When music composers demand compensation for use of their work beyond the film that first featured it, the dispute often lands in court. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer who commissions a composition becomes the first owner of the copyright unless there is an agreement to the contrary. While Section 17 offers limited exceptions, the law has historically favoured film producers.
In a landmark 1977 judgement in the battle between Indian Performing Right Society and Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of producers. However, Justice V R Krishna Iyer clarified that while producers control music as part of a film’s exhibition, composers and lyricists retain the rights for independent use such as for radio broadcasts and public performances. This principle, framed in the pre-digital era, extends logically to today’s streaming platforms, online stores and ringtones.
Yet composers and lyricists have been deprived of monetary benefits even as their creations generate revenues through new platforms and formats. Subsequent judgements largely rejected royalty claims, leaving musicians with little share in their work’s success. During his tenure as a Rajya Sabha member, lyricist Javed Akhtar pushed for amendments to the Copyright Act to reaffirm the independent nature of musical and literary works. The changes were intended to strengthen creators’ rights, but ambiguity remains.
Music legend Ilaiyaraaja’s persistent efforts to protect his repertoire have resulted in several high-profile cases. The Delhi High Court recently restrained him from claiming ownership over songs from 134 films, ruling in favour of Saregama. The court said his rights do not extend to the complete film soundtrack. In 2024, a submission in the Madras High Court highlighted that, unlike A R Rahman, who secured copyrights through contracts, Ilaiyaraaja’s 4,500-odd songs composed between the 1970s and mid-1990s largely remain with producers because of the absence of agreements otherwise.
American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift has shown an alternative route. By re-recording her early albums, she diminished the market value of the originals, asserted ownership of her creative work and inspired artists worldwide. Back home, despite legislative amendments, clarity on individual copyrights in compositions remains elusive. There is nothing unreasonable in composers and lyricists seeking fair payment for secondary uses of their creations. Stronger enforcement of their rights is essential to ensure they receive their legitimate share of future earnings.
