Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 967 of 1975. (From the judgment and order dated 13 2 1974 of the Calcut ta High Court in Copyright No. 2/73). A.K. Sen	 E.P. Skons James	 J. 1. Mehta	 J. Roy Choud hary	 S.K. Mehta	 K.R. Nagaraja and P.N. Puri	 for the appellant. section Chaudhury	 R.K. Bachawat	 D.K. Sinha	 H.S. Parihar and I. N. Shroff	 for respondents 1 5 and 12 and 22. J.C. Bhat	 Atul Munim and B.R. Agarwala	 for respondents 6 8. B. Sen	 B.K. Bachawat	 D.K. Sinha	 H.S. Parihar and I. N. Shroff	 for respondents 12 and 22. J.L. Nain	 Atul Munim and B. R. Agarwala	 for re spondent No. 19. 	 V.R. Krishna Iyer	 J. also gave a separate opin ion. JASWANT SINGH	 J. This appeal by certificate granted under Article 133(1) of the Constitution by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta which is directed against its judgment dated February 13	 1974	 raises the following substantial question of law of general importance : "Whether in view of the provisions of the 	 an existing and future rights of music . composer	 lyricist is capable of assignment and whether the producer of a cinematograph film can defeat the same by engaging the same person. " The facts giving rise to the appeal are: The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the IPRS ')	 the appellant before us	 was incorporated in the State of Maharashtra on August 23	 1959	 as a company limited by guarantee	 for the purpose of carrying on business in India of issuing or granting li cences for performance in public of all existing and future Indian Musical works in which copyright subsists in India. The incorporation of the IPRS was in terms of section 2(r) of the 	 211 1957 (Act 14 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') which was enacted after taking into consideration the Report of the (British) Copyright Committee	1952	 the suggestions of the various Ministries of the Government of India and the State Governments	 the Indian Universities and certain interested industries and associations who were invited to send their comments on the subjects of copyright. The IPRS has amongst its members the composers of musical works	 authors of literary and dramatic works and artists. In accordance with the provisions of section 33 of the Act	 the IPRS published on September 27	 1969 and November 29	 1969 in the 'Statesman ' and the Gazette of India respectively a tariff laying down the fees	 charges and royalties that it proposed to collect for the grant of licences far perform ance in public of works in respect of which it claimed to be an assignee of copyrights and to have authority to grant the aforesaid licences. A number of persons including various associations of producers of cinematograph films who claimed to be the owners of such films including the sound track thereof and the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association of India filed objections in respect of the aforesaid tariff in accordance with the provisions of section 34 of the Act repudiating the claim of the IPRS that it had on behalf of its members authority to grant licences for. performance in public of all existing and future musical works which are incorporated in the sound track of cinematograph films in which copyright may subsist in India or the right to collect in relation thereto any fees	 charges or royalties. The association of producers averted inter alia that their members engaged composers and sound writers under contracts of service for composing songs to be utilised in their films; that the musical works prepared by the composers of lyric and music under contract of service with their mem bers producers of the cinematograph films having been utilised and incorporated in the sound track of the cinemat ograph films produced by the latter	 all the rights which subsisted in the composers and their works including the right to perform them in public became the property of the producers of the cinematograph films and no copyright sub sisted in the composers which they could assign to and become the basis of the claim of the IPRS under section 33 of the Act; that their members i.e. the producers of cine matograph films being the authors and first owners of the copyright in the cinematograph films produced by them had the exclusive right inter alia to cause the said films in so far as the same consisted of sounds (which include musical works) to be heard in public as also the exclusive right to make records embodying the sound track of the films produced by them (including any musical work incorporated therein) and to cause the said records to be beard in public; that in the making of a cinematograph film as contemplated by the Act a composer composes a lyric or music under a contract of service or for valuable consideration which is substantial a music director sets it to tunes and imparts music to it and a singer sings the same but none of them nor any one of their aforesaid works can and have any separate copyrights; that motion picture is the combination of all arts and music in the sound track which cannot be detached from the film itself; that the purpose of making a motion picture is not only to complete it but also to publicly exhibit it through out the world; that having regard to the provisions of the Act the ' copyright in the case of 212 a cinematograph film vests in the owner of the film as defined in section 2(d) (v) of the Act; and that in the premises any assignment purporting to have been made in favour of the IPRS was void and of no effect and was incapa ble of conferring any rights whatsoever in such musical works on the IPRS. The Cinematograph Exhibitors Association of India also filed objections challenging the right of the IPRS to charge fees and royalties in respect of performance in public of the musical works incorporated in the sound track of the films. Besides raising contentions identical to those raised by various associations of producers they averred that copyright in a cinematograph film which vested in the producers meant copyright in the entirety of the film as an integrated unit including the musical work incorporated in the sound track of the film and the right to perform the work in public; that in accordance with the agreement with the distributors of films the exhibition of cinematograph film includes the right to play in public the music which is an integral part and parcel of the film; that the producers lease out copyrights of public performance of the films vested in them to the distributors who give those rights to the exhibitors an agreement and that when an exhibitor takes a licence for exhibition	 it is complete in all respects and a third party like the IPRS cannot claim any licence fee from the exhibitors. On the aforesaid objections being referred to it for determination under section 35 of the Act	 the Copyright Board expressed the view that in the absence of proof to the contrary	 the composers of lyrics and music retained the copyright in their musical works incorporated in the sound track of cinematograph films provided such lyrical and musical works were printed or written and that they could assign the performing right in public to the IPRS. The Copyright Board further held that the tariff as published by the IPRS was reasonable and the IPRS had the right to grant licences for the public performance of music in the sound track of