Introduction
The decision delivered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mr Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited, FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025, decided on 21 May 2026, is an important judgement concerning copyright ownership in film music under the Copyright Act, 1957. The judgement examines the distinction between copyright in a musical composition, copyright in lyrics, and copyright in sound recordings forming part of a cinematograph film. The court was required to determine whether celebrated composer Ilaiyaraaja retained independent rights over the musical composition of the famous Tamil song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” after the song had already become part of the cinematographic film Moodu Pani. The judgement also discusses whether the composer could lawfully authorise adaptation and recreation of the song for use in another film despite rights previously assigned to Saregama India Limited.
The ruling is significant because it carefully balances the rights of music composers with the rights of producers and owners of sound recordings. The court explained the scope of Sections 13, 14 and 17 of the Copyright Act and clarified that incorporation of a musical work into a cinematographic film does not completely extinguish the composer’s separate copyright in the musical work itself. At the same time, the Court clarified that rights over sound recordings and lyrics may belong to different copyright owners and cannot automatically be claimed by the composer.
Factual And Procedural Background
The dispute related to the well-known Tamil song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the cinematographic film Moodu Pani. The musical composition of the song was created by Ilaiyaraaja, while the sound recording formed part of the film soundtrack produced by Raja Cine Arts (RCA). In 1980, RCA entered into an agreement with Gramophone Company of India Limited, later renamed Saregama India Limited, assigning rights relating to the sound recordings of the film. Under the agreement dated 25 February 1980, the producer transferred gramophone recording rights and related copyright interests to the music company for valuable consideration and royalty payments.
Years later, Ilaiyaraaja entered into an agreement dated 17 March 2023 with Vels Film International Limited (VFIL) for recreation and adaptation of the song in another cinematograph film titled Aghathiyaa. Under this agreement, Ilaiyaraaja represented himself as owner of the sound recording and underlying works and granted rights to recreate and adapt the original song. The agreement permitted VFIL to use the recreated work in multiple formats and languages.
Authorised Saregama challenged this arrangement and filed proceedings alleging infringement of its copyright. According to Saregama, the copyright in the sound recording and associated rights had already vested in it through the 1980 assignment agreement executed with the producer RCA. Saregama contended that Ilaiyaraaja had no authority to authorise recreation or adaptation of the song in a manner that interfered with Saregama’s rights.
The learned single judge had accepted substantial portions of Saregama’s arguments and held them against Ilaiyaraaja. Aggrieved by the findings, Ilaiyaraaja preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Key Facts At A Glance
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Song | “En Iniya Pon Nilave” |
| Original Film | Moodu Pani |
| Composer | Ilaiyaraaja |
| Producer | Raja Cine Arts (RCA) |
| Assignee of Sound Recording Rights | Saregama India Limited |
| 1980 Agreement Date | 25 February 1980 |
| 2023 Adaptation Agreement | 17 March 2023 |
| New Film | Aghathiyaa |
Dispute Before The Court
The central issue before the Court concerned the location and extent of copyright ownership in the disputed song. The Court was required to determine whether Ilaiyaraaja, as composer of the musical work, continued to enjoy independent copyright protection over the musical composition despite the incorporation of the song into a cinematograph film and assignment of sound recording rights to Saregama.
Arguments By Ilaiyaraaja
- The disputed song constituted a “musical work” under Section 2(p) of the Copyright Act.
- As composer, he was the “author” under Section 2(d)(ii).
- Under Section 17, he remained the first owner of copyright in the musical work.
- Section 13(4) protected the separate copyright existing in underlying works even after incorporation into a cinematographic film or sound recording.
- Section 14(a)(vi) grants the owner of copyright in a musical work the exclusive right to make adaptations of that work.
Ilaiyaraaja argued that the disputed song constituted a “musical work” under Section 2(p) of the Copyright Act and that, as composer, he was the “author” under Section 2(d)(ii). Therefore, under Section 17, he remained the first owner of copyright in the musical work. He further argued that Section 13(4) protected the separate copyright existing in underlying works even after incorporation into a cinematograph film or sound recording. He also relied upon Section 14(a)(vi), which grants the owner of copyright in a musical work the exclusive right to make adaptations of that work.
Arguments By Saregama
- The producer of the cinematograph film was the first owner of copyright in the film and accompanying sound recordings.
- RCA assigned those rights to Saregama through the 1980 agreement.
- Saregama became owner of the sound recording rights in the disputed song.
- Ilaiyaraaja’s rights stood exhausted once the composition became part of the cinematographic film soundtrack.
- Reliance was placed upon Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, (1977) 2 SCC 820.
On the other hand, Saregama argued that the producer of the cinematograph film was the first owner of copyright in the film and the accompanying sound recordings. Since RCA had assigned those rights to Saregama through the 1980 agreement, Saregama became owner of the sound recording rights in the disputed song. It was further argued that Ilaiyaraaja’s rights stood exhausted once the composition became part of the cinematographic film soundtrack. Saregama also relied upon the Supreme Court judgement in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, (1977) 2 SCC 820, to contend that producers of cinematograph films possess overriding rights in relation to songs forming part of film soundtracks.
Core Legal Issues
- Whether a composer retains copyright in a musical composition after its incorporation into a cinematographic film.
- Whether assignment of sound recording rights extinguishes the composer’s independent rights in the musical work.
- Whether adaptation and recreation rights can be exercised by the composer independently.
- The distinction between copyright in musical works, lyrics, sound recordings, and cinematograph films.
- The applicability of Sections 13, 14 and 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Division Bench undertook a detailed interpretation of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court first examined the definition of “musical work” under Section 2(p), which defines “musical work” as a work consisting of music but excluding lyrics. The Court observed that the musical composition created by Ilaiyaraaja clearly fell within this definition and therefore enjoyed copyright protection independently.
