In light of the different copyright litigations involving musical maestro Ilaiyaraja, Nivedita Krishnakumar argues for a purposive interpretation of the royalty-sharing provisions provided through the Copyright Amendment Act 2012. In her submission for the SpicyIP-jhana Blogpost Writing Competition 2025, she argues that the 2012 amendment must be seen as a remedial statute, making an argument for a retrospective effect of the royalty sharing provisions within the 2012 amendment. Nivedita Krishnakumar is a second-year law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law.
Royalty Raja’s Reformation of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012
By Nivedita Krishnakumar
For all his fame and genius, today Ilaiyaraja is widely regarded as the antihero of the music world. His legal notices of ill repute seem to have found their natural place in critical film discussions as the public, in equal parts, anticipates and criticizes his erratic endeavours. Recently, he moved the Madras High Court against the Tamil film ‘Dude,’ alleging the unauthorized use of two of his compositions. Similarly, the producers of the high-grossing film Manjummel Boys received a legal notice from him for using his song ‘Kanmani Anbodu Kadhalan,’ originally composed for ‘Gunaa’ in 1991. This ongoing onslaught of litigation, as well as the motive behind Ilaiyaraja’s actions, is perhaps best understood in the context of its backstory.
Historical Background
In the pre- digital era, when contracts were not commonplace, composers and lyricists operated on a work-for-hire model, meaning that their work was compensated with a one-time fee. The producer of the film would, in return, become the first owner of the copyright for these musical pieces. They would then go ahead and sell these rights exclusively to bigger audio or music labels, who would subsequently acquire the perpetual ability to reproduce, redistribute or license these works in any which way and were free to use them as they pleased. This regime was one that favoured the corporate giants. The financial claim of the composer or lyricist ended decisively when they received their fee from the producer, after which they were forced to sever all ties with their creative product. Ilaiyaraja’s career in Tamil cinema began in 1978. During this early period, the rights to many of his musical productions, like those in Priya (1978), Sigappu Rojakkal (1978) and Udhiripookkal (1979) were owned by the Indian Recording Company (INRECO). Post 1980, he aligned himself with Echo Recording Company and worked with them up until 1991. Echo Recording Company now claims ownership of around 359 of his works, including compositions from the famous Moondram Pirai (1982). Several more are claimed to have been sold to Sony. It was after this that Ilaiyaraja came up with his own label called Raja Cassettes and Raja Digital. Agi Music claims to have entered into a contract with the latter for perpetual ownership of 3811 of Ilaiyaraja’s original compositions, although the expiry of said contract is now contested. Ilaiyaraja now has ongoing lawsuits with each and every one of the abovementioned parties.
Of the most prolific of Ilaiyaraja’s legal battles is the lawsuit filed by him against Echo Recording Company in the Madras High Court, challenging their claim over his compositions and seeking recognition of his “special, moral rights” over 4500 songs that he composed for more than 1000 films between the 1970s and 1990s. This 2014 suit led to a judgement delivered by the single judge bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth, upholding Ilaiyaraja’s entitlements to “special moral rights” over his compositions under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Further, in 2015, Ilaiyaraja served a legal notice to Shankar for the unauthorized use of the song Ooru Vittu Ooru Vandhu in the film Kappal on the basis of this judgement. More recently, a legal notice was issued to Sun Pictures for the use of the song Vaa Vaa Pakkam Vaa in the teaser of their new Rajnikanth feature film Coolie. Justice Senthilkumar of the Madras High Court issued an ad-interim injunction against Mythri Movie Makers (see here) for the usage of his songs in the movie Good, Bad and Ugly. Later in a different suit, a settlement agreement was reached between the parties. Mythri Movie Makers agreed to pay Rs. 50 Lakhs as consideration for the use of songs composed by Illaiyaraja in the films Dude (for which a separate infringement suit was filed) and Good, Bad and Ugly, both produced by Mythri Movie Makers, and further agreed not to use his songs in Good, Bad and Ugly (see here). It was in 2012 that the disparity in profits granted to composers and lyricists became starkly evident, ushering in the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012. The Amendment shifted perspectives and allowed for musical pieces to be composite works of art within which several kinds of copyrights co-existed. Independent copyrights exist for lyrics, musical compositions, voice, sound recordings, and producers. The introduction of provisos to Section 18(1) and new sub-sections 19(9) and 19(10) were perhaps the most revolutionary parts of the amendment of 2012. They granted authors of literary and musical works included in films or sound recordings an inalienable right to receive royalties for any use beyond the original film’s theatrical release, a right that cannot be assigned or waived.