copyrighted Indian cinematograph films and it could collect fees	 royalties and charges in respect of those films with effect from the date on which the tariff was published in the Gazette of India. Aggrieved by the decision of the Copyright Board	 the objectors preferred an appeal under section 72 of the Act to the High Court which allowed the same holding that unless there is a contract to the contrary	 a composer who composes a lyric or music for the first time for valuable considera tion for a cinematograph film does not acquire any copyright either in respect of film or its sound track which he is capable of assigning and that under proviso. (b) to section 17 of the Act	 the owner of the film at whose instance	 the composition is made	 becomes the first owner of the copy right in the composition. The High Court further held that "the composer can claim a copyright in his work only if there is an express agreement between him and the owner of the cinematograph film reserving his copyright". The High Court also held that "though section 18 of the Act confers power to make a contract of assignment	 the power can be exercised only when 213 there is an 'existing or future right to be assigned and that in the circumstances of the present case	 assignment	 if any	 of the copyright in any future work is of no effect". Dissatisfied with this decision	 the IPRS has	as already stated	 come up in appeal to this Court. The copyright law in our country being fairly complicat ed because of the involved language in which some of its provisions are couched and the case being of first impres sion	 learned counsel for the parties have tried hard to help us in solving the knotty points by advancing copious and able arguments. Appearing on behalf of the appellant	 Mr. Ashok Sen has urged that the author (composer) of a literary or musical work has copyright which includes inter alia the exclusive right (a) to perform the work in public 'and (b) to make any cinematograph film or a record in respect of the work; that copyright in a literary or musical work is infringed by any person if without a licence granted to him by the owner of the copyright	 he makes a cinematograph film in respect of the work or performs the work in public by exhibiting the cinematograph film; that if a person desires to exhibit in public a cinematograph film containing a musical work	 he has to take the permission not only of the owner of the copyright in the cinematograph film but also the permission of the owner of the copyright in the literary or musical work which is incorporated in the cinematograph film	 as according to section 1. 3 (4) of the Act	 the copyright in a cinematograph film or a record does not affect the separate copyright in any work i.n respect of which or a substantial part of which	 the film	 or as the case may be	 the record is made; that the provisions of section 17(b) of the Act have no application to a literary or musical work or the separate copyright therein and do not take away the copyright in a literary or musical work em bodied in a cinematograph film; that the only modes in which the author of a literary or musical work ceases to be the owner of copyright m the work are (a) by assignment	 '(b) by relinquishment and (c) by the composer composing the work in 'the course of his employment under a contract of service with an employer in which case	 the employer becomes the owner of the copyright in the musical work; that in the case of an assignment of copyright in future work and the employ ment of the author to produce a work under a contract of service	 the question of priorities will be decided ac cording to the principle "where equities are equal	 the first in time shall prevail". Mr. Sachin Chaudhary	 learned counsel for respondents 1	 2 and 3	 as well as Mr. J.C. Bhat	 learned counsel for respondents 6	 7 and 8	 and Mr. J.L. Nain	 learned counsel for respondent 19	 who followed Mr. Chaudhary have on the other hand submitted that the dispute in the instant case	 according to the petition of appeal	 the judgment of the Copyright Board and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court is confined to the sound track associated with a cinemato graph film (which expression	 according to Copinger and Skone James on COPYRIGHT	 means "any record of sounds which is incorporated in any print	 negative	 tape or other arti cle on which the film or part of it	 in so far as it con sists of visual images	 is recorded	 or which is issued by the maker 214 Of the film for use in conjunction with such an article"); that the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that copyright in a literary or musical work incorporated in the sound track of a cinematograph film vests in the composer of literary or musical work and when the cinematograph film is performed i.e. exhibited in public	 the composer is entitled to fee or royalty in that behalf and since the appellant is the assignee of the copyright from the composers	 it has the right to collect the fee or royalty is entirely unfound ed; that unlike (the law) in England	 in India unless a music is notationally written	 printed or graphically repro duced	 it is not musical work within the meaning of the and there is no copyright 'in songs or orches tral pieces sung or played directly without its notation being written ' that since a 'cinematograph film ' is defined in section 2(f) of the 'Act as including the sound track and the 'cinematograph ' is required to be construed to include any work produced by any process analogous to cine matography	 the owner of the cinematograph film is the firt owner of the copyright therein including the right of the composer of the literary or musical work incorporated in the sound track of the film; that in the case of the film in which a lyric (which literally means a short poem directly expressing the poet 's own thoughts and sentiments in stan zas falling within the purview of the expression "literary work" as defined in section 2(0) of the Act) has been plagiarised	 there will be copyright in the film vesting in the producer; that the Act confers a separate copyright on a cinematograph film as a film	 its author under section 2(d)(v) of the Act being the owner of the film at the time of its completion; that in the case of a lyric or music incorporated in the sound track of a cinematograph film	 since under section 2(f) of the Act	 cinematograph film includes its sound track and section 13(1)(b) of the Act confers copyright on the cinematograph film and section 14(c) (ii) of the Act confers on the owner of copyright the. right to cause the film in so far as it consists of visual images to be seen in public and in so far as it consists of songs to be heard in public	 it is not necessary for the owner of the cinematograph film to secure the permission of the composer of the lyric or of the music incorporated in the sound track of a cinematograph film for exhibiting or causing the exhibition of the sound portion of the film in public or for causing the records of the sound track of the film to be heard in public. They have further urged that it is not correct to say that under section 17	 proviso (b) in order that the producer of the cinematograph film should have copyright in the literary or musical work incorporated in it	 the making of the entire film should be commis sioned. According to counsel for respondents section 17 proviso (b) will equally apply if someone is commissioned to make any component part of a cinematograph film such as a lyric or musical work i.e. when such component of the film is made at the instance of a film producer for valuable consideration	 the copyright for such component shall as well vest in the producer; that as the Act confers a sepa rate copyright on a cinematograph film as a film	 the pro ducer can exercise both the rights conferred on him under section 14(1).