Interpretation of Section 2(p): Musical Work
- Musical work consists of music but excludes lyrics.
- Ilaiyaraaja’s musical composition qualified as an independent musical work.
- The composition was entitled to separate copyright protection.
The Court then examined Section 17, which provides that the author of a work is the first owner of copyright unless otherwise provided. Since Section 2(d)(ii) defines the composer as the author of a musical work, Ilaiyaraaja was held to be the first owner of copyright in the musical composition of the song. The Court specifically rejected the argument that clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 17 automatically divested him of his rights. According to the Court, clause (b) did not apply to musical works or sound recordings in the manner argued by Saregama, and clause (c) relating to employment contracts was inapplicable because there was no master-servant relationship between RCA and Ilaiyaraaja.
Ownership Under Section 17
- Composer is the author of a musical work under Section 2(d)(ii).
- Ilaiyaraaja was the first owner of copyright in the musical composition.
- Section 17(b) did not apply as argued by Saregama.
- Section 17(c) was inapplicable due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship.
The Court further examined Section 14(a)(vi), which grants the owner of copyright in a musical work the exclusive right to make adaptations. The Bench held that Ilaiyaraaja therefore retained the right to adapt the musical composition and authorise its use by third parties. However, the Court carefully limited this right only to the musical component of the song. The composer did not possess copyright over the lyrics or the original sound recording.
Adaptation Rights Under Section 14(a) (vi)
- The owner of a musical work has the exclusive right to create adaptations.
- Ilaiyaraaja retained adaptation rights over the musical composition.
- These rights did not extend to lyrics or the original sound recording.
One of the most important discussions in the judgement related to Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act. The court emphasised that copyright in a cinematograph film or sound recording does not affect the separate copyright existing in any underlying work. Therefore, although Saregama validly owned copyright in the sound recording by virtue of the 1980 agreement, that ownership could not extinguish Ilaiyaraaja’s independent copyright in the musical composition.
Effect of Section 13(4)
- Copyright in a cinematograph film does not destroy copyright in underlying works.
- Copyright in a sound recording does not extinguish rights in a musical composition.
- Saregama’s ownership of the sound recording coexisted with Ilaiyaraaja’s copyright in the musical work.
The Court then examined the 2023 agreement executed between Ilaiyaraaja and VFIL. It observed that the agreement went beyond the rights actually possessed by Ilaiyaraaja because it purported to assign rights over the sound recording and underlying works generally. The Court held that Ilaiyaraaja was not the owner of the sound recording or lyrics and therefore could not validly assign those rights. His rights extended only to the musical composition.
Analysis of the 2023 VFIL Agreement
- The agreement attempted to assign rights beyond those owned by Ilaiyaraaja.
- He did not own the lyrics or sound recording rights.
- Only rights relating to the musical composition could be assigned by him.
The Court also distinguished the Supreme Court judgment in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, (1977) 2 SCC 820. The Division Bench clarified that the earlier judgment did not completely destroy the separate rights of composers protected under Section 13(4). The Court interpreted the Copyright Act harmoniously to ensure coexistence of rights between composers, lyricists, producers and sound recording owners.
Distinction from the IPRS Case
- The earlier Supreme Court judgement did not eliminate composers’ independent rights.
- Section 13(4) continues to protect separate copyrights in underlying works.
- Rights of composers, lyricists, producers, and sound recording owners coexist.
Final Decision of the Court
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and clarified the legal position regarding the ownership of musical works in cinematographic films. The Court held that Ilaiyaraaja retained copyright in the musical composition of the disputed song and consequently possessed adaptation rights in relation to that musical work. However, he did not own the copyright in the lyrics or original sound recording of the song. Saregama continued to remain owner of the sound recording rights through the 1980 assignment agreement executed by the producer, RCA.
Accordingly, while Ilaiyaraaja could lawfully exploit and adapt the musical composition, he could not authorise use or assignment of rights in the sound recording or lyrics which legally belonged to others. The court therefore drew a clear distinction between ownership of musical works and ownership of sound recordings in cinematographic films.
Key Findings of the Court
| Issue | Court’s Finding |
|---|---|
| Musical Composition | Owned by Ilaiyaraaja |
| Adaptation Rights | Retained by Ilaiyaraaja for the musical work |
| Lyrics | Not owned by Ilaiyaraaja |
| Sound Recording | Owned by Saregama through the 1980 assignment |
| Right to Assign Lyrics/Sound Recording | Not available to Ilaiyaraaja |
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The judgement settles an important principle of Indian copyright law: the incorporation of a musical composition into a cinematographic film does not extinguish the composer’s independent copyright in the musical work unless such rights are specifically assigned in accordance with law. Section 13(4) preserves the separate copyright in underlying works even when the work forms part of a sound recording or cinematograph film. The decision also clarifies that composers, lyricists, producers and sound recording owners may simultaneously hold different and distinct copyrights in relation to the same song. However, each copyright owner can only exploit rights that legally vest in them and cannot assign rights beyond the scope of their ownership.
Legal Principles Established
- Incorporation into a cinematograph film does not automatically extinguish a composer’s copyright.
- Section 13(4) protects underlying works independently.
- Multiple copyright owners may hold distinct rights in the same song.
- Copyright owners cannot assign rights that do not legally vest in them.
Case Details
| Case Title | Mr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited |
|---|---|
| Date of Judgment | 21 May 2026 |
| Case Number | FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:4556-DB |
| Court | Delhi High Court |
| Honourable Judges | Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla |
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
