A viral song, a public fallout and a question that refuses to go away even after half a decade – who really owns a hit! The controversy around the 2021 song Enjoy Enjaami has brought composer Santhosh Narayanan and rapper-lyricist Arivu back into the spotlight, after a comment on X from a fan stating singer Dhee and Santhosh Narayanan ‘stole’ the song from Arivu, reignited the debate, with both sides offering sharply different accounts of credit and compensation. While Arivu has raised concerns over recognition and royalties, Narayanan has challenged these claims, calling the former ‘dishonest’ and ‘delusional’. The issue has drawn attention to how collaborations are structured and whether existing practices fairly account for every contributor’s role in a song’s success. Bengalureans, including musicians, experts and music lovers, share their views as CE take a closer look at the matter.
There’s a possibility that ‘exposure’ might have been the understanding behind the scenes. When a song achieves success, crediting and rewarding people becomes essential. Not doing so can leave artistes feeling insecure. We are all artistes trying to create something meaningful, so relying purely on rational contracts can feel limiting. Even the ‘featured artiste’ tag can sometimes downplay key contributions. Everyone involved, from the sound engineer to the main artiste, deserves the credit they have earned.
Internally, creative processes are messy and layered because creativity is spontaneous. It isn’t always predictable, and sometimes people end up contributing far more than what was initially defined. In those cases, there should be space for honest conversations and a willingness to revisit those agreements if needed. But Santhosh Narayanan publicly challenging the claims shows he’s confident in his POV. The composer’s vision plays a huge role – it literally sets the emotional direction of the track. While a song comes alive when the singer adds their own texture and emotion, the foundation, however, comes from the composer.
Santhosh is the composer and producer, so technically, the final ownership and credit usually goes to him. But if Arivu actually wrote the lyrics and contributed so much to the core of the song, then he definitely deserved more recognition than just being called a ‘featuring artiste’. Hence, even if legally, Santhosh might be right, creatively, Arivu feels under-credited. And the industry does lean towards established composers or producers since they control most of the process, while independent artistes don’t always get the same visibility. Santhosh’s response felt transparent, but also a bit defensive. It seems like a larger issue where credit doesn’t always match contribution.
At a preliminary level, this appears more indicative of a contractual or structural misunderstanding rather than a clear-cut rights violation. The practical ability to exercise these rights depends on proper credit attribution and underlying documentation. Public statements during an ongoing dispute are often counterproductive, and disputes of this nature are best resolved through confidential negotiations or structured legal processes. Factors like caste or social background are a reality in different spheres of life and can, in a broader sense, influence access, negotiations, networks and opportunities. While these are important conversations at a broader level, any particular dispute needs to be approached through objective legal principles and verifiable evidence.
What appears to be a creator-versus-creator dispute points to a larger label accountability failure. While Santhosh has stated that the net income for all artistes was ‘zero cents’, the royalties question points squarely at Maajja (the record label which released Enjoy Enjaami). If none of the artistes has seen revenue, they are in the same boat. Apart from the fact that the song itself credits Arivu as ‘songwriter’, Santhosh has also acknowledged that Arivu wrote almost all the lyrics and performed the song. However, he has also confirmed that no contract was ever signed with Maajja, which means the evidentiary gaps cut across all artistes involved. In the absence of documentation, no verbal promise of revenue sharing is enforceable, meaning even a successful song may not translate into earnings.
If someone is claiming they’re not getting royalties as per their contribution, then the proof is in the pudding. We can look at the numbers and resolve it by the books. Ideally, this should have remained an internal matter, but since it’s in public, asking for clarity is valid; hence, Santhosh challenging it is fair. If you’re not getting the revenue, then show where the money is going so the issue can be resolved. Someone like Santhosh has a long track record in the industry – if there were consistent issues, it would have come out by now. I don’t think it’s unfair for him to ask these questions to Arivu, especially since the claims were made publicly. That said, there are power dynamics and complexities at play. It’s a ‘he said, he said’ situation.