshagan and performance (it was a dramatic work according to court). In Mehdi case the
short film joy was not considered to be a dramatic work according to the court. Fixation is a
very relevant consideration for any work
Argument against inclusion of SR in dramatic work:
Firstly, a sound recording is inclusive of the literary, musical or dramatic work that it is
recording i.e., by its meaning/de facto, dramatic work can be a part of sound recordings.
Dramatic works therefore are a smaller subset of works, of which a sound recording can be
made. SR also may include musical and literary work also (i.e., the notes of a song or the
words sung). It is a derivative work. So you can’t say that a sound recording is dramatic
work.
Secondly, in Section 14, the meaning of copyright is defined differently for L, M and D work,
and for musical recordings separately. It is evident that legislative intent isn't there to include
MR within dramatic anyway because you can't include it in definition but grant differing
rights.
Thirdly, Section 13 creates a distinction between the copyright in a sound recording and the
copyright of the work embedded in a sound recording. Such a distinction has been made to
specifically protect the rights of those who are original authors of the L, M or D work in
particular. The rights of sound recording will be vested with the producer of the recording
(here refer to S 2(d) where author is defined differently). Thus, there is an inherent distinction
in the way these rights are created and who they are vested to.
Finally, a reading of sections 14 and 52 establish that the rights conferred to copyrights
holders of SR, and to those of L, M and D works are different (here just go to S. 13 and you’ll
see the difference in first subsection and last subsection, just put that down).
This distinction is given in the academy of general education v B malini mallaya, para 11
(pg- 454 of the module the definition of the dramatic work u/s 2 (h), u/s 2 (g) the definition of
work in certain contexts, emphasise the protection and the distinction wrt to sound recording
and pg 456 of the module gives the exception to the situation u/s 52
Authorities for argument against inclusion:
http://www.nishithdesai.com/information/research-and-articles/nda-hotline/nda-hotline-
single-view/article/no-royalty-to-be-paid-to-iprs-for-broadcasting-songs.html?
no_cache=1&cHash=b27a6dfbcba5f884ae0c7fe11358816a#:~:text=The%20Bombay
%20High%20Court%20in,sound%20recording%20embodying%20such%20underlying%20(
just go to the judgement part and read you’ll understand the gist of the argument.
Difference between a musical work and a sound recording (FOR UNDERSTANDING)
Musical work does not mean music, as is known to a layman, because to a layman, music
means hearing music. A musical work, under the Act, has nothing to do with sound or
hearing, and a musical work is nothing else but the musical notes and notations which
represent a particular sound and not the sound itself. It is when the musical notes are played
on an instrument by a person or on instruments by an orchestra or a literary work is sung by a
person, the same then results in a sound and this sound when recorded results in a sound
recording which is a copyright work in itself, separate from the copyright in a musical work.
To put it in an over simplistic fashion, musical work are the alphabets/words/sentences of the
musical world or the sound recording world and it is such alphabets/words/sentences of a
musical work which result in a sound recording when such musical work is played by a
musician or orchestra or sung by a singer etc.
To clarify further, there are two expressions used in the second Proviso to Section 33(1) of
the Act, first being a cinematograph film and the second being a sound recording. Both these
words are for the earlier copyright works existing and stated in the second Proviso being the
literary work, dramatic work, musical work or artistic work. In a cinematographic work, all
four works being literary work and/or dramatic work and/or musical work and/or artistic
work are included, whereas, in a sound recording, only musical or literary work are included.1
Different copyrights exist during sound recording:
Musical works and sound recording embodying the music are considered separate subject-
matters for copyright. Thus, copyright in the recording of music is separate from the
copyright in the music. Copyright in the music vests in the composer and the copyright in the
recorded music recorded vests in the producer of the sound recording. Where the song has not
been written down and the composer who is also the performer records the song two
copyrights come into existence at the same time, one for the music and one for the sound
recording.
The three classes of works referred to in Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, 1957 viz. (a)
literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works; (b) cinematographic films and (c) sound
recording are mutually exclusive. As already noted hereinabove, Section 13(4) recognizes
that there is separate copyright in the underlying musical and literary works which are
embodied in a cinematographic film or sound recording. Such underlying works do not lose

1
Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd. vs Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd., MANU/DE/0124/2019
their existence upon a sound recording or any number of sound recordings being made. Upon
a sound recording being made, the said three works remain mutually exclusive and the
ownership therein can be exercised to the extent prescribed by the Act.2
Different rights are granted to copyright owners of sound recordings, and that of L, M
or D works
The limited rights conferred by Section 14 (e) on the owner of copyright in a sound recording
(viz. the exclusive right to make other sound recording embodying it; to sell or hire any copy
of the sound recording; or to communicate the sound recording to the public) harmonizes
with the rights which vest in the owner of the primary literary, dramatic and musical work
utilized to make a sound recording. The owner(s) of copyright in the literary, dramatic and
musical works can make or authorize the making of a new sound recording by utilizing the
same literary, dramatic or musical work which may earlier have been utilized for making an
earlier sound recording. This right is not abridged or taken away by the said provision.
Therefore, it is permissible to make another sound recording, may be by utilizing the
same or different set of musicians, singers or artists by utilizing the same literary,
dramatic or musical work. The owner of the Copyright in the earlier produced sound
recording cannot object to the making of such subsequent sound recordings or version
recordings merely because he is the owner of the copyright in the earlier made sound
recording. His exclusive rights are confined to the exploitation of ‘his’ work i.e. ‘his’ sound
recording in which he owns the copyright and does not give him the right to interfere or
intermeddle with the exploitation of copyright(s) in the original primary works viz. the
literary, dramatic and musical works by the author(s).
This position is clear from sub- section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, which states that the
copyright in a sound recording shall not affect the separate copyright in any work in respect
of which the sound recording is made. Any other interpretation would render sub-Section (4)
of Section 13 otiose, and nullify the copyrights conferred on the author of a literary, dramatic
or musical work to make or authorize, inter alia, the making of any subsequent sound
recording of his work, once his work has been utilized by any person to make a sound
recording. From Section 2(m) it is clear that unless a sound recording actually embodies a
previous sound recording or a substantial part thereof, there is no copying or infringement of
the copyright of the owner of a sound recording. The copyright of the owner of a sound
recording does not get infringed on account of the making of another sound recording by
using the same original literary, musical or dramatic work.
-The Gramophone Company of India Limited v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd 3 (THIS
CASE IS PART OF SYLLABUS FROM THE CASE LIST SENT BY AARYAN)

You can also see Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd., 20 i
1(47) PTC 5S7 (Bom), it’s a very big case by just ctrl + f for sound recording. Or just cite it
if you want authorities, it basically just says everything that these above cases also say.

2
Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v. Aditya Pandey and Another, (2011) 47 PTC 392 (DEL)
3
LQ 1999 HC 8806
CONCLUSION (THAT do you agree with the exclusion of sound recording)
Interpret according to your wims and fancies