(c)(ii) of the Act and all that section 13(4) of the Act (when applicable) provides is that the rights created by section 14(1)(a) and (b) shall co exist with those created by section 14(1)(c) and (d) of the Act	 e.g. under clause (a)	 the 215 copyright in a literary work such as a novel entitles its author to make a cinematograph film in respect of the work	 and to exercise the remaining rights created by section 14(1)(a) of the Act. But once he has licensed someone to make a cinematograph film	 the licensee shall have the rights provided in clauses (c) and (d) of section 14(1) of the Act in respect of the film. We have given our earnest consideration to the submis sions made by learned counsel for the parties. So far as the first part of the question reproduced above is con cerned	 there is no dispute between the parties. Both sides are agreed that in view of the provisions of section 18 of the Act	 the material portion of which lays down that "(1) the owner of the copyright in an existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in a future work may assign to any person the copyright either wholly or partial ly and either generally or subject to limitations and either for the whole term of the copyright or any part thereof; provided that in the case of the assignment of copyright in any future work	 the assignment shall take effect only when the work comes into existence	 (2)where the assignee of a copyright becomes entitled to any right comprised in the copyright	 the assignee as respects the rights so assigned	 and the assignor as respects the rights not assigned	 shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as the owner of copyright and the provisions of this Act shall have effect accordingly"	 the first part of the question should be answered in the affirmative. It is accordingly held that an existing and future right of music . composer and lyricist in their respective 'works ' as defined in the Act is capable of assignment subject to the conditions mentioned in section 18 of the Act	 as also in section 19 of the Act which requires an assignment to be in writing	 signed by the assignor or by his duly authorised agent. It is the second part of the question which has been a hot bed of controversy between the parties that has got to be tackled. The main point for determination in regard to this part of the question is whether the composer of lyric or musical work (which in terms of section 2(p) of the Act means only a notationally written	 printed or graphically produced or reproduced music) retains a copyright in the lyric or musical work if he grants a licence or permission to an author (owner) of a cinematograph film for its incor poration in the sound track of a cinematograph film. For a proper appreciation and determination of the contentions raised before us	 it is necessary to notice certain provi sions of the Act. The terms 'author '	 'Cinematograph film '	 'exclusive licence '	 'infringing copy '	 'musical work '	 'performance ' performing rights society '	 'radio diffusion ' and 'work ' are defined in clauses (d)	 (f)	 (j)	 (m)	 (p)	 (q)	 (r)	 (v) and (y) respectively of section 2 of the Act as under : "(d) author means	 (i) in relation to a literary or dramatic work	 the author of the work; 5 240SC I / 7 7 216 (ii) in relation to a musical work	 the com poser; (iii) ** ** ** (iv) ** ** ** (v) in relation to a cinematograph film	 the owner of the film at the time of its comple tion; and (vi) in relation to a record	 the owner of the original plate from which the record is made	 at the time of the making of the plate". "(f) cinematograph film includes the sound track	 if any	 and "cinematograph" shall be construed as including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography." "(j) exclusive licence means a licence which confers on the licensee or on the licen see and persons authorised by him. to the exclusion of all other persons (including the owner of the copyright)	 any right comprised in the copyright in a work	 and "exclusive licensee" shall be construed accordingly." "(m) infringing copy means	 (i) in relation to a literary	 dramatic	 musical or artistic work	 a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematograph film; (ii) in relation to a cinematograph film	 a copy of the film or a record embodying the recording in any part of the sound track associated with the film; (iii) ** ** ** (iv) ** ** **" "(p) musical work means any combination of melody and harmony or either of them	 printed	 reduced to writing or otherwise graphically produced or reproduced". "(q) performance includes any mode of visual or acoustic presentation including any such presentation by the exhibition of a cinematograph film	 or by means of radiodif fusion	 or by the use of a record	 or by any other means and	 in relation to a lecture	 includes the delivery of such lecture". "(r) performing rights society means a society	 association or other body	 whether incorporated or not	 which carries on business in India of issuing or granting licences for the performance in India of any works in which copyright subsists". 217 (v) radio diffusion includes communication to the public by any means of wireless diffu sion whether in the form of sounds or visual images or both". "(y) work means any of the following works	 namely (i) aliterary	 dramatic	 musical or artistic work; (ii) a cinematograph film; (iii) a record". Section 13 of the Act provides as follows : "13. Works in which copyright subsists. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act	 copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works	 that is to say	 (a) original literary	 dramatic musical and artistic works; (b) cinematograph films; and (c) records. (2) ** ** ** (3) Copyright shall not subsist (a) in any cinematograph film if a substantial part of the film is an infringement of the copyright in any other work; (b) in any record made in respect of a liter ary	 dramatic or musical work	 if in making the record	 copyright in such work has been infringed. (4) The copyright in a cinematograph film or a record shall not affect the separate copyright in any work in respect of which or a substantial part of which	 the film	 or as the case may be	 the record is made. (5) ** ** ** Section 14 of the Act which contains the meaning of the expression "copyright" is to the following effect : "14. Meaning of copyright. " (1) For the purposes of this Act: "copyright" means the exclusive right	 by virtue of	 and subject to the provisions of	 this Act	 (a) in the case of literary	 dramatic or musical work	 to do and authorise the doing of any of the following acts	 namely (i) to reproduce the work in any material form; (ii) to publish the work; (iii) to perform the work in public; 218 (iv) to produce	 reproduce	 perform or publish any translation of the work; (v) to make any cinematograph film or a record