Ilaiyaraaja vs Saregama: Delhi High Court rules on Tamil hit song ‘En Iniya Pon Nilave’ copyright
The Delhi High Court said he only holds right over the musical component of the 1981 hit Tamil song.
Saregama argued in court that “Ilaiyaraaja was not the author of the literary work”. (file photo) In a setback for singer-composer Ilaiyaraaja, the Delhi High Court Thursday held that he does not hold any copyright over the K J Yesudas hit song, ‘En Iniya Pon Nilave’, from the 1981 Tamil psychological thriller film ‘Moodu Paani’.
While acknowledging the Padma Bhushan-awardee musician’s right over the musical component of the song, a division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla
noted that he does not hold any right over the lyrics, and that the overall right over the sound recordings in the film lie with the record label Saregama.
The case
In January, Saregama India Limited (SIL) took film distribution company Vels Film International Ltd (VFIL), another company Divo TV Private Ltd, and Ilaiyaraaja to court, alleging copyright infringement of the song. A single judge had then ruled in SIL’s favour, recognising it as the owner of the song.
The court had, however, allowed VFIL to use the song in its film ‘Aghathiyaa’ following Saregama’s acceptance of a licence fee of Rs 30 lakh from VFIL, which was producing the film. Ilaiyaraaja had then appealed against the single judge’s verdict.
The film’s soundtrack and score, composed by Ilaiyaraaja, had reportedly marked his 100th film.
Saregama had claimed that since it entered into an agreement in 1980 with ‘Moodu Paani’ producer Raja Cine Arts, it had come into ownership of the sound recordings in the film, including En Iniya Pon Nilave, and exercised copyright over the works.
Saregama argued in court that “Ilaiyaraaja was not the author of the literary work”, on the ground that he is not the songwriter in any case.
Ilaiyaraaja, on the other hand, argued that as the composer of the song, he is its rightful owner and holds the exclusive right to permit any adaptation of the musical work — a right he said he had granted to the producer of the film Aghathiyaa, VFIL.
It was also Ilaiyaraaja’s case that the rights of the producer of ‘Moodu Pani’, under Copyright Act provisions, did not include the right to adapt the underlying musical work which remained with Ilaiyaraaja, and, thus, Saregama cannot lay claim to it.
What the division bench said
Upholding the single judge’s order, the division bench opened its verdict, saying, “A song is just a song, a thing of joy to lighten a dreary evening. That is, till it becomes the subject matter of copyright conflict in a court of law, when it suddenly metamorphoses into much more.”
Acknowledging that while Ilaiyaraaja holds the right to make any adaptation of the musical work, the lyrics were “no man’s land” and Ilaiyaraaja held no right over it.
The division bench held, “Ilaiyaraaja was… entitled to contract with any third party for use or adaptation of the musical work contained in the disputed song, i.e, the musical component… That right could not, however, extend to doing anything involving the sound recording of the disputed song, or lyrics… Copyright in the sound recording of the disputed song would… vest in the producer of the film… whereas copyright in the lyrics of the disputed song would… vest in the lyricist.”
“Ilaiyaraaja’s copyright in the musical work contained in the disputed song continues to remain protected… This right was, however, necessarily limited to the musical component of the disputed song — the music of which Ilaiyaraaja was the composer. It did not extend to the lyrical component of, or the sound recording in, the disputed song,” the bench said.
The court held that Ilaiyaraaja could not have “assigned to VFIL the sound recordings in the film Moodu Pani either, which would include the sound recording relating to the disputed song En Iniya Pon Nilave.”
The bench also held that Saregama became the owner of copyright in the sound recordings by way of the 1980 agreement with the producer of the film Moodu Pani, which included the sound recording of the disputed song.
Share
