The recent Delhi High Court ruling in Saregama India Ltd. v. Vels Films International Ltd. & Ors.[1] has reignited the debate over copyright ownership in the Indian film and music industry. At the heart of the dispute is the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the Tamil film Moodu Pani (1980), which was recreated in the upcoming movie Aghathiyaa without authorization from Saregama India Ltd., the assignee of the original producer’s rights.
The case presents a critical question in Indian copyright law: who truly owns the rights to a song? Does the producer of the original film retain exclusive ownership over its music, or does the composer of the original song have a residual right to recreate and license adaptations? This legal battle is significant in the evolving landscape of copyright protection, especially in an era where music recreations and remixes have become widespread. The court’s decision, while attempting to strike a balance, raises concerns about artistic freedom, copyright enforcement, and commercial exploitation in the entertainment industry.
Background of the Case
The dispute in Saregama India Ltd. v. Vels Films International Ltd. & Ors. revolves around the ownership and use of the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the 1980 Tamil film Moodu Pani. The plaintiff, Saregama India Ltd., a well-known music label, claimed exclusive copyright ownership over the song, arguing that it acquired the rights through an assignment agreement with the film’s original producer, Raja Cine Arts, in 1980.
On the other hand, the defendant, Vels Films International Ltd., recreated and included the song in its upcoming film Aghathiyaa after obtaining a license from the original music composer, Ilaiyaraaja (defendant no. 3). Vels Films contended that Ilaiyaraaja retained ownership of the musical work, allowing him to grant permission for an adaptation.
The case raised key legal questions under Sections 13(4)[2], 14[3], and 17[4] of the Copyright Act, 1957:
- Section 13(4) – Whether the copyright in a cinematograph film affects separate rights in underlying musical works.
- Section 14 – The scope of exclusive rights available to copyright owners.
- Section 17 – Whether the film’s producer or the composer was the first owner of the song’s copyright.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Saregama, holding that the film producer, not the composer, held the original copyright, which was assigned to Saregama. However, in a pragmatic compromise, the court allowed Vels Films to use the song upon depositing ₹30 lakh as compensation.
The Copyright Debate: Who Owns What?
At the core of Saregama India Ltd. v. Vels Films International Ltd. lies the complex issue of copyright ownership in cinematograph films and the rights of music composers versus film producers. The case delves into whether the producer of a film retains exclusive rights over its music or if the original composer can still exercise control over adaptations.
Saregama’s Argument: The Producer’s Ownership
Saregama India Ltd. argued that as per the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer of a cinematograph film is the first owner of the copyright in all its components, including the soundtrack, musical composition, and lyrics. The original producer of Moodu Pani (Raja Cine Arts) had assigned these rights to Saregama in 1980, making it the exclusive owner of the song En Iniya Pon Nilave. Thus, any unauthorized reproduction or adaptation, even by the composer, amounted to copyright infringement.
Vels Films’ Counter-Argument: The Composer’s Rights
Vels Films contended that the music composer, Ilaiyaraaja (defendant no. 3), retained copyright in the underlying musical work, separate from the cinematograph film. The 2012 amendment to Section 17 of the Copyright Act was cited to argue that composers retain rights over their works, even if incorporated into a film. Since Ilaiyaraaja never assigned his rights in the musical composition (as opposed to the film’s soundtrack), he had the authority to license adaptations, which he did in favor of Vels Films.
The 2012 Amendment: Retrospective or Prospective?
The 2012 amendment added a proviso to Section 17, stating that authors of literary and musical works retain their rights even when incorporated in a cinematograph film. The defendants claimed this provision protected Ilaiyaraaja’s rights, but the court rejected this argument, stating that the amendment was prospective and did not apply to agreements made before 2012.
Global and Indian legal perspective
The Indian courts have largely followed the 1977 Supreme Court ruling in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Assn.[5], which held that when music is composed for a film under a contract, the producer owns the copyright, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. This principle is echoed in international copyright laws, such as in the UK and US, where film producers typically retain all rights over a movie’s soundtrack unless explicitly negotiated otherwise.
This case reaffirms that producers, not composers, hold primary rights over songs used in films, unless explicitly stated otherwise in contracts. However, it also signals the need for clearer guidelines on music recreations and adaptations, given the evolving music industry trends.
Court’s Ruling: A Fair Balance or a Compromise?
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Saregama India Ltd., affirming that the copyright in the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” belonged to Saregama, as it had been assigned the rights by the original producer of Moodu Pani. The court held that the music composer, Ilaiyaraaja, had no independent right to license the song’s adaptation to Vels Films, as the producer was the original copyright holder.
However, rather than completely barring Vels Films from using the song, the court took a commercially pragmatic approach. Given that the film Aghathiyaa was slated for imminent release and the producer had already invested in recreating the song, the court allowed its use subject to a deposit of ₹30 lakh with the court registrar. This sum was meant to compensate Saregama while ensuring that the film’s release was not disrupted. The ruling highlights a compromise between strict copyright enforcement and commercial practicality. While the court upheld Saregama’s legal claim, it also acknowledged the significant investment made by Vels Films, preventing undue financial loss to the defendants.
The court relied on the 1977 Supreme Court judgment in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association, which established that the producer of a film is the first owner of the copyright in its music unless there is an explicit contract stating otherwise. This reaffirmed that the music composer does not retain ownership over a song once it is incorporated into a film’s soundtrack. While the ruling aligns with established copyright principles, it also raises questions about the future of adaptations and remixes in the Indian film industry.