in respect of the work; (vi) to communicate the work by radio diffu sion or to communicate to the public by a loud speaker or any other similar instrument the radio diffusion of the work; (vii) to make any adaptation of the work; (viii) to do in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work any of the acts specified in relation to the work in clauses (i) to (vi): (b) ** ** ** (c) in the case of a cinematograph film	 to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts	 namely (i) to make a copy of the film; (ii) to cause the film	 in so far as it con sists of visual images	 to be seen in public and	 in so far as it consists of sounds	 to be heard in public; (iii) to make any record embodying the record ing in any part of the sound track associated with the film by utilising such sound track; (iv) to communicate the film by radio diffu sion; (d) in the case of a record	 to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts by utilising the record	 namely (i) to make any other record embodying the same recording; (ii) to cause the recording embodied in the record to be heard in public; (iii) to communicate the recording embodied in the record by radio diffusion. (2) Any reference in sub section (1) to the doing of any act in relation to a work or a translation or an adaptation thereof shall include a reference to the doing or that act in relation to a substantial part thereof". Section 17 of the Act which relates to ownership of copyright provides as under : "17. First owner of copyright. Subject to the provisions of this Act	 the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein; Provided that 219 (a) in the case of a literary	 dramatic or artistic work made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper	 magazine or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship	 for the purpose of publication in a newspaper	 magazine or similar periodical	 the said proprietor shall	 in the absence of any agree ment to the contrary. be the first owner of the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to the publication of the work in any newspaper	 magazine or similar periodical	 or to the reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published	 but in all other respects the author shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work; (b) Subject to the provisions of clause (a)	 in the case of a photograph taken	 or a paint ing or portrait drawn	 or an engraving or a cinematograph film made. for valuable consid eration at the instance of any person	 such person shall	 in the absence of any agreement to the contrary	 be the first owner of the copyright therein; (c) in the case of a work made in the course of the author 's employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship	 to which clause (a) or clause (b) does not apply	 the employer shall	 in the absence of any agreement to the contrary	 be the first owner of the copyright therein; (d) ** ** ** (e) ** ** ** Sections 22 and 26 of the Act which deal with the term of copyright in musical and other works and cinematograph films are to the following effect : "22. Term of copyright in published liter ary	 dramatic musical and artistic works. Except as otherwise hereinafter pro vided	 copyright shall subsist in any liter ary	 dramatic	 musical or artistic work (other than a photograph) published within the life time of the author until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the author dies. Explanation. In this section	 the refer ence to the author shall	 in the case of a work of Joint authorship	 be construed as a reference to the author who dies last . Term of copyright in cinematograph films. In the case of a cinematograph film	 copyright shall subsist until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next fol lowing the year in which the film is pub lished". 220 Section 30 of the Act which deals with grant of licences by owners of copyright runs thus : "30. Licences by owners of copyright. The owner of the copyright in any existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in any future work may grant any interest in the right by licence in writing signed by him or by his duly authorised agent: Provided that in the case of a licence relating to copyright in any future work	 the licence shall take effect only when the work comes into existence. Explanation. When a person to whom a licence relating to copyright in any future work is granted under this section dies before the work comes into existence	 his legal representatives shall	 in the absence of any provision to the contrary in the licence	 is entitled to the benefit of the licence". The interpretation clause (f) of section 2 reproduced above	 which is not exhaustive	 leaves no room for doubt when read in conjunction with section 14(1)(c)(iii) that the term "cinematograph film" includes a sound track associated with the film. In the light of these provisions	 it cannot be disputed that a "cinematograph film" is to be taken to include the sounds embodied in a sound track which is asso ciated with the film. Section 13 recognises 'cinematograph film ' as a distinct and separate class of 'work ' and de clares that copyright shall subsist therein throughout India. Section 14 which enumerates the fights that subsist in various classes of works mentioned in section 13 provides that copyright in case of a literary or musical work means inter alia (a) the right to perform or cause the performance of the work in public and (b) to make or authorise the making of a cinematograph film or a record in respect of the work. It also provides that copyright in case of cinemato graph film means. among other rights	 the right of exhibit ing or causing the exhibition m public of the cinematograph film i.e. of causing the film in so far as it consists of visual images to be seen in public and in so far it consists of sounds to be heard in public. Section 13(4) on which Mr. Ashok Sen has leaned heavily in support of his contentions lays down that the copyright in a cinematograph film or a record shall not affect the separate copyright in any work in respect of which or a substantial part of which	 the film	 or as the case may be	 the record is made. Though a conflict may at first sight seem to exist between section 13(4) and section 14(1) (a) (iii) on the one hand and sec tion 14(1) (c) (ii) on the other	 a close scrutiny and a harmonious and rational instead of a mechanical construction of the said provisions cannot but lead to the irresistible conclusion that once the author of a lyric or a musical work parts with a portion of his copyright by authorising a film producer to make a cinematograph film in respect of his work and thereby to have	 his work incorporated or recorded on the sound track of a cinematograph film	 the latter acquires by virtue of section 14(1) '(e) of the Act on completion of the cinematograph film a copyright which gives 221 him the exclusive right inter alia of performing the work in public i.e. to cause the film in so far as it consists of visual images to be seen in public and in so far as it consists of the acoustic portion including a lyric or a musical work to be heard in public without securing any further permission of the author (composer) of the lyric or a musical work for the performance of the work in pub lic. In other words	 a distinct copyright in the aforesaid circumstances