Music Licensing In The Digital Age

Two recent cases discuss caller tunes, social media reels and the expanding scope of copyright compliance…read more.

 The commercial use of music across digital platforms has increasingly blurred the boundaries between licensed consumption and public communication. Two recent disputes — the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench judgment in Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Indian Performing Right Society Limited dated May 8, 2026 [A.O.(COM) 17/2024 and APOT 300/2024] and the Delhi High Court proceedings in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. FSN E-Commerce Ventures Ltd. (Nykaa) dated April 30, 2026 [CS(COMM) 408/2026] — highlight the evolving complexities surrounding music licensing in India, particularly in relation to ringtones, reels, and branded social media content.

Landmark Ruling on Dual Licensing

In Vodafone Idea, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directed telecom companies to obtain IPRS licences for caller tunes and ringtones in addition to licences obtained from Indian music label Saregama. IPRS - the Indian Performing Right Society - is a non-profit copyright society registered under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, representing lyricists, composers and music publishers, and the ruling will ensure that lyricists and composers receive royalties for mobile caller tunes in line with the 2012 Copyright Amendments.

The dispute had its origins in 2014, when Vodafone signed agreements with Saregama to use songs for its caller tune and ringtone value-added services (VAS). IPRS maintained that while music labels own the copyright in sound recordings, lyricists and composers retain separate rights in the underlying literary and musical works. In 2018, Vodafone challenged IPRS’s royalty claims before the Calcutta High Court, and it is those claims that the Division Bench has now upheld.

The Bench discussed the ‘paradigm shift’ brought about by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012. Under the pre-2012 position, once a composer or lyricist created a work for a film/music producer for valuable consideration, the producer became the first owner of the copyright and the author retained no independent right to royalties. The 2012 amendments were designed specifically to correct this imbalance.

First, it was provided that authors of literary or musical works incorporated in a cinematograph film or in a sound recording shall not assign or waive their right to receive royalties for utilisation of such works in any form, save for assignments to legal heirs or to a registered copyright society such as IPRS. Any assignment to the contrary was void. Second, no assignment of copyright to make a cinematograph film or sound recording would affect the right of the author of the underlying work to claim an equal share of royalties for any utilisation of that work. Third, copyright in a sound recording would not affect the separate copyright subsisting in the underlying literary and musical works from which it is made.

The single exception to separate royalties for underlying works was when such works are used for the theatrical exploitation of a film.

Accordingly, the Bench held that literary and musical works and sound recordings constitute distinct and independent categories of copyright. Thus, a licence from a music label covering the sound recording authorises use of the recorded performance but not the underlying lyrics and composition embedded within it.

The practical consequences are already being felt. Telecom major Bharti Airtel has reportedly already secured licences from IPRS for its caller tune and ringtone services.

To conclude, a single licence from a music label is no longer a complete shield - every caller tune and ringback tone service now operates within a dual-licensing framework.

Social Media and the Limits of Platform Licences

Meanwhile, the ongoing Zee v. Nykaa proceedings before the Delhi High Court extend this debate into the social media ecosystem. Zee Entertainment alleged unauthorised use of its music repertoire in Nykaa's Instagram reels and promotional content.

Notably, Nykaa has voluntarily stated that twelve specifically identified sound recordings had already been taken down and would not be further communicated to the public pending disposal of the injunction application. However, Zee has placed on record that the plaint covers its entire repertoire, not merely those twelve tracks. The matter is now listed for further hearing on May 26, 2026.

The dispute underscores a distinction often overlooked by brands and influencers: platform availability of music does not translate into commercial licensing rights. Social media platforms may secure limited licences covering user-generated content, but commercial entities using music for social media advertising, endorsements, influencer collaborations, or branded campaigns may require additional permissions from copyright owners and copyright societies. Meta’s own music terms draw this line, restricting the use of music for commercial or non-personal purposes unless the user has obtained appropriate licences. The fact that Nykaa moved swiftly to take down the identified content - before any court order required it to - reflects awareness among brands of the legal exposure that music-led promotional content can create.

This issue is particularly acute for content creators. Individual creators using platform music libraries for non-commercial expression may fall within platform licensing arrangements. However, once content acquires a commercial character - sponsored posts, brand integrations and monetised reels - the use may amount to ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, potentially requiring separate licences.

The determinative factor under copyright law is the commercial purpose of the content, not the identity of the account from which it is posted. Thus, brands cannot assume that routing promotional material through an influencer's account insulates them from copyright exposure. A related intermediary-liability question also emerges and reportedly Nykaa has sought to implead Meta on the basis that Instagram’s licensing framework and music-library architecture are relevant to how the alleged use occurred.

The Broader Picture

Emerging jurisprudence points to stricter scrutiny of digital music use. The Vodafone Idea and Zee v. Nykaa matters signal that as brands, influencers and agencies rely more heavily on music-led engagement, layered copyright clearances for sound recordings, lyrics and compositions are becoming central to online brand strategy.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.