The Rights Behind the Recording: Copyright Issues in Event Media
Introduction : Consider a Company that brings in a photographer and videographer for its yearly conference, has a licensed band play in the evening and later uses the footage for a recruitment video, regional advertisement and investor presentation. Each step seems to be a habit. But each raises a question that is rarely answered in writing at the time: who owns the content, who let the music in, who agreed to the later uses ?
Rarely is the answer a single one. The content of an event is a collection of rights owned by separate people and if you own one right, it does not mean you own the others. This blog analyses how the Copyrights Act, 1957 allocates those rights, where businesses usually go wrong and what measures can be taken to legally use and reuse event media.
Who owns the Photograph or the Video ?
The author of a work is its first owner. The photographer is the person who takes the photograph. The author of a cinematograph film (which includes a video) is the producer, namely the person who takes the initiative and responsibility for making the film. Many businesses think that paying for the work changes things and there is a provision in the Act to this effect. Where a photograph is taken or a film is made for valuable consideration at the instance of another person, that other person is the first owner of the copyright. Again, the employer is normally the first owner of work produced under a contract of service.
However, this rule is just a default. It applies where there is no agreement to the contrary and many photographers’ standard terms leave copyright with the photographer and grant a licence to the client. It is also unclear how far the rule helps where the work is unpaid, volunteered or provided by a sponsor. The employer rule doesn't apply to freelancers since they are commissioned and not employed. Regardless of the ownership the photographer has moral rights which require credit to be given to the person who took the photograph.
In practice, the difficulty is usually a proof, not a law. The Cinema Resource Center v. Ganga Rudraiah, a decision of the Madras High Court in August 2026, involved the heirs of a film producer seeking copyright in production stills of a 1978 film. No document disclosed the hirers and payers of the photographers. The court put the onus on the claimants in the first instance but found that the admissions of the parties and the surrounding circumstances made it more probable than not that the producer was the first owner. The claimants won, but only after lengthy litigation. And a business with no signed record may not be so lucky. There is also a second point in the case that businesses need to note: possessing of the files is not equivalent to having ownership of the copyrights embedded in them.
Who owns the Music?
An event video is a composite. The copyright in the film is distinct from the copyright in the music, speeches or artwork that is incorporated in it. The law regarding ownership of music written for a film has also changed over the years. In Indian Performing Right Society v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association (1977) the Supreme Court said that the producer of a film could be the first owner of music made for the film at the instance of the producer unless the parties otherwise agreed. Parliament later moved away from this position. The 2012 amendments preserved the rights of authors of music and literary works used in films, including a share in royalties. With event content the point is stronger still: the songs that are already recorded and played at an event belong to the composers, lyricists and record labels, not the business or the videographer.
The second, less obvious problem is music licensing. Depending on the terms of the licence, a licence from a copyright society to play music at the event may only cover that performance. But playing that same music in a video posted online or used in an advertisement is a different matter. It involves further acts, such as copying the work into a film and communicating it to the public, and may require separate permission from the owners of the musical work and of the sound recording.
Some organizers hope that section 52(1)(za) which exempts some performances at religious ceremonies, including social festivities associated with a marriage, will eliminate the need for a licence. The event management company had approached the Delhi High Court seeking a declaration that its wedding events were not required to be licensed in Ten Events & Entertainment v. Novex Communications (2023). The court refused, stating that the provision is merely a defence to an infringement claim, and that its operation depends on the reality of the event and any commercial purpose. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has also set aside a government notice defining the scope of the exception. These are decisions about weddings, but the reasoning is relevant here. With a ticketed conference or a sponsored launch the commercial intent is clear and it is misplaced to rely on the exception which also doesn't clearly cover the subsequent commercial reuse of recordings. The situation is still fluid and every case is fact specific.
Speakers, Performers and Attendees
There are also other people in the event content. Even if somebody else organized the event, the person who delivers the speech, or on whose behalf the speech is delivered, is the first owner of the copyright in the speech. Performers, such as singers and musicians, have their own exclusive and moral rights. A business that records a keynote or performance and wishes to reuse it should therefore obtain written consent that covers both the recording and reuse.
Attendees raise another issue. Photographs of identifiable persons are usually personal data, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 requires notice and consent for a stated purpose. Its core obligations are expected to come into force from May 2027, but businesses that establish their consent practices now will be better placed. If the notice referred only to coverage of the event but the attendee’s image is used in an advertisement, fresh consent may be needed.
Reusing Content across Channels and Business Units
In reuse there are many gaps. An assignment of copyright must be in writing, signed, and identify the work and state the rights assigned, their duration and their territory. Where duration and territory not specified, the Act provides for duration of five years and territory of India. An assignment may also lapse if the rights are not used within one year unless it says otherwise. It does not extend to a medium not in commercial use when it was made unless it says so expressly. Licences are also subject to these requirements. So a global campaign in the 6th year or short form video format not mentioned in the contract may be outside what was granted.
The corporate structure is another added difficulty. Subsidiaries, regional units and external agencies are separate legal entities and a licence granted to one company does not automatically mean that another company within the group can use the content. Who is allowed to use it should be in the contract.
Editing also matters. In Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court held that moral rights of an author survive the sale of the work and that mutilation of the work may amount to infringement of such rights. This was a case about a mural, not an event photograph, but it does support the view that heavy cropping, re-colouring or alteration of another’s work should be dealt with in the contract. Finally, local law may differ where content is used abroad. For example, in the United States, a work made for hire is a work made only in the listed categories and with a signed agreement.
An Event-Content Checklist
The following steps can help a business secure content that it can safely reuse.
Sign a written agreement with each photographer, videographer and editor stating whether copyright is assigned or licensed.
State the rights, media (including future formats), duration and territory, and name the permitted users, such as group companies and agencies.
Obtain warranties or assignments covering second shooters and subcontractors, and ask for raw files.
Confirm music permissions: society licences for performance, and separate permissions or a documented licence for use in recorded content.
Secure written releases from speakers and performers for recording and reuse.
Notices of photography, including purposes, should be displayed at entry and in registration materials.
Maintain a register of assets with licence limits and expiry dates and check before any new use or substantial edit.
Introduce written licences between group companies prior to sharing content across business units.
Conclusion
The question of event photography and videography is a simple one, with a complex answer. Section 17(b) is a good start, but it is a conditional, override able by contract, and it says nothing about music, performers or attendees. The cases discussed above suggest that courts expect the claimant to prove title and tend to narrowly construe statutory exceptions. Businesses that rely on assumption instead of documentation, risk losing assets or incurring liability.
Some reform might help. The Copyright Office could issue guidance on who is the ‘producer’ of a commissioned film of an event and copyright societies could offer combined licences for performance and incidental recording. Until then, the most reliable safeguards are clear written agreements and a maintained register.
Author: Nimisha Sunil Bagewadi in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney
Comments