comes to vest in the cinematograph film as a whole which in the words of British Copyright Committee set up in 1951 relates both to copying the film and to its performance in public. Thus if an author (composer) of a lyric or musical work authorises a cinematograph film pro ducer to make a cinematograph film of his composition by recording it on the sound track of a cinematograph film	 he cannot complain of the infringement of his copyright if the author (owner) of the cinematograph film causes the lyric or musical work recorded on the sound track of the film to be heard in public and nothing contained in section 13(4) of the Act on which Mr. Ashok Sen has strongly relied can operate to affect the rights acquired by the author (owner) of the film by virtue of section 14(1)(c) of the Act. The composer of a lyric or a musical work	 however	 retains the right of performing it in public for profit otherwise than as a part of the cinematograph film and he cannot be re strained from doing so. In other words	 the author (com poser) of lyric or musical work who has authorised a cinematograph film producer to. make a cinematograph film of his work and has thereby permitted him to appropri ate his work by incorporating or recording it on the sound track of a cinematograph film cannot restrain the author (owner) of the film from causing the acoustic portion of the film to be performed or projected or screened in public for profit or from making any record embodying the recording in any part of the sound track associated with the film by utilising such sound track or from communicating or authorising the communication of the film by radio diffu sion	 as section 14(1)(c) of the Act expressly permits the owner of the copyright of the cinematograph film to do all these things. In such cases	 the author (owner) of the cinematograph film cannot be said to wrongfully appropriate anything which belongs to the composer of the lyric or musical work. Any other construction would not only render the express provisions of clauses (f)	 (m)	 (y) of section 2	 section 13(1)(b) and section 14(1)(c) of the Act otiose but would also defeat the intention of the Legislature	 which in view of the growing importance of the cinemato graph film as a powerful media of expression	 and the highly complex technical and scientific process and heavy capital outlay involved in its production	 has sought to recognise it as a separate entity and to treat a record embodying the recording in any part of the sound track associated with the film by utilising such sound track as something distinct from a record as ordinarily understood. On a conspectus of the scheme of the Act as disclosed in the provisions reproduced above particularly clauses (d)(v)	 (f) (m)	 (v)and (y) of section 2	 sections 13(1) and 14(1)(c)	 provisos (b)and (c) to section 17 and sections 22 and 26 of the Act	 it is	 therefore	 abundantly clear that a protectable copyright (comprising a 222 bundle of exclusive rights mentioned in section 14(1)(c) of the Act) comes to vest in a cinematograph film on its com pletion which is said to take place when the visual portion and audible portion are synchronized. This takes us to the core of the question namely	 wheth er the producer of a cinematograph film can defeat the right of the composer of music . or lyricst by engaging him. The key to the solution of this question lies in provisos (b) and (c) to section 17 of the Act reproduced above which put the matter beyond doubt. According to the first of these provisos viz. proviso (b) when a cinematograph film producer commissions a composer of music or a lyricst for reward or valuable consideration for the purpose of making his cinematograph film	 or composing music or lyric there fore i.e. the sounds for incorporation or absorption in the sound track associated with the film	 which as already indicated	 are included in a cinematograph film	 he becomes the first owner of the copyright therein 'and no copyright subsists in the composer of the lyric or music so composed unless there is a contract to the contrary between the composer of the lyric or music on the one hand and the producer of the cinematograph film on the other. The same result follows according to aforesaid proviso (c) if the composer of music or lyric is employed under a contract of service or apprentice.ship to compose the work. It is	 therefore	 crystal clear that the rights of a music composer or . lyricst Can be defeated by the producer of a cinemat ograph film in the manner laid down in provisos (b) and (c) of section 17 of the Act. We are fortified in this view by the decision in Wallerstein vs Herbert (1867) Vol. 16	 Law Times Reports 453	 relied upon by Mr. Sachin Chaudhary where it was held that the music composed for reward by the plain tiff in pursuance of his engagement to give effect to cer tain situations in the drama entitled "Lady Andley 's Secret"	 which was to be put on the stage was not an inde pendent composition but was merely an accessory to and a Fart and parcel of the drama and the plaintiff did not have any right in the music. For the foregoing reasons	 we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the High Court. Conse quently	 the appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. KRISHNA IYER	 J. The judgment just delivered is on behalf of the Court	 which makes this footnote	 in a sense	 otiose. But I do append the abbreviated opinion solely to belight a slightly penumberal area of the law and to voice a need for legislative exploration to protect a category now left in the cold. A cinematograph is a felicitous blend	 a beautiful totality	 a constellation of stars	 if I may use these lovely imageries to drive home my point	 slurring over the rule against mixed metaphor. Cinema is more. than long strips of celluloid	 more than miracles in photography	 more than song	 dance and dialogue and indeed	 more than dramatic story	 exciting plot	 gripping situations and marvellous acting. But it is that 223 ensemble which is the finished product of orchestrated performance by each of the several participants	 although the components may	 sometimes	 in themselves be elegant entities. Copyright in a cinema film exists in law	 but section 13(4) of the Act preserves the separate survival	 in its individuality	 of a copyright enjoyed by any 'work ' notwith standing its confluence in the film. This persistence of the aesthetic 'personality ' of the intellectual property cannot cut down the copyright of the film qua film. The latter right is	 as explained earlier in my learned broth er 's judgment	 set out indubitably in section 14(1)(c). True	 the exclusive right	 otherwise called copyright	 in the case of a musical work extends to all the sub rights spelt out in section 14(1)(a). A harmonious construction of section 14	 which is the integral yoga of copyrights in creative works	 takes us to the soul of the subject. The artist enjoys his copyright in the musical work	 the filmproducer is the master of his combination of artistic pieces and the two can happily co exist and need not conflict. What is the modus vivendi ? The solution is simple. The film producer has the sole right to exercise what is his entitlement under section 14(1)(c) qua film	 but he cannot trench on I the composer 's copyright which he does only if the 'music ' is performed or produced or reproduced