Summary
This guest from Ms. Ananya Gupta and Mr. Madhav Singh Bisht, examines how India’s Copyright Act, 1957 struggles to regulate remix culture, using the Dhurandhar 2 dispute as a case study. It argues for clearer legal recognition of remixes, compulsory licensing, and fair dealing reforms.
In recent years, if you have walked into a cinema, you may have noticed a pattern: the lights dim, an ’80s-style synth bass starts playing, and suddenly everyone in the room is humming a tune they heard thirty years ago. In Bollywood, the revival of a song is not merely nostalgic; it is also a commercial marketing tool. Recreations and remakes have become a safe choice for music labels—a likely hit built on a familiar tune. The same trend is evident in the latest song “Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)” from the film Dhurandhar 2, which has now become the subject of a legal dispute over the unauthorised use of the iconic track “Tirchi Topi Wale.”
The Copyright Act, 1957 was drafted in a world of physical tangibility, where a musical work was considered a static object meant to remain unchanged. It was designed to safeguard the sanctity of the original work. In contrast, modern-day composers increasingly treat musical works as “liquid capital”—composed of several modules such as melodies, drum fills, and synthesiser sounds, each capable of being sampled, transformed, and reinvested into new commercial works.
Therefore, the current culture of remixing and recreation raises a significant legal question: when do creative adaptations cross the line into copyright infringement? This post critically examines the legal landscape of remix culture through the lens of this ongoing dispute. In doing so, it argues that the current Copyright Act, 1957, a framework built to safeguard against copyright infringement, is ill-equipped to handle the modular nature of modern musical works. It also highlights the need to define a clear boundary between creative adaptation and copyright infringement in the contemporary Indian music industry.
The Dhurandhar 2 Dispute: From Tirchi Topi Wale to Rang De Lal
The Indian cinema and music industry has produced very few musical works that possess a truly memorable refrain. One such song is “Tirchi Topi Wale” from the movie Tridev, which is well known for its hook line “Oye Oye.” Notably, a portion of this original track has been reused in Dhurandhar 2’s “Rang De Lal (Oye Oye),” raising questions about originality and possible copyright infringement.
On April 8, 2026, Trimurti Films, the original owner of the song “Tirchi Topi Wale,” filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court against Aditya Dhar’s B62 Studios for the unauthorised use of its song in the movie Dhurandhar 2. The plaintiff argued that the defendants utilised a substantially similar version of the original track in their song without obtaining proper licensing or permission from the relevant rights holders, thereby establishing a clear case of copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The defendants denied infringement and instead relied on prior arrangements, the plaintiff’s conduct in similar earlier disputes, and long-standing industry practices relating to remixes and adaptations.
The case ultimately raises a larger question: is remix culture a legitimate modern form of creative expression, or does it violate the rights of original creators under the guise of creativity?
Remix as an Unidentified Practice: The Inadequacy of Existing Categories
The central issue in remix cases is determining infringement. A remix remains a statutory orphan. The most natural category it falls into is “adaptation,” but it fails to fit the archaic definition of adaptation under Section 2. The statutory definition of adaptation in musical works contemplates a written, notated practice—an arrangement, transcription, rearrangement, or alteration. A remix, however, operates in a fluid form.
It involves breaking down a pre-existing musical work, including its vocal line, rhythm, or stems, and re-contextualising those elements through modern technologies such as digital sampling, interpolation, and sonic manipulation to give the work a new identity.
A remix also cannot comfortably fit under Section 31C, which governs cover versions. This provision requires re-recording the work from scratch and prohibits significant melodic alterations, which are often the very essence of remixing. What is taken and transformed is usually the fixed sound recording protected under Section 13(1)(c), and not merely the underlying musical work. Yet Section 14(e) grants no adaptation right for sound recordings.
This raises a critical question: how should a remix be governed? A remix is often too transformative to be treated as mere reproduction and too recording-centric to fit within statutory adaptation. The concept of remix does not correspond to any existing legal definition in the Act, since it is neither a simple reproduction nor a cover version. This creates a legal no-man’s land, where the remixer is denied a statutory licence for transformative recreation.
Comparative Study: Global Approaches to Remix Regulation
In India, Section 52 embodies the principle of fair dealing derived from UK copyright law. It provides an exhaustive, closed list of exceptions limited to specific purposes such as private use, education, and review.
