Summary
In the case of Saregama India Limited vs Black Madras Films & Ors, the Delhi High Court held that the producer of a cinematographic film is the first owner of the copyright in the film’s music, including its literary and musical components, under Section 17 of the Copyright Act. The Court ruled that music composer Ilaiyaraja could not issue a valid license for the iconic song Naguva Nayana. It conditionally allowed the film’s release on OTT and other platforms, directing the defendants to deposit licence fees with the court.
Copyright Ownership Dispute
The plaintiff, Saregama India Limited, claimed copyright in the song Naguva Nayana and its underlying literary and musical works from the film Pallavi Anu Pallavi. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants used this song in their film Mask without authorisation. The producer of Pallavi Anu Pallavi, M/s Venus Pictures, had assigned the rights to the plaintiff under a Copyright Assignment Agreement dated 27 December 1980. The defendants asserted that they had taken a licence from the composer of the song, Mr Ilaiyaraja.
Questions Before the Court
- Who is the first owner of copyright in the song and its underlying works under Section 17 of the Copyright Act?
- Can the composer issue a valid licence for the use of the song after assigning rights to the producer?
- Is the plaintiff entitled to an injunction against the film’s release on digital and satellite platforms?
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiff’s Arguments
- The plaintiff owns the copyright in the song and its underlying works through an assignment from the film’s producer.
- Under Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act, the producer of a cinematographic film is the first owner of the works created for the film.
- The composer, having created the work for valuable consideration for the film, does not retain any rights unless otherwise agreed.
- The composer had no authority to issue any licence to the defendants.
- The defendants’ use of the song without a valid licence amounts to copyright infringement.
Defendants’ Arguments
- The defendants claimed they obtained a licence from the composer, Mr Ilaiyaraja, to use the song.
- They contended that the composer was the author of the musical work and could license its use.
Court’s Analysis of Copyright Ownership and Licensing
The court observed that, under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the author of a work is the first owner of copyright. However, as per Section 17(b), when a musical or literary work is created for a cinematographic film for valuable consideration, the producer becomes the first owner unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
The court said the producer of Pallavi Anu Pallavi was the first owner of the copyright in the song, having commissioned the composer. By virtue of the Copyright Assignment Agreement, the rights were vested with the plaintiff.
The court noted that the composer, Defendant No. 5, did not retain any rights and was not authorised to issue a licence for the use of the song. The composer was not the author of the lyrics, and therefore had no right to license the literary work either.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association, the court reaffirmed that the producer owns the copyright in music created for films when commissioned for valuable consideration.
Court’s Analysis of Film Release and Interim Relief
The court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case. However, as the film had already been released theatrically and the plaintiff did not oppose its release on OTT and satellite platforms if licence fees were paid, the court found that balance of convenience did not favour a full injunction.
The court directed the defendants to either:
- Remove the song from the film, or
- Deposit a sum of ₹30,00,000 with the Registrar General before releasing the film on digital or satellite platforms.
If the defendants failed to comply, they would be restrained from releasing the film with the infringing song on any such platform.
Findings
- The plaintiff was held to be the copyright owner of the song under Section 17(b).
- The composer had no right to license the song, having created it for a commissioned film.
- The defendants were permitted to release their film digitally only upon deposit of ₹30,00,000 licence fee or after removing the song.
Relevant Paras
Paragraph 25: “Section 17(b) of the Act provides that when a cinematographic film is created for valuable consideration… the producer becomes the first owner of the Copyright…”
Paragraph 26: “It is prima facie evident that the Plaintiff holds the Copyright in the Subject Song.”
Paragraph 28: “… Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall either remove the Subject Song… or deposit an amount of ₹30,00,000 with the Registrar General…”
Case Citation
Saregama India Limited vs Black Madras Films & Ors, CS(COMM) 1310/2025, decided on 9 December 2025.
Indian Kanoon link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/48004644/ (Visited on 11 December 2025)
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.