separately	 in violation of section 14(1)(a). For instance	 a film may be caused to be exhibited as a film but the pieces of music cannot be picked out of the sound track and played in the cinema or other theatre. To do that is the privilege of the composer and that right of his is not crowned in the film copyright except where there is special provision such as in section 17	 proviso (c). So	 beyond exhib iting the film as a cinema show	 if the producer plays the songs separately to attract an audience or for other reason	 he infringes the composer 's copyright. Anywhere	 in a restaurant or aeroplane or radio station or cinema theatre	 if a music is played	 there comes into play the copyright of the composer or the Performing Arts Society. These are the boundaries of composite creations of art which are at once individual and collective	 viewed from different angles. In 'a cosmic perspective	 a thing of beauty has no boundary and is humanity 's property but in the materialist plane on which artists thrive	 private and exclusive estate in art subsists. Man	 the noblest work of the Infinite Artist	 strangely enough	 battles for the finite products of his art and the secular law	 operating on the temporal level	 guard ians material works possessing spiritual values. The enig matic small of Mona	 Lisa is the timeless heritage of man kind but	 till liberated by the prescribed passage of time	 the private copyright of the human maker says	 'hands off '. The creative intelligence of man is displayed in multiform ways of aesthetic expression but it often happens that economic systems so operate that the priceless divinity which we call artistic or literary creativity in man is exploited and masterS	 whose works are invaluable	 are victims of piffling payments. World opinion in defence of the human right to intellectual property led to internation al conventions and municipal laws	 commissions	 codes and organisations	 calculated to protect works of article India responded to this universal need by enacting the . 224 Not the recommendations in conventions but provisions in municipal laws determine enforceable rightS. Our copyright statute protects the composite cinematograph work produced by lay out of heavy money and many talents but does not extinguish the copyrightable component parts in toto. The music which has merged	 through the sound track	 into the motion picture	 is copyrighted by the producer but	 on account of this monopoly	 the music composer 's copyright does not perish. The twin rights can co exiSt	 each ful filling itself in its delectable distinctiveness. Section 14 has	 in its careful arrangement of the rights belonging to each copyright	 has a certain melody and harmony to miss which is to lose the sense of the Scheme. A somewhat un Indian feature we noticed in the Indian copyright Act falls to be mentioned. Of course	 when ' our law is intellectual 'borrowing from British reports	 as admittedly it is	 such exoticism is possible. 'Musical work '	 as defined in s.2 ( p) reads: "(p) musical work means any combina tion of melody and harmony or either of them printed	 re duced to writing or otherwise graphically produced or reproduced." Therefore	 copyrighted music is not the soulful tune	 the superb singing	 the glorious voice or the wonderful render ing. It is the melody or harmony reduced to print	 writing or graphic form. The Indian music lovers throng to listen and be enthralled or enchanted by the nada brahma	 the sweet concord of sounds	 the rags	 the bhava	 the lava and the sublime or exciting singing. Printed music is not the glamour or glory of it	 by and large	 although the content of the poem or the lyric or the song does have appeal. Strangely enough	 'author '	 as defined in s.2(d)	 in rela tion to a musical work	 is only the composer and section 16 confies 'copyright ' to those works which are recognised by the Act. This means that the composer alone has copyright in a musical work. The singer has none. This disentitle ment of the musician or group of musical artists to copy right is un Indian	 because the major attraction which lends monetary value to a musical performance is not the music maker	 so much as the musician. Perhaps	 both deserve to be recognised by the copyright law. I make this observation only because act in one sense	 depends on the ethos and the aesthetic best of a people; and while universal protection of intellectual and aesthetic property of creators of 'works ' is an international obligation	 each country in its law must protect such rights wherever originality is con tributed. So viewed	 apart from the music composer	 the singer must be conferred a right. Of course	 law making is the province of Parliament but the Court must communicate to the lawmaker such infirmities as exist in the law extant. S.R. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant society was incorporated in terms of section 2(r) of the (Act 14 of 1957)	 in the State of Maharashtra on August 23	 1969 as a company limited by guarantee for the purpose of carrying on business in India of issuing or granting licences for performance in public of all existing and future Indian musical works in which copyright within the meaning of section 13 subsists in India. The appellant company has amongst its members the composers of musical works	 authors of literary and dramatic works and artistes. In accordance with the provisions of section 33 of the Copyright Act	 the appellant published on September 27	 1969 and November 29	 1969 in the "Statesman" and the Gazette of India respectively a tariff laying down the fees	 charges and royalties that it proposed to collect for the grant of licences for performance in public of works in respect of which it claimed to be an assignee of copy rights and to have authority to grant the aforesaid li cences. A number of persons including various associations of producers of cinematograph films including the sound track thereof and the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association of India filed objections in respect of the tariff before the Copyright Board in accordance with the provisions of section 34 of the Act	 repudiating the rights of the appel lant. The Copyright Board held : (1) In the absence of proof to the contrary	 the composers of lyrics and music retained the copyright in their musical works incorporated in the sound track of cinematograph films provided such lyrical and musical works were printed on written and that they could assign the performing right in public to the appellant. (2) The tariff as published by the appellant was reasonable. (3) The appellant had the right to grant li cences for the public performance of music in the sound track of copyrighted Indian cinematograph films and (4) It could collect fees	 royalties and charges in respect of those films w.e.f. the date on which the tariff was pub lished in the Gazette of India. The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents under section 72 of the Act and held: (i) Unless there is a contract to the contrary a composer who composes a lyric or music for the first time for valuable consideration for a cinematograph film does not acquire any copyright either in respect of film or its sound track which he is capable of assigning. (ii) Under proviso (b) to section 17 of the Act	 the owner of the film at whose instance the composition is made