The dispute arose from the song En Iniya Pon Nilave from the Tamil film Moodu Pani. Ilaiyaraaja composed the music for the song. Saregama claimed rights in the sound recordings and musical and literary works of the film through a 1980 agreement with the film producer, Raja Cine Arts.<\/p>\n
In 2025, Saregama found that the song was proposed to be recreated and used in the film Aghathiyaa. Vels Film International claimed that it had obtained a licence from Ilaiyaraaja under a 2023 agreement. Saregama filed a suit and obtained an injunction. Ilaiyaraaja sought vacation of the injunction and later filed an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge.<\/p>\n
The appeal required the court to decide how copyright in a film song must be understood when different rights exist in the musical work, the lyrics, and the sound recording.
\nQuestions Before the Court<\/p>\n
\u2022 Ilaiyaraaja argued that he was the composer of the song and therefore the author and first owner of copyright in the musical work.
\n\u2022 He submitted that Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act protected his separate copyright in the musical work even after the song became part of a cinematograph film.
\n\u2022 He contended that he had the exclusive right to make or authorise an adaptation of the musical work under Section 14(a)(vi).
\n\u2022 He argued that there was no pleading that he created the song under a contract of service or that the requirements of the first proviso to Section 17 were satisfied.
\n\u2022 He submitted that the 2012 amendment to Section 17 protected the rights of authors in works incorporated in cinematograph films.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Saregama argued that the producer of Moodu Pani was the first owner of copyright in the cinematograph film and the sound recordings forming part of that film.
\n\u2022 It submitted that the producer assigned the sound recording rights to Saregama under the 1980 agreement.
\n\u2022 It argued that Ilaiyaraaja had no copyright in the lyrics or the sound recording of the song.
\n\u2022 It contended that Ilaiyaraaja could not have licensed rights that he did not own.
\n\u2022 It submitted that Vels Film International had made a fresh sound recording using the lyrics and music of the original song, and this could not be defended merely as an adaptation of the musical work.<\/p>\n
The court began by separating the different rights involved in a film song. According to the court, copyright in a song may exist independently in the music, lyrics, and sound recording. This separation became central to the decision.<\/p>\n
The court said that a musical work under Section 2(p) consists of music and excludes lyrics. Since Ilaiyaraaja composed the music of En Iniya Pon Nilave, he was the author of the musical work under Section 2(d)(ii). By operation of Section 17, he was the first owner of copyright in that musical work.<\/p>\n
The court did not accept Saregama\u2019s argument that clauses (b) and (c) of the first proviso to Section 17 divested Ilaiyaraaja of this copyright. In the court\u2019s view, clause (b) did not apply to sound recordings or musical works, and clause (c) required a contract of service or apprenticeship. The court recorded that there was no case that Ilaiyaraaja composed the song under a master and servant relationship with the producer.<\/p>\n
At the same time, the court drew a clear limit around Ilaiyaraaja\u2019s right. His copyright extended only to the musical composition of the song. It did not extend to the lyrics, because he was not the lyricist. It also did not extend to the original sound recording, because copyright in the sound recording vested in the producer of the film and later in Saregama through assignment.<\/p>\n
As per the court, Section 13(4) ensured that copyright in a cinematograph film or sound recording would not affect separate copyright in the underlying work. This protected Ilaiyaraaja\u2019s copyright in the musical work. But that protection did not allow him to claim rights in the lyrics or the sound recording.<\/p>\n
The court then looked at the 2023 agreement between Ilaiyaraaja and Vels Film International. The agreement represented Ilaiyaraaja as the owner and copyright holder of the sound recording and underlying works of the original song. It granted Vels rights to recreate the sound recording, use underlying works, synchronise the new recording with the film, and exploit the new works.<\/p>\n
The court found this problematic. Ilaiyaraaja could not assign or license rights in the original sound recording because he did not own it. He could not assign rights in the lyrics because those rights did not vest in him. His authority extended only to the musical work composed by him.<\/p>\n
The judgment also considered the 1980 agreement between the film producer and Saregama\u2019s predecessor. The court held that the agreement transferred copyright in the sound recordings contained in Moodu Pani to Saregama. Therefore, Saregama owned copyright in the sound recording of En Iniya Pon Nilave.<\/p>\n
On this reasoning, the court held that Vels Film International could not exploit the sound recording of the song without Saregama\u2019s permission. By recreating or adapting the sound recording without such permission, it infringed Saregama\u2019s copyright.<\/p>\n
The Findings of the Court are as follows:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Ilaiyaraaja continued to own copyright in the musical work composed by him.
