Explaining the recent Delhi High Court order in Saregama v. Vels on copyright ownership over the song En Iniya Pon Nilave, Tanishka Goswami writes on the implication of the decision on the composers. Tanishka is an advocate at the High Court of MP. She graduated from National Law University, Delhi in 2023 & enjoys reading and writing on copyright laws. Her previous posts can be found here.
Whose Copyright Stands Tall? Looking at Saregama India v Vels Film International
By Tanishka Goswami
The peppy Tamil song En Iniya Pon Nilave has been in news for reasons other than its catchy composition and lyrics. On January 28, the Delhi High Court (“Court”) held that the song’s original composer Ilaiyaraaja does not hold its copyright, and hence cannot assign its rights to the production house, Vels Film International (“Vels”) for its movie “Agathiyaa”. However, given the investment of “significant moneys” by Vels for recreation of the sound recording, usage of the same has been allowed subject to the condition that Vels deposit Rs. 30 lakhs. In this brief post, I map the developments leading to the case and its outcome, and assert the policy significance of safeguarding the copyright of creators in the face of co-existing rights of producers, music labels, etc.
Unfolding of the Musical Dispute
Saregama India (“Plaintiff”), known as the “Gramophone Company of India Ltd.” in 1980, had entered into an agreement with the producer of the cinematograph film “Moodu Pani” assuming status as the owner of the sound recordings, musical and other associated literary works in the movie. This included ownership of the disputed song En Iniya Pon Nilave, composed by Ilaiyaraaja. The song was recently “recreated” and included in the movie “Agathiyaa”, after which the plaintiff alleged copyright infringement by Agathiyaa’s producer Vels and composer Ilaiyaraaja who separately assigned the rights to Vels (“Defendants”).
The Plaintiff, Saregama India, cited Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Act”) to argue that a film’s producer, as the first owner of the copyright of all its musical works, can assign their rights to another entity. On the other hand, Vels and Ilaiyaraaja relied on Section 13(4), arguing that it protected the copyright of a musical work’s original author: accordingly, the former had the right to make its adaptation after its license agreement with Ilaiyaraaja.
Since the Plaintiff sought to claim rights from an agreement executed in 1980, the Court referred to the un-amended version of Section 17 of the Act [more on this provision below]. Directly applying the said provision, the Court recognized that the copyright in the sound recordings of the movie “Moodu Pani” belonged to its producer. Since the same were vested in the Plaintiff by an agreement, the latter became the owner of the relevant works, including the song En Iniya Pon Nilave. To that end, the Court referred to the often-criticized verdict in Indian Performing Rights Society v Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (1977) (“EIMPA”), wherein the producer’s rights were noted to trump those of music composers. By virtue of this judgment, music composers can carry out actions in relation to their musical works provided under Sections 13(4) and 14(a) of the Act, except making them a part of cinematographic films.
The Court also excluded the application of the judgment in Rajasthan Patrika [discussed by Praharsh, here], since it relates to the payment of royalties to authors for utilization of their works, and not to the issue of copyright ownership in the pre-2012 period.
Examining the Case Outcome & Policy Implications
Section 17, Copyright Act: Clarifying the Existing Law
To analyze the implications of the Court’s decision, it is critical to examine the content and evolution of Section 17. Prior to 2012, proviso (b) of Section 17 carried the implication of bestowing ownership of copyright on the person at whose instance a photograph/painting/engraving/cinematograph film was made. In this case, this would be the producer of the film. As noted by Prashant Reddy, this was erroneously extended in the EIMPA judgment to include “literary works, musical works, and sound recordings”. Through the 2012 Amendment, a second proviso was inserted in Section 17 to safeguard authors’ rights enshrined in Section 13 of the Act, irrespective of provisos (a) and (b). Hence, as things stand today, music composers’ rights in their creative works co-exist strongly along with rights held by producers, lyricists, and other entities.
Ilaiyaraaja and Copyright Suits: An Unending Saga
Despite the above-discussed legal position, acclaimed music composer Ilaiyaraaja has recently found himself approaching the Court to safeguard his rights against producers of the movies “Coolie” and “Manjummel Boys”. In both these cases, songs composed by Ilaiyaraaja in 1983 and 1991 respectively, were used in the movies without his authorization. While there has been no settlement in sight in both matters, they have highlighted the continued struggles faced by authors, creators, composers to be monetarily compensated for their works in subsequent uses and adaptations. In the instant case, while Ilaiyaraaja had authorized Vels Film International to recreate his musical composition, the non-applicability of the amended Section 17 defeated his contention. This reflects the precarious lack of agency of authors in sanctioning/withholding the use of their creative works.
Policy Implications of the Saregama Judgment
The above-discussed lack of agency translated into the Court’s verdict. While unequivocally acknowledging the ownership of the Plaintiff in the disputed song, the Court found the balance of convenience to favor the Defendants. Hence, it directed Vels Film International to pay a license fee of Rs. 30 lakhs to the Plaintiff despite the former allegedly having paid a substantial amount to the music composer for the same purpose.
The following implications merit further discussion:
- Continued Reliance on the EIMPA Verdict: Legislative and judicial steps towards negating the relevance of this verdict are falling short in their effectiveness. Even while acknowledging the rights of authors/composers to claim an equal share of royalties or consideration for the use of their works (such as, in International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers v Aditya Pandey), the underlying judicial approach has been to subserve the copyright, and thereby agency, of a creator against that of the producer. One may ask, if the Court had to sanction the use of the song En Iniya Pon Nilave by the Defendant-producer, would the purpose not have been legitimately resolved without the emphasis on EIMPA and Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (2011, Bom HC), both of which are stark departures from the current legal position?
- Undermining Original Legislative Intention behind Section 13(4): As argued by Ilaiyaraaja, Section 13(4) specifically sought to protect the “separate copyright in the musical work, even if it is included in a cinematograph film”. The interpretation of the pre-2012 version of Section 17 conflated the rights of composers and lyricists over their creative works with the producer’s right over the ‘synchronization’ of these creative works with a cinematograph film. This clearly ignores the legislative intention behind Section 13(4), by failing to protect composers’ rights over their musical works. This is best evidenced by the fact of Ilaiyaraaja being embroiled in so many cases without any perceived ‘justice’ in any of them thus far.
Concluding Remarks
In a “footnote” in the EIMPA judgment, Justice Krishna Iyer emphasised the independent significance of a composer’s copyright in relation to uses other than the exhibition of the cinematograph film, which cannot be trenched upon by the producer. Although beneficial provisions of the amended Act could not be extended retrospectively in this case, back-dating of agreements to specifically defeat authors’ rights is not uncommon. Hence, while there has been some progress through explicit recognition of authors’ rights to receive royalties, creating a conducive atmosphere in safeguarding their rights to authorize/prevent usage of their works remains marred in controversy.
I would like to thank Praharsh for his incisive comments on the draft version of this post.