becomes the first owner of the copyright in the composition. (iii) The compos er can claim a copyright in his work only if there is an express agreement between him and the owner of the cinemato graph film reserving his copyright. (iv) Though section 18 of the Act confers power to make a contract of assignment. the power can be exercised only when there is an existing or future right to be assigned and that in the circumstances of the present case	 assignment	 if any	 of the copyright in any future work is of no effect. In appeal by certificate to this Court	 the appellant contended (1) The author (composer) of a literary or musical work has copyright which includes. inter alia. the exclusive right (a) to perform the work in public and 207 (b) to make any cinematograph film or a record in respect of the work. (2) That copyright in a literary or musical work is infringed by any person if without a licence granted to him by the owner of the copyright	 he makes a cinematograph film in respect of the work or perform the work in public by exhibiting the cinematograph film. (3) If a person desires to exhibit in public a cinematograph film containing a musical work	 he has to take the per mission not only of the owner of the copyright in the cine matograph film but also the permission of the owner of the copyright in the literary or musical work which is incor porated in the cinematograph film	 as according to section 13(4) of the Act	 the copyright in a cinematograph film or a record does not effect the separate copyright in any work in respect of which or a substantial part of which the film or as the case may be	 the record is made (4). The provi sions of section 17(b) of the Act have no application to a literary or musical work or the separate copyright therein and do not take away the copyright in a literary or musical work embodied in a cinematograph film. (5) The only modes in which the author of a literary work or musical work ceases to be the owner of copyright in the work are (a) by assigning under section 18(b) by relinquishment under section 21 and (c) by the composer composing the work in the course of his employment under a contract of service with an employer in which case the employer becomes the owner of the copyright in the musical work. (6) In the case of an assignment of copyright in future work and the employment of the author to produce a work under a contract of service	 the question of priorities will be decided according to the principles "where equities are equal	 the first in time shall prevail". The respondent 's contentions were (i) Unless a music is notationally written	 printed or graphically reproduced it is not a musical work within the meaning of Copyright Act and there is no copyright in songs or orchestral pieces sung or played directly without its notation being written. (ii) Since a "cinematograph film" is defined in section 2(f) of the Act as including the sound track and the "cinema tograph" is required to be construed to include any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography the owner of the cinematograph film is the first owner of the copyright therein including the right of the composer of the literary or musical work incorporated in the sound track of the film. (iii) In the case of the film in which a lyric (which literally means a short poem directly expressing the poet 's own thoughts and sentiments in instances failing within the purview of the expression "literary work" as defined in section 2(0) of the Act has been plagiarised	 there will be copyright in the film vesting in the pro ducer. (iv) The Act confers a separate copyright of a cinematograph film as a film	 its author under section 2(d)(v) of the Act being the owner of the film at the time of its completion. (v) In the case of a lyric or music incorporat ed under the sound track of a cinematograph film	 since in section 2(f) of the Act cinematograph film includes its sound track and section 13(1)(b) of the Act confers copyright on the cinematograph film and section 14(c) (ii) of the Act confers on the. owner of copyright the right to cause the film in so far as it consists of visual images to be seen in public and in so far as it consists of songs to be heard in public	 it is not necessary for the owner of the cinematograph film to secure the permission of the composer of the lyric or of the music incorporated in the sound track of a cinematograph film for exhibiting or causing the exhibition of the sound portion of the film in public or for causing the records of the sound track of the film to be heard in public. (vii) It is not correct to say that under section 17 proviso (b) in order that the producer of the cinematograph film should have copyright in the literary or musical work incorporated in it	 the making of the entire film should be commissioned. Section 17(b) will equally apply if someone is commissioned to make any compo nent part of a cinematograph film such as a lyric or musical work i.e. when such component of the film is made at the instance of a film producer for valuable consideration	 the copyright for such component shall as well vest in the producer. (viii) As the Act confers a separate copyright on a cinematograph film as a film the producer can exercise both the rights conferred on him under section 141(c)(ii) of the Act and all that section 13(4) of the Act (when applicable) provides is that the rights created by section 14(1)(a) and (b) shall coexist with those created by section 14(1)(e) and (d) of the Act. Dismissing the appeal the Court	 HELD: (Per Krishna Iyer	 J. concurring) 208 (1) Copyright in a cinema film exists in law but section 13(4) of the Act preserves the separate survival in its individuality of a copyright enjoyed by any work notwith standing its confluence in the film. This persistence of the aesthetic personality of the intellectual property cannot cut down the copyright of the film qua film. The exclusive right	 otherwise	 called copyright	 in the ' case of a musical work extends to all the sub rights spelt out in section 14(1) (a). A harmonious construction	 of section 14	 which is the integral yoga of copyright shows that the artiste enjoys his copyright in the musical _work the film producer is the master of his combination of artistic .pieces and the two can. happily co exist and need not conflict. [223 A C] (2) The boundaries of composite creations of art which are at once individual and collective may be viewed from different angles. In a cosmic perspective	 a thing of beauty has no boundary and is humanity 's property but in the materialist plane on which artistes thrive private and exclusive estate inert subsists. The enigmatic smale of Mona Lisa is the timeless heritage of mankind	 but	 till liberated by the prescribed passage of time	 the private copy right of the human maker says	 "hands off. [223 F G] (3) The film producer has the sole right to exercise what is his entitlement under section 14(1)(c) qua film. But	 he cannot trench on the composer 's copyright which he does only if the 'music ' is performed or produced or repro duced separately	 in violation of section 14(1)(a). A film may be caused to be exhibited as a film but the pieces of music cannot be picked out of the sound track and played in the cinema or the theatre. To do that is the privilege of the composer and that right of his is not drowned in