Smart Contracts as a Solution for Automated Royalty Distribution: Implications for Copyright Management in Digital Media
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69971/tipr.4.2.2026.99Keywords:
Smart contracts, Blockchain, Royalty distribution, Copyright management, music industry, Indian copyright lawsAbstract
Although the digital media ecosystem has changed creation and sharing of content, existing copyright management systems suffer from inefficiencies, such as slow payment of royalties, a lack of transparency about how much an artist is owed, high administrative costs and difficulties in tracking cross-border use. One of the most promising methods for addressing these shortcomings is the use of smart contracts, which are self-executing applications that work off a public distributed ledger called a blockchain to automatically pay royalties at the time of use, based on preconfigured conditions that are based on a predetermined number of streams, downloads or views. Current study explores the technological architecture, relevant legal issues and practical implications for automated payment of royalties to content creators through the use of smart contracts in the context of music services, audiovisual works and digital publishing. The smart contracts allow peer-to-peer transactions without a third party, based on elements of the blockchain, like the principles of decentralized consensus and immutability (integrity). The legal issues related to smart contracts using code as a contract include whether smart contracts will be legally enforceable across different jurisdictions, whether a smart contract's code can be considered enforceable with moral rights, and concentration on complying with different data privacy laws, e.g., the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in countries where blockchain is essentially immutable. While smart contracts can address a number of the core pain points associated with these areas (i.e., transparency gaps, fragmented ownership data, transactional friction), they must overcome various challenges to achieve broad acceptance. These challenges include scalability; the reliability of oracles for off-chain data; interoperability across disparate blockchains; regulatory uncertainty related to anti-money laundering/know-your-customer regulations, and taxation; and a lack of statutory recognition of smart contracts, standardized metadata for ownership rights, on/off-chain hybrid models, and international harmonization via treaties.
Downloads
References
Copyright Act 1957, s 13.
Eastern Book Company v D B Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1, [33]–[35].
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), art 5(1).
Directive 2006/116/EC of the European parliament and of the Council, art 1.
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 USC § 302 (USA).
Copyright Act 1957, s 14.
Copyright Act 1957, s 57.
Amar Nath Sehgal v Union of India 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del), [34]–[39].
Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle (France), art L121-1.
Visual Artists Rights Act 1990, 17 USC §106A.
Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012, proviso to s 57.
Copyright Act 1957, ss 13(1)(a), 14(e).
Copyright Act 1957, s 38A.
Saregama India Ltd v Vodafone Idea Ltd 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 109.
Copyright Act 1957, proviso to s 18 (as amended 2012).
Williams v Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2018).
British Phonographic Industry v MCPS and PRS [2008] EMLR 5.
Copyright Act 1957, s 52(1)(a)–(c).
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd v YouTube LLC 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7228, [48]–[52].
PwC, Global Entertainment and Media Outlook 2024–2028 (2024) 62.
Copyright Act 1957, ss 14(a), 19A.
Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. No. 16-2321 (2nd Cir. Dec. 12, 2018).
Copyright Act 1957, ss 31C, 37, 39A.
IFPI, Global Music Report 2024 (2024) 21–24.
Deloitte, Blockchain for Royalty Management (2022) 9–11.
Indian Contract Act 1872, ss 10, 37.
Copyright Act 1957, s 44.
Trimex International FZE v Vedanta Aluminium Ltd (2010) 3 SCC 1, [24]–[27].
Indian Contract Act 1872, ss 23, 37.
CBIC Circular No 11/2023 (GST on Virtual Digital Assets), para 3.
Indian Evidence Act 1872, s 65B.
Anvar P V v P K Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, [14]–[18].
Uniform Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (US), s 7.
Copyright Act 1957, s 19.
Copyright Act 1957, s 19A.
Amar Nath Sehgal v Union of India (n 8), [39].
Copyright Act 1957, s 19(8).
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s 89.
Indian Contract Act 1872, s 10.
Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose (1903) 30 IA 114 (PC), 120.
Information Technology Act 2000, ss 4, 10A.
GDPR 2016/679, art 5.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, ss 4, 5.
GDPR 2016/679, art 17.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, s 12.
K S Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, [297]–[298].
Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, s 12.
FATF, Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets (2023) 6–8.
Finance Act 2022, s 115BBH.
Finance Act 2022, s 194S.
CBDT Circular No 10/2024, para 4.
Convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income (India–US DTAA), art 12(2).
Income Tax Rules 1962, r 37BB; Form 15CA; Form 15CB.
Income Tax Act 1961, ch X-A (ss 95–102) (General Anti-Avoidance Rule).
Vodafone International Holdings BV v Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 613, [66]–[69].
Reserve Bank of India, Master Direction on Liberalised Remittance Scheme (updated 2024), para 2.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.