The Delhi High Court’s interim order in favour of Saregama India Ltd has reignited a debate over who truly owns a song. The order restraining music composer Ilaiyaraaja from exploiting copyrighted works claimed by Saregama India in 134 films underscores a foundational but often misunderstood principle of Indian copyright law: authorship and ownership are not synonymous, particularly in the context of sound recordings released before 2012.
Industry experts note that while a composer is undoubtedly the author of the musical work, the economic rights to that work are often assigned to producers or music labels under contractual arrangements.
Disputes arise when legacy agreements are vague or silent on new exploitation methods, leading to debates over residual rights, particularly for public performance, digital sharing, and re-recordings. The case highlights the continuing tension between authorship rights and the commercial realities of assignment-heavy industry practices.
“The interim order in the Ilaiyaraaja vs. Saregama dispute underscores the persistent friction between historical 'work-for-hire' contracts and the modern statutory protections granted to creators. This case highlights that in the music industry, 'authorhood' is not synonymous with 'ownership.' While a composer’s creative contribution is permanent, their legal control over that work depends entirely on the specific language of their assignment contracts,” said Ankita Singh, founder, Sarvaank Associates.
- Court favours Saregama, limiting Ilaiyaraaja's use of 134 film scores.
- Legal authorship does not guarantee economic ownership under old contracts.
- Pre-2012 work-for-hire deals often lack modern digital revenue protections.
- The 2012 Copyright Amendment seeks to secure non-waivable creator royalties.
- Labels now use aggressive litigation to protect high-value music catalogues.
As digital platforms extend the commercial life of musical catalogues, the industry is entering a phase of legacy litigation where the battle is no longer just about who owns the music, but who is entitled to its digital revenue stream in perpetuity, Singh added.
Collective bargaining through copyright societies is a meaningful safeguard. From the label and producer perspective, the increasing commercial value of catalogues, especially in the streaming era, has made the enforcement of legacy rights a strategic imperative, Sonam Chandwani, managing partner, KS Legal & Associates, said.
Contestable legacy issues
To be sure, the legal framework under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, before the 2012 amendment that granted royalties and other economic rights to lyricists and composers, established a default regime, though contestable, under which composers working on film projects created works as part of the cinematographic film package.
“Against this backdrop, the Saregama-Ilaiyaraaja dispute, which concerns largely pre‑2012 works, highlights how many composers historically worked: on lump‑sum, producer‑driven deals where standard practice was that producers and, through them, labels held and enforced the rights,” said Abhishek Chansoria, principal associate at Saraf and Partners.
This does not necessarily place composers at a structural disadvantage, but it does expose the asymmetry in bargaining power that has historically existed in the industry, KS Legal’s Chandwani said.
Many composers, particularly in earlier decades, entered into outright assignment agreements for lump-sum consideration, without retaining royalties or reversionary rights.
The 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act sought to recalibrate this imbalance by mandating that authors of literary and musical works incorporated in films are entitled to receive royalties for certain exploitations and that such rights cannot be waived.
“However, the effectiveness of these protections depends heavily on the wording of contracts and the willingness of parties to litigate,” Chandwani said. Composers must now negotiate tighter contracts with clear royalties, specific usage limits, and the right to audit their earnings.
Many are taking concrete steps.
Vitasta Kaul, chief marketing officer at Hoopr, a music licensing platform, said labels are tightening contracts and enforcement as digital usage scales—India sees 30,000-plus branded digital videos published daily, many of which require licensed music.
Composers fight back
Composers, meanwhile, are forming publishing companies, joining rights societies, and litigating legacy contracts. This is becoming a systemic issue as sync, brand content, and OTT monetization outpace streaming revenue.
The industry is moving from informal norms to rights-first, contract-driven frameworks, and there is likely to be more litigation, standardised contracts, and tech-led rights-tracking platforms emerging over the next three to five years, Kaul pointed out.
“Both composers and labels are increasingly turning to 'strategic litigation' to define the boundaries of ownership in the digital age, making this a significant industry concern,” said Anupam Shukla, partner, Pioneer Legal.
Labels are fighting to block even the original artists from using their own old music, while those artists are using the law to reclaim their royalties. As streaming makes vintage tracks valuable, both sides are clashing over who gets to keep the cash, he added.