the film ' copyright except where there is special provision such as section 17	 proviso (c). Beyond exhibiting the film as a cinema show if the producer plays the songs separately to attract an audience or for other reasons he infringes the composer 's copyright	 the copyright of the composer or the Performing Acts Society comes into play	 if a music is played	 whether in a restaurant or aeroplane or radio sta tion or cinema theatre. [223 C E] (4) Section 14 has in its careful arrangement of the right belonging each copyright has a certain melody and harmony to music which is to loose the sense of the same. Our copyright statute protects the composite cinematograph work produced by lay out of heavy money and many talents but does not extinguish the copyrightable component parts in toto. The music which has merged through the sound track	 into the motion picture is copyright by the producer but	 on account of this monopoly	 the music composer 's copyright does not perish. The twin rights can co exist each fulfil ing itself in its delectable distinctiveness. [224 A B] Observation: Apart from the music composed	 the singer must be conferred a right. Copyrighted music is not the soulful tune	 the superb singing	 the glorious voice or the wonder ful rendering. It is the melody or harmony reduced to print writing or graphic form of musical works. Author as defined in s.2(d) in relation to a musical work is only the composer and section 16 confines copyright to those works which are recognised by the Act	 which means the composer alone has copyright in a musical work and the singer has none. This disentitlement of the musician or group of musical artistes to copyright is un Indian because the major attraction which lends monetary value to a musical performance is not the music maker so much as the musician. Perhaps both deserve to be recognised by the copyright law	 because art in one sense depends on the ethos and the aesthetic best of a people and while universal protection of intellectual and aesthetic property of creators of "works" is an international obliga tion each country in its law must protect such rights wher ever originally is contributed. [224 E H] Per Jaswant Singh J. (1) The existing and future right of music . . composer and lyrics in their respective works as defined in the Act is capable of assignment subject to the conditions mentioned in section 18 of the Act as also in section 209 19 of the Act which requires an assignment to be in writing	 signed by the assigner or by his duly authorised agent. [215 D E] (2) The interpretation of clause (f) of section 2 which is not exhaustive leaves no room for doubt when read in conjunction with section 14(1)(c)(iii)	 that the term cine matograph film includes a sound track associated with the film. [220 D] (3) A harmonious and rational instead of mechanical construction of section 34	 section 14(1)(a)(iii) and section 14(1)(c)(ii) will be: (A) Once the author of a lyric or a musical work parts with a portion of his copyright by authorising a film pro ducer to make a cinematograph film in respect of his work and thereby to have his work incorporated or recorded in sound track of a cinematograph film	 the latter.acquires by virtue of section 14(1)(c) of the Act on completion of the cinematograph film a copyright which gives him the exclu sive right	 inter alma	 of performing the work in public that is	 to cause the film in so far as it consists of visual images to be seen in public and in so far as it consists of the acoustic portion including a lyric or a musical work to be heard in public without securing any further permission of the author (composer) of the lyric or a musical work for the performance of the work in public. A distinct copyright in the aforesaid circumstances comes to vest in the cinematograph film as a whole which relates both to copying the film and to its performance in public. (B) If an author (composer) of a lyric or a musical work authorises a cinematograph film producer to make a cinematograph film of his composition by recording it on the sound track or a cinematograph film	 he cannot complain of the infringement of his copyright if the author (owner) of the cinematograph film causes the lyric or the musical work recorded on the sound track of the film to be heard in public and nothing contained in section 13(4) of the Act can operate to affect the rights acquired by the author (owner) of the film by virtue of section 14(1)(c) of the Act. (C) The composer of a lyric or musical work retains the right of performing it in public for profit otherwise than as a part of cinematograph film and he cannot be restrained from doing so. In other words	 the author (composer) of a lyric or musical work who has authorised a cinematograph film producer to make a cinematograph film of his work and thereby permitted him to appropriate his work by incorporating or recording it on the sound track of a cinematograph film cannot restrain the author (owner) of the film from causing the acoustic portion of the film to be performed or projected or screened in public for profit or from making any record embodying the recording in any part of the sound track associated with the film by utilising such sound track or from communicating or authorising the communication of the film by radio diffusion	 as section 14(1)(c) of the Act expressly permits the owner of the copyright of a cinematograph film to do all these things. In such cases the author (owner) of the cinematograph film cannot be said to wrongfully appropriate anything which belongs to the composer of the lyric or musical work. Any other construction would not only render the ex press provisions of clause (f)	 (m)	 (y) of section 2	 section 13(1)(b) 	red section 14(1)(c) of the Act otiose but would also defeat the intention of the legislature which in view of the growing importance of the cinematograph film as a powerful media of expression and the highly complex	 technical and scientific process and heavy capital outlay involved in its production has sought to recognise as a separate entity and to treat a record embodying the record ing in any part of the sound track associated with the film by utilising such sound track as something distinct from a record as ordinarily understood. [220 G H; 221 A G] (4)Clauses (d)	 (v)	 (f)	 (m)	 (v) and (y) of section 2	 section 13(1) and 14(1)(c)	 provisos (b) and (c) to section 17 and section 22 and 26 of the Act abundantly make it clear that protectable copyright (comprising a bundle of exclusive rights mentioned in section 14(1)(c) of the Act comes to 210 vest in a cinematograph film on its completion which is said to take place when the visual portion and audible portion are synchronized. [221 H; 222 A] (5) The rights of music . . composer or lyricist can be defeated by the producer of a cinematograph film in the manner laid down in proviso (b) and (c) of section 17 of the Act. In both the. cases falling under clauses (b) and (c) of section 17	 a cinematograph film producer becomes the. first owner of the copyright and no copyright subsists in the composer of the lyric or music so composed unless there is a contract to the contrary between the composer of the lyric or music on one hand and the producer of the cinemato graph film on the other. [222 D F] Wallerstein vs Herbert (1867) Vol. 16	 Law Times Reports 453	 quoted with approval.