Who Owns a Film Song? A Critical Analysis
of Copyright Ownership in Musical Works and Sound Recordings under Indian Law
Music is an integral component of the indian cinema. Songs
contribute to an identity, determine the commercial success and impact cultural
significance for the film. However, behind each song there is a complex network
of creative contributions that involves composers, lyricists, singers, musicians,
producers and record labels. Every member has different rights in the final
product, increasing ownerships disputes in the entertainment industry increasingly
common.
A common misconception among the masses is that the
composer of the song automatically the owner of the song and all the aspects of
it. In reality, copyright law in India distinguishes between the musical composition,
lyrics and sound recording. There are separate categories of copyright, and ownership
of one does not automatically confer ownership of others.
The Copyright Act,1957 establishes the legal framework
governing these rights. However, concerns regarding authorship, contractual work,
and commercial exploitation of music in films still create disputes between
creators and producers. In the ruling of Delhi High Court’s decision in Ilaiyaraaja
v. Saregama India Ltd. (2026) these complexities were highlighted. This article
examines statutory framework that governs ownership of film songs, relevant
judicial decisions and the need to balance the rights of creators with the
interest of commercial aspect of the film industry.
Understanding the Different Copyrights in
a Film Song
A film song is necessarily not a single copyright
work. Section 13(1) of the copyright act, 1957 recognizes copyright in original
literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound
recording. According to the different categories under different copyright may
coexist in a single song.
First, the musical work includes the music itself, that
excludes the lyrics. Under section 2(p), a musical work is the work that consists
of music and includes the graphical notation of the music. The composer is recognized
by the act as author under Section 2(d)(ii).
The lyrics form the second literary work of the song.
Copyright will then lie in the lyrics of the song. Generally, the author of a
literary work will be the writer of the literary work. (Section 2(d)(i))
The third part is the sound recording of the song.
This contains the actual performance of the song. It is defined as a recording
of sounds by which sounds can be reproduced. (Section 2(xx))
As such, a composer may have copyright in the musical
composition but not the lyrics or the sound recording. However, having the
copyright in the sound recording does not necessarily remove copyright from the
musical and literary works. Section 13(4) provides that copyright shall
continue to subsist in the works included in the sound recording or
cinematograph film.
To determine the owner of a song contained within a
film you must look at each part individually alongside any contracts and
legislation.
The Legal Framework Governing Ownership
Section 14 outlines the exclusive rights of a
copyright holder. In terms of musical works, the copyright holder will have the
exclusive right to reproduce, publish, communicate to the public and adapt the
work provided any statutory conditions are met. Sound recordings will provide
exclusive rights to reproduce, lend for commercial purposes (as set out in
statute) and communicate to the public.
Section 17 provides that the author will be the
initial copyright holder, however there are statutory exceptions. It makes
provision for:
Where a work has been made for a cinematograph film
producer for valuable consideration. Where a cinematograph film producer makes
a work for valuable consideration they may be the initial copyright holder
(unless there is a contract stating otherwise). Statutory rules apply depending
on what type of work it is and how it was created.
Section 18 allows for the assignment of copyright.
Section 19 sets out some conditions for assigning the copyright. The assignment
should be interpreted in light of what rights the assignor actually has. The
assignment must state what work is being assigned and what rights are being
assigned.
The 2012 amendment added important protection for
authors of literary and musical works used in cinematograph films. Sections 18
and 19 provide that authors will have certain statutory rights to receive
royalties. This is intended to ensure composers and lyricists do not lose their
protected rights to receive royalties due to a contract. The conditions must be
met.
However, the copyright/right to royalties can be owned
by someone else. The creator may still own a share of the copyright or have
statutory rights to royalties.
Judicial Analysis: Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama
India Ltd.
An example of this can be seen in the case of
Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Ltd (Delhi High Court: 21 May 2026). This case
centred around a proposed cover of the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” of the Tamil
movie Moodu Pani.
