<p>Music is a complex terrain within the field of copyright. Every song subsumes within itself two distinct rights: the right over the composition and the lyrics of the song, and the recording of the song. Both rights are different from each other. Often, the ‘recording of the song’ is mistaken for the song itself. This is further complicated in India, as songs are primarily consumed as a part of the movie, and the mainstream music industry in India caters to the movie industry of the country.</p>.<p>The song that features in the movie has dual existence; it can be used to convey the story or advertise the movie to its audience, but it can also have an existence independent from the movie. The question that remains unanswered in India is: ‘Who is the owner of the song?’ And what do they own in it? Is the song owned by the producer of the movie? Or by the composer? Or the lyricist?</p>.<p>Music maestro Ilaiyaraaja, in the recent past, had filed various copyright cases against movie producers for utilising his older compositions as part of their movies without his permission. The primary argument of the composer is that he owns the right to his compositions, and he also has moral rights, such as the right against mutilation of his work. To understand the argument placed by Ilaiyaraaja, there is a need to revisit the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indian Performers Rights Society v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association from the year 1977.</p>.<p>The Indian Performers Rights Society, the copyright collection society that represents the rights of composers and lyricists, issued a tariff to movie theatres – the objective was to collect a royalty from the theatres for utilising the songs created by its members in the theatres. It is common practice in Western countries to collect such royalties. This was opposed tooth and nail by the movie producers.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court in this case held that the producers own the copyright over the song after its synchronisation with the movie. This was not the position of the law earlier; the Act had secured the individual rights of the creators in the work.</p>.<p>The stance taken by the Court had the effect of separating the creator from the creation. The creator was reduced to a mere agent who was paid for their creation; the judgment disabled them from exercising their economic and moral right in the song.</p>.<p><strong>A time to rethink ownership?</strong></p>.<p>After a long-fought battle, composers and lyricists, under the leadership of noted lyricist Javed Akhtar, mooted an amendment to the Indian Copyright Act in 2012 to secure their right to collect royalties when the songs are commercially exploited in restaurants, bars, and other places. This well-meant amendment was seen as a ground-breaking moment by the composers and lyricists, but the amendment failed to address legitimate issues beyond royalty, or the issue regarding their ‘authorship right’ over their respective creations.</p>.<p>For instance, recently, the makers of the Tamil movie Dude utilised two of Ilaiyaraaja’s songs from the past: (i) Karutha machan and (ii) 100 varusham indha mappillai, without his permission. The songs are said to have been featured in key moments in the movie.</p>.<p>The producer of the movie had obtained appropriate permission from the entity that owns the copyright over the ‘sound recording’ of the song. However, the sound recording comprises the composition and the lyrics that are embedded in it. Every time the sound recording is played, the rights of the composer and the lyricist are also invoked. It requires permission from both stakeholders.</p>.<p>This case saw an interim injunction from the Madras High Court regarding the usage of these songs relating to moral right violation. Later, it also saw an out-of-court settlement involving a substantial sum being paid to the composer. This settlement reflects the validity of the claim made by Ilaiyaraaja.</p>.<p>Courts continue to rely on the 1977 judgment to discuss the issue of ‘ownership’ in a song. There is a need to revisit this practice and view the film song as distinct and several to appropriately protect the rights of all the stakeholders in a song. To reduce the song to its recording is giving primacy to one aspect of protection and leaving the rest. The song materialises after the synchronised effort of all the creators; the law and business practice should not favour one over the other.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is an assistant professor at the KIIT Law School)</em></p>
<p>Music is a complex terrain within the field of copyright. Every song subsumes within itself two distinct rights: the right over the composition and the lyrics of the song, and the recording of the song. Both rights are different from each other. Often, the ‘recording of the song’ is mistaken for the song itself. This is further complicated in India, as songs are primarily consumed as a part of the movie, and the mainstream music industry in India caters to the movie industry of the country.</p>.<p>The song that features in the movie has dual existence; it can be used to convey the story or advertise the movie to its audience, but it can also have an existence independent from the movie. The question that remains unanswered in India is: ‘Who is the owner of the song?’ And what do they own in it? Is the song owned by the producer of the movie? Or by the composer? Or the lyricist?</p>.<p>Music maestro Ilaiyaraaja, in the recent past, had filed various copyright cases against movie producers for utilising his older compositions as part of their movies without his permission. The primary argument of the composer is that he owns the right to his compositions, and he also has moral rights, such as the right against mutilation of his work. To understand the argument placed by Ilaiyaraaja, there is a need to revisit the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indian Performers Rights Society v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association from the year 1977.</p>.<p>The Indian Performers Rights Society, the copyright collection society that represents the rights of composers and lyricists, issued a tariff to movie theatres – the objective was to collect a royalty from the theatres for utilising the songs created by its members in the theatres. It is common practice in Western countries to collect such royalties. This was opposed tooth and nail by the movie producers.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court in this case held that the producers own the copyright over the song after its synchronisation with the movie. This was not the position of the law earlier; the Act had secured the individual rights of the creators in the work.</p>.<p>The stance taken by the Court had the effect of separating the creator from the creation. The creator was reduced to a mere agent who was paid for their creation; the judgment disabled them from exercising their economic and moral right in the song.</p>.<p><strong>A time to rethink ownership?</strong></p>.<p>After a long-fought battle, composers and lyricists, under the leadership of noted lyricist Javed Akhtar, mooted an amendment to the Indian Copyright Act in 2012 to secure their right to collect royalties when the songs are commercially exploited in restaurants, bars, and other places. This well-meant amendment was seen as a ground-breaking moment by the composers and lyricists, but the amendment failed to address legitimate issues beyond royalty, or the issue regarding their ‘authorship right’ over their respective creations.</p>.<p>For instance, recently, the makers of the Tamil movie Dude utilised two of Ilaiyaraaja’s songs from the past: (i) Karutha machan and (ii) 100 varusham indha mappillai, without his permission. The songs are said to have been featured in key moments in the movie.</p>.<p>The producer of the movie had obtained appropriate permission from the entity that owns the copyright over the ‘sound recording’ of the song. However, the sound recording comprises the composition and the lyrics that are embedded in it. Every time the sound recording is played, the rights of the composer and the lyricist are also invoked. It requires permission from both stakeholders.</p>.<p>This case saw an interim injunction from the Madras High Court regarding the usage of these songs relating to moral right violation. Later, it also saw an out-of-court settlement involving a substantial sum being paid to the composer. This settlement reflects the validity of the claim made by Ilaiyaraaja.</p>.<p>Courts continue to rely on the 1977 judgment to discuss the issue of ‘ownership’ in a song. There is a need to revisit this practice and view the film song as distinct and several to appropriately protect the rights of all the stakeholders in a song. To reduce the song to its recording is giving primacy to one aspect of protection and leaving the rest. The song materialises after the synchronised effort of all the creators; the law and business practice should not favour one over the other.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is an assistant professor at the KIIT Law School)</em></p>