The Issue of Adaptation: Where Does the Line Lie?
The Copyright Act, 1957, under Section 2(a)[6], defines “adaptation” in relation to a musical work as any arrangement or transcription of the original work. Adaptations generally involve creative reinterpretation rather than direct reproduction. In this case, Vels Films argued that their version of En Iniya Pon Nilave was merely an “adaptation” and not an outright copy, since they re-recorded the song with a new arrangement.
Why the court rejected the adaptation argument
The court held that the defendants had used both the lyrics and the original musical composition in their recreated song, effectively making it a fresh recording of the same work rather than an adaptation. The ruling emphasized that:
- Using the same lyrics and melody without major modification does not qualify as an adaptation.
- The rights to make a new version of the song belonged to Saregama, which had acquired them from the film producer.
- Merely re-recording a song does not constitute a transformation significant enough to be called an adaptation under copyright law.
Does this set a precedent for stricter control over recreations?
This ruling could tighten control over music recreations in India, particularly in the Bollywood and South Indian film industries, where remixing and reviving old songs has become common. It reinforces that producers, not composers, hold the power to approve adaptations of film songs. If a composer wishes to retain control over future versions, explicit contracts must state this upfront.
Similar cases in India and Abroad
- Bollywood Disputes: The case echoes the T-Series v. Rakesh Roshan dispute, where T-Series challenged the unauthorized use of an old song in Koi Mil Gaya.
- International Precedents: The Blurred Lines copyright case (2015, USA), where Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were sued for copying Marvin Gaye’s Got to Give It Up, highlights similar global concerns on where to draw the line between inspiration and infringement.
This case thus raises critical questions about the legality of remixes, adaptations, and artistic reinterpretations, emphasizing the need for clearer industry guidelines.
A Missed Opportunity for a Stronger Copyright Regime?
The Saregama India Ltd. v. Vels Films International Ltd. ruling has certainly upheld copyright law in its strictest sense, but does it strike the right balance between copyright protection and artistic freedom? While the decision ensures that rightful owners retain control over their works, it also raises concerns about whether the current copyright framework is equipped to handle modern music industry trends, such as adaptations, remixes, and recreations.
Was this a chance to apply the 2012 amendment retrospectively?
A crucial aspect of this case was the 2012 amendment to Section 17, which clarifies that authors of literary and musical works retain rights even when incorporated into a cinematograph film. However, the court treated the amendment as prospective, not retrospective, thereby denying Ilaiyaraaja any claim over his composition. But should the court have taken a more progressive approach and applied the amendment retrospectively? After all, the purpose of the amendment was to empower creators, ensuring they are not stripped of their rights through outdated agreements. A broader interpretation could have set a precedent for stronger protections for composers and lyricists.
The Chilling Effect on Creativity and New Filmmakers
This judgment may deter filmmakers and music composers from experimenting with recreations, fearing potential lawsuits. The ₹30 lakh license fee sets a financial barrier that smaller producers may struggle to overcome. In a time when the global entertainment industry thrives on reviving and modernizing classics, such rulings could limit creative freedom in India’s film and music industries.
This case underscores the lack of statutory clarity on adaptations and recreations. While copyright law does recognize adaptations, there is no clear test for what qualifies as a “sufficiently original” adaptation versus an infringement. To avoid future disputes, Indian copyright law should:
- Define the threshold for adaptations, should a recreation require a minimum percentage of original elements?
- Introduce a standardized licensing framework, making it easier for producers to acquire rights rather than facing post-release legal challenges.
- Revisit the application of the 2012 amendment, considering a hybrid approach where older agreements are evaluated case-by-case rather than dismissed outright.
Ultimately, while the ruling protects copyright owners, it also exposes gaps in India’s copyright framework that could hinder creative innovation.
Conclusion
The Saregama India Ltd. v. Vels Films International Ltd. case is a significant ruling in Indian copyright law, reinforcing the principle that producers, not composers, hold primary rights over songs used in films, unless explicitly stated otherwise in contracts. The court’s decision affirms the long-standing precedent that when music is created for a film, the producer owns the copyright, and any subsequent use must be authorized by the rightful assignee; in this case, Saregama.
However, this ruling also raises important questions about the scope of adaptations and recreations in the Indian music industry. With remixes, cover versions, and digital adaptations becoming increasingly popular, how should copyright law evolve to accommodate artistic reinvention while protecting the original creators? The decision to allow Vels Films to use the song upon payment of ₹30 lakh reflects a commercially pragmatic approach, but it also highlights the lack of clear legal guidelines on what constitutes a permissible adaptation.
Moving forward, courts and lawmakers must strike a balance between strict copyright enforcement and creative expression. Should historical contracts alone dictate ownership, or should there be room for composers and artists to reclaim their creative rights over time? The answer to this will shape the future of India’s entertainment industry.
[1] Saregama India Ltd. v. Vels Films International Ltd. & Ors., CS(COMM) 38/2025 & I.A. 1021/2025, I.A. 2163/2025.
[2] The Copyright Act, 1957, §. 13(4), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[3] The Copyright Act, 1957, §. 14, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[4] The Copyright Act, 1957, §. 17, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[5] Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Assn., (1977) 2 SCC 820.
Authored by: Aeshita Marwah
Blogger, The IP Press
Leave a Reply