\n\u2022 Ilaiyaraaja did not own copyright in the lyrics of the song.
\n\u2022 Ilaiyaraaja did not own copyright in the sound recording of the song.
\n\u2022 Saregama owned copyright in the sound recording through assignment from the producer of Moodu Pani.
\n\u2022 The 2023 licence granted by Ilaiyaraaja to Vels Film International exceeded the rights that Ilaiyaraaja owned.
\n\u2022 The injunction granted in favour of Saregama was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n
Paragraph 26<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2018Musical work\u2019 is defined, in Section 2(p) as a work consisting of music, excluding lyrics. There is, therefore, statutorily, no distinction between the \u2018musical work\u2019 and the music which forms part thereof (the other part being the lyrics). As such, the musical component of the disputed song, of which Ilayaraaja is undisputedly the composer, is a musical work, in which, by virtue of Section 13(1)(a), copyright vests.\u201d<\/p>\n
Paragraph 27.3<\/p>\n
\u201cAs the composer of the disputed song, therefore, Ilaiyaraaja was the author of the \u2018musical work\u2019 forming part thereof, i.e., the musical component of the disputed song. By operation of Section 17, therefore, he was the first owner of copyright in the musical work in the disputed song.\u201d<\/p>\n
Paragraph 28.1<\/p>\n
\u201cAs the first owner of copyright in the musical work in the disputed song, Ilaiyaraaja possessed the exclusive right, under Section 14(a)(vi), to make any adaptation of the musical work. \u2018Adaptation\u2019, as defined in Section 2(a)(iv) in the context of a musical work, includes any arrangement or transcription of the musical work. However, this right of adaptation was limited to the musical work, i.e., the musical component of the disputed song, as that was the extent of Ilaiyaraaja\u2019s copyright in the disputed song.\u201d<\/p>\n
Paragraph 28.3<\/p>\n
\u201cIlaiyaraaja was, therefore, entitled to contract with any third party for use, or for adaptation, of the musical work contained in the disputed song, i.e, the musical component thereof. That right could not, however, extend to doing anything involving the sound recording of the disputed song, or the lyrics thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n
Paragraph 29.5<\/p>\n
\u201cBy operation of Section 13(4), the copyright, if any, held by RCA and, later, by SIL, in the sound recording relating to the musical work contained in the disputed song cannot derogate from, or affect, the separate copyright held by Ilaiyaraaja in the musical work contained in the disputed song.\u201d<\/p>\n
Paragraph 31.3<\/p>\n
\u201cHowever, Ilaiyaraaja was not the owner of copyright in the sound recording, or the lyrics underlying the disputed song. His copyright was limited to the musical work, the very definition of which, in Section 2(p), excludes the lyrical component of the song. Ilaiyaraaja could not, therefore, have assigned, to VFIL, the lyrics underlying the disputed song.\u201d<\/p>\n
Paragraph 33<\/p>\n
\u201cThe position that thus emerges is that (i) copyright in the sound recordings in Moodu Pani, which would include the sound recording in the song En Iniya Pon Nilave, vested in RCA, and never resided in Ilaiyaraaja, and (ii) RCA, by the Agreement dated 25 February 1980, transferred copyright in the said sound recordings to SIL.\u201d<\/p>\n
Paragraph 34<\/p>\n
\u201cWithout a licence, or permission, from SIL, therefore, VFIL could not have exploited any of the sound recordings contained in the film Moodu Pani, including the sound recording relating to the song En Iniya Pon Nilave. By recreating\/adapting the said sound recording, therefore, VFIL has infringed the copyright of SIL.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Case Citation<\/h5>\n
Mr Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited, FAO(OS) (COMM) 52\/2025, High Court of Delhi, decided on 21 May 2026, available on Indian Kanoon, accessed on 26 May 2026.<\/p>\n
Disclaimer<\/h5>\n
This case blog is based on the author\u2019s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog based on user inputs and prompts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the case of Mr Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited, a well known song from Moodu Pani became the centre of a layered copyright dispute. The court separated the music, lyrics, and sound recording, and asked a simple but difficult question: when a film song is recreated, whose permission is truly needed?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":149639,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":5,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,5495,3],"tags":[93,9547,242,3645],"class_list":["post-149636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-case-reviews","category-copyrights","tag-copyright-law","tag-ilaiyaraaja","tag-music-copyright","tag-saregama"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149636","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=149636"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149636\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":149638,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149636\/revisions\/149638"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/149639"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149636"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149636"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149636"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}