Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 JUNE 2026

Music Licensing In The Digital Age

Remfry & Sagar
Remfry & Sagar
Contributor

Remfry & Sagar

Established in 1827, Remfry & Sagar has pioneered IP law in India. The firm’s depth of experience...

View firm profile
Explore more from Remfry & Sagar

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.

IndiaIntellectual Property
Remfry & Sagar
Remfry & Sagar

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.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

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.

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law