Ilaiyaraaja, being the composer of said song, claimed
that he had the copyright in the musical work and therefore the right to give
consent to the adaptation. However, Saregama claimed that they had rights in
the relevant sound recording and other works through assignment agreements. This
led to a dispute regarding whether the composer alone could give consent to a
cover.
In this case the Division Bench made distinctions
between the musical work, lyrics and sound recording. Whilst the composer does
have copyright in the musical work it was held that they do not own the lyrics.
The Court also looked at the effect of the statutory provisions relating to
ownership of sound recordings in cinematograph films.
This shows that if a user wishes to use multiple
distinct works then merely getting consent from one copyright owner may not be
enough. In this case the composer does not have the right to give consent to
using the lyrics or sound recording.
It is important to note that this does not mean that
the producers/record label will automatically own all the rights to the song.
It will depend on what statutory provision applies along with the type of work
and what assignments are involved. This shows the importance of distinguishing
between the ownership of the composition and the recording.
Earlier Judicial Position: IPRS v. Eastern
India Motion Pictures Association
The relation between composers, lyricists and film
producers was discussed in: Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern
India Motion Pictures Association, (1977) 2 SCC 820.
The matter related to the rights of composers and
lyricists whose work would be used in cinematograph films. The effect of the
provisions of the Copyright Act relating to ownership of works made for
cinematograph films and rights given to the film producer was analysed by the
Court.
This is an important judgement which acknowledges the
importance of this area of copyright law. However, it should also be read
together with any amendments made to the Copyright Act. Notably, the changes
made in 2012 to protect certain royalty rights of authors.
The previous judgement and subsequent amendments to
copyright law demonstrate the need to strike a balance between the commercial
nature of cinematograph films and the rights of individuals.
Critical Analysis: Does Indian Copyright
Law Adequately Protect Creators?
Under the Indian system, there are specific copyrights
for musical compositions, lyrics and sound recordings. However, problems can
arise when allocating these rights.
Firstly, there is often an imbalance of power during
contract negotiations. The producer and record company may have the upper hand
in negotiating broad rights to exploit the work whilst individual creators have
little input. Despite the protection offered by statute, creators may not know
how much they are assigning their rights away or what they are owed in
royalties.
Secondly, there is often confusion regarding ownership
and exploitation rights. Simply because the composer holds the rights to the
musical composition does not mean that they have the right to reproduce the
sound recording. Similarly, even if the record company own the sound recording
it does not guarantee they own all standalone rights.
Finally, due to the rise of digital distribution,
there are multiple copyright owners to consider. When streaming, remixing,
remaking in films and adapting online there may be a number of different
copyright owners. Without proper documentation conflicts can arise.
By ensuring contracts are well drafted clear rights
are assigned and royalties are properly accounted for. Producers and record
companies should clearly state what rights they are assigning; whether it is to
the musical composition, lyrics, sound recording or specific exploitation
rights. The creator should be informed clearly about how long, where and how
much they are assigning their rights for.
Furthermore, increasing knowledge of copyright law
will help to reduce conflict. Although we do not want to reduce the legitimate
commercial interest producers have, it is important to ensure that the
commercial exploitation of film music respects the standalone rights.
Conclusion
Who owns a film song? This can be complicated and
needs to be broken down to determine the different owners. Indian copyright law
provides for the owners of musical works, literary works (lyrics) and sound
recordings to all be individually owned. This is set out in section 13, 14, 17,
18 and 19 of the Copyright Act 1957.
The case Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Ltd highlights
the importance of recognising the difference between the musical composition
and the recording. When combined with the case IPRS v. Eastern India Motion
Pictures Association and the statutory amendments in 2012, shows how the
balance between ownership and exploitation is a constant struggle.
In order to protect their copyright effectively there
must be clear contracts in place, transparent royalties and an understanding of
the different rights. This will ensure that the film music industry in India
can continue to flourish.