Indian courts lack the power to expand these exceptions. Even Section 52(1)(za), which deals with sound recordings, is tied to the conditions of Section 31C. Other exceptions, such as judicial proceedings, storage by libraries, performances in educational institutions, and recitation in public, are clearly inapplicable to commercial remixing.
By contrast, the United Kingdom took a significant legislative step in 2014 by inserting Section 30A into the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It created specific exceptions permitting the use of existing work for parody, caricature, and pastiche. The pastiche exception is particularly relevant to remixes. A pastiche is a work that imitates the style of another work or assembles elements from existing works into a new composition.
Similarly, the United States of America adopts a more flexible approach through the fair use principle under Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act. It recognises fair use through a four-factor test to determine whether the use is legitimate, while also retaining judicial discretion to recognise new creative uses. In this way, transformative use can strongly support a fair use defence, as seen in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994).
Canada also recognises this creative space. Through its Copyright Modernisation Act, 2012, it introduced an exception permitting non-commercial mash-ups or user-generated content under Section 29.21 of the Canadian Copyright Act. In this way, it creates space for new creative works while preserving financial benefits for the original owner.
Against this backdrop, India’s framework appears comparatively rigid. Section 52 does not recognise a clear transformative-use exception. As a result, the law fails to reflect contemporary creative practices that are poorly served by existing legal categories.
Bridging the Gap: Towards a Remix-Ready Copyright Framework
Against this comparative backdrop, India appears to lag behind, reflecting a systemic failure in the 1957 Act to regulate a digital-first economy. In the recent Dhurandhar 2 dispute, the Delhi High Court’s referral to mediation appears to be a temporary patch on an outdated mechanism.
To bridge this gap, the law needs to move beyond its current narrow definitions. It must transition towards a hybrid regulatory model where modern creators have a statutory safe harbour while simultaneously securing the economic rights of original authors. This model rests on four pillars.
First, the law should introduce a statutory definition of remix. Courts cannot apply tailored rules to an unidentified practice. The definition should primarily distinguish a remix from adaptation, cover version, and mere reproduction.
Second, akin to Section 31C’s statutory licence for cover versions, the law should introduce a compulsory remix licence to recognise remix as a distinct category of musical work. This would include a royalty-based system, with the rate to be decided by the Copyright Board and calculated as a percentage of the commercial revenue attributable to the remix. It should also require credit to all original authors and producers in any public release. This would balance creative freedom with fair compensation for all stakeholders.
Third, this compulsory licence would address commercial remixes, but it would not cater to independent producers, music students, or digital artists creating non-commercial remixes. For them, Section 52 may be amended to include the making of a non-commercial remix under fair dealing.
Lastly, these substantive reforms should be enforced through regulatory bodies such as the Indian Performing Right Society and Phonographic Performance Limited. These bodies could ensure the certification of remixes by clearing all relevant layers of copyright.
Conclusion: The Way Forward
The Dhurandhar 2 dispute is far more than a conflict over a two-second melodic hook. It exposes a major gap in India’s copyright law: the archaic rigidity of the Copyright Act, which fails to recognise remix culture. In the absence of clear rules, remix culture is governed more by private negotiations and unequal bargaining between stakeholders than by law, leading to inconsistency.
To fill this gap in the Copyright Act, structural and multi-faceted reform is required. The legislature should consider introducing a transformative-use principle as an exception to protect works that add something new to the original through the creativity of artists.
Along with this, statutory recognition should be granted to “pastiche”-style remixes, and a compulsory licensing regime should be established. This would help calculate fair remuneration in the form of royalties for original creators while protecting new artists from unreasonable licensing demands. The Delhi High Court missed an opportunity to initiate this shift through a reasoned judgment instead of referring the matter to mediation.
Ultimately, the goal of the Indian Copyright Act should not be to block remix culture, but to recognise and regulate it. If the music industry treats musical works as fluid, the law must do the same to bridge the gap between legal doctrine and creative reality.
Authored by Ms. Ananya Gupta and Mr. Madhav Singh Bisht
Ms. Ananya Gupta is a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student, Batch of 2029 studying at Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur; and Mr. Madhav Singh Bisht is a 2nd year Law Student at Dharmashastra National Law University with interests in IP Law, Arbitration, Technology Law, and Corporate & Commercial Law.
Disclaimer
The views featured in this post (if any) are that of the author(s) alone and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or official position of Intellepedia or BananaIP Counsels. This post is intended for informational and academic discussion only and should not be construed as legal advice.