The Crux: An Interpretation
When one reads the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amendment bill, it is clear that it expressed an intent to protect authors from unfair exploitation and to align Indian law with international standards like the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, it is evident that the amendment is a “remedial statute” enacted to cure an “acknowledged evil” in the form of inequity in intellectual property rights faced thus far, in this context, by composers and lyricists. Further, in the case of Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court held that:
“Presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by necessary implication especially in a case where the new law is made to cure an acknowledged evil for the benefit of the community as a whole.”
Therefore, in a purposive and beneficial interpretation capable of fulfilling the welfare-oriented purpose of this law, it is important for it to be applicable to all exploitations of a work occurring after the amendment came into force, regardless of when the work was originally created.
The viability of this interpretation is also supported by international precedents as well. The United States, for instance, enacted the Music Modernization Act in 2018, under which a provision for mandatory royalties for performances and recordings has been introduced. Retrospective enactment on such a provision has been implemented by enacting another piece of legislation called the Compensating Legacy Artists for Their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society, or CLASSICS Act. Similarly, the High Court of England and Wales has also recognised the need for retrospective construction of performers’ rights against unauthorised exploitation, to be enjoyed by all performers of the work.
All of Ilaiyaraja’s battles fall squarely within this reformative interpretation of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012. The overall argument of his team seems to be: all of his works being reproduced or recreated after the enactment of such an act should trigger unwaivable royalties in his favour, regardless of the date of their original creation. This view is a balanced one – it is not overly retroactive but still retains a retrospective element that bolsters and supports creators in the music industry. In its own right, this is a struggle that lays its sights much beyond monetary growth, aiming to reconnect the creator to his composition – as is the intention of the amendment act. Regrettably, in its recent judgement in Saregama India Limited v. Vels Film International Ltd and Others, the Delhi High Court failed to give due attention to this dimension. Much like the judgement of the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, the Delhi High Court cited Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in its decision. Justice Krishna Iyer in the former case added a footnote to the judgement suggesting that while the producer may have the rights to use the music as part of the exhibitions of the film, music composers retain the right for other uses and further opined that works falling within the ambit of Section 17(c) would be an exception to this approach. That music composers and movie producers are not in an employer-employee relationship is settled, meaning that Section 17(c) would not be applicable. While Section 17(b) lists specific subject matters like cinematograph films and photographs that would be an exception to the general principle that authors are the first owners of copyright in their works, however, this list is not inclusive of literary and musical works. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the disputes in both the above cases concern copyright ownership in musical works and not cinematography, Section 17(b) too is inapplicable. The net result of these readings is that for musical works synchronised in films, there can be no automatic vesting of ownership rights on movie producers. When seen in context, therefore, Ilaiyaraja’s continuous legal action is his own valiant attempt at reforming the imbalanced copyright system of this country. Even before a definitive court judgement asserting such a right, the industry has found its own ways to circumvent the ambiguities of the law by way of advance royalties and back-dated agreements with labels offering composers upfront “advances” against future royalties, often with complex recoupment clauses. It is the lack of substantial interpretation itself that purports such workaround solutions for creators within the musical industry.
Conclusion
While it is easy to write off a man causing disruptions as being motivated by selfish reasons, this repertoire of litigation points towards a profound lack of clarity in the amendments of the Indian copyright regime. Such litigation, in fact, transcends personal interest and has instead become the test case for creators’ rights in India’s digital age. Well-intentioned legislation is merely the first step in the creation of an equitable intellectual property ecosystem within the creative industry in our country. The unresolved question remains: to what extent do the transformative author-protections of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, apply to works created and assigned decades before its enactment?
