In light of the recent copyright dispute between singer Jasleen Royal and music label T-Series over the composition of the song “All Right”, we are pleased to bring to you this quick post by SpicyIP intern Mansi Bhatia. Mansi is a law student at Institute of Law, Nirma University.
.jpg)
“All Right” for Who? Assessing the Jasleen Royal and T-Series Recent Copyright Controversy
By Mansi Bhatia
It’s not “All Right” to use someone else’s original compositions without their consent, reminds Jasleen Royal. She recently filed a copyright infringement and unauthorized usage case for her musical composition in the song titled “All Right,” against the renowned label T-Series, lyricist Raj Ranjodh, and singer Guru Randhawa in the Bombay High Court.
The legal conflict stems from original musical compositions created by Jasleen Royal for promotional events related to the film Runway 34. Reportedly, these compositions were shared in 2022 with Raj Ranjodh through audio-video calls and messages, intended for a collaborative project that ultimately did not materialize. In December 2023, she discovered that T-Series had released “All Right,” featuring vocals by Guru Randhawa, which incorporated her original works without her permission or proper credits, leading Royal to file a copyright infringement suit against the three of them.
In the latest order, dated August 28,2024,, the Bombay High Court records that the Defendants have agreed to remove the impugned song from all streaming platforms, without prejudice to their rights in the suit.
While the order is just the intro tune, with the main chorus of the case yet to be decided by the High Court, it still marks a significant and rare victory for composers fighting to assert their rights against major music labels. This development is particularly noteworthy, in light of producers vs composers debate, which often weighs in favour of the former in cases like Masakali 2.0.
Though the suit song has been removed from all platforms, it is pertinent to note that the non-speaking order did not delve into the merits of the interim application and merely accepted the defendants’ statement that they would remove the disputed song from all platforms. The Court further instructed that if any of the defendants intended to exploit the song in the future, they would be required to give Jasleen two weeks’ prior notice.
What lies Ahead: Anticipating the Court’s Proceedings
The first step to prove copyright infringement is to establish copyright ownership. In this case, the compositions claimed to be original works by the plaintiff, Jasleen Royal, affirm her ownership rights over these compositions as their author by virtue of Section 17 of Copyright Act, 1957.
However, another possibility arises regarding the nature of authorship, as the work may be considered a joint authorship between Jasleen and Raj Ranjodh, as both of them had worked on the song for Runway34. The Bombay High Court in the case Angath Arts Private Limited v. Century Communications Ltd. and Anr, had stated that the “joint owner of a copyright could not, without the consent of the other joint owner, grant a license or interest in the copyright to a third party.” Therefore even if the work is proved to be of joint ownership, the defendants will still be obligated to obtain consent from Jasleen before using or licensing the work.
Substantial Similarity: Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis
The next step in determining copyright infringement is the proving of substantial similarity between the work owned by the plaintiff and the impugned song. Courts typically evaluate substantial similarity by considering whether an ordinary observer would recognize significant similarities between two works.
The interim order of Delhi HC in the case of Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A R Rahman, had noted that copyright infringement in musical works could occur even if the words, lyrics, and actions were different. Although this was merely an interim order, it remains relevant as it suggests that the court was leaning towards the observation that similarities in the composition itself may be sufficient to constitute infringement, similar to the claims in the present case. Consequently, even a mere similarity in the composition of the musical work owned by the plaintiff and the impugned song, which can be identified by an “untrained ear” can amount to substantial similarity.
As noted above similarity in composition can result in infringement, it requires both a quantitative and qualitative analysis. As in the case of Saregama India Ltd v. Viacom Motion 18 Picture, where the Court observed that there has been no infringement of the song as the words were uttered by the actor in the movie for less than 7 seconds which constituted as de minimis. Such quantitative comparison can be one of the arguments of the Defendants, claiming that the plaintiff’s preliminary version of the song only constituted a trivial part of the impugned song.
Such a comparison, though relevant, only serves a superficial purpose, unless accompanied by a qualitative analysis, requiring a subjective analysis on what parts of the song are similar. In the Ram Sampath case, the Bombay High Court observed that although the plaintiffs jingle was only for a few seconds, it was the “hook” phrase which was repeated in the suit songs, thereby successfully establishing a prima-facie case of copying. This case, though settled out of Court, can still act as a guiding light for the Bombay High Court to determine the substantial similarity in the present case.
Since the musical work of the plaintiff is not public, it remains challenging to predict how the case will unfold in the Court. However, once a decision is reached, this case has the potential to set an important precedent. In the meantime, it serves as a valuable reminder of the importance of reinforcing creative ownership and highlights the necessity for artists to remain vigilant in protecting their rights.