What is the copyright dispute between Saregama and Ilaiyaraaja?

The court noted that “a musical composition and a cinematographic film are two separate and distinct works”. (Image is for representational purposes only) | Photo credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

Story so far: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) ruled in favor of music label Saregama India Ltd. in his copyright dispute with composer Ilaiyaraaja and banned him from broadcasting or communicating the songs in question from 134 1976 films until further orders. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that while Mr. Ilaiyaraaja continued to enjoy the copyright in the musical compositions he created, those rights did not extend to the sound recordings incorporated in the films, the copyright of which belonged to producer Saregama.

what’s going on

The dispute arose out of two copyright infringement suits filed by Saregama India Ltd. against composer Ilaiyaraaja and in a related case Black Madras Films.

Saregama said that between 1976 and 2001, it entered into assignment agreements with the producers of 134 cinematographic films and obtained copyrights in the sound recordings as well as the underlying literary and musical works contained in those films. It claimed that it has been using these rights commercially ever since.

According to the company, in February 2026, it discovered that Ilaiyaraaja had uploaded the same audio recordings to digital platforms such as Amazon Music, Apple Music, JioSaavn and Spotify, claiming ownership of them. It also claimed that he had licensed Black Madras Films to use Naguva Nayana’s song from the 1980 Kannada film Pallavi Anupallavi in Maska, despite Saregama claiming to own the recording.

The High Court initially issued an ex parte injunction in February barring Ilaiyaraaja from using the disputed works.

What does the law say?

The Copyright Act 1957 recognizes separate copyrights for different elements of a song. A musical work refers to a composition or melody created by a composer, while an audio recording is a recorded performance that includes music, lyrics, and vocals. These are different works protected by copyright.

According to § 17, the first owner of copyright is generally the author. A composer is the author of a musical work, a producer is the author and first owner of a cinematographic film. Since a cinematographic film includes its soundtrack, the producer is usually the first copyright owner of the sound recording.

Furthermore, § 13 paragraph 4 stipulates that the copyright to a cinematographic film or sound recording does not affect the separate copyright to the underlying works. This means that the composer can retain the copyright in the musical composition even if the producer owns the copyright in the sound recording incorporated into the film.

In the case of Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association (1977) the Supreme Court held that a producer could defeat a composer’s rights when the music was made as an accessory to a film, and the court reiterated the Supreme Court’s finding that “a composer can claim copyright in his work only if there is an express agreement between him and the owner of the cinematographic film reserving his copyright”.

The sound recording is a composite work and the author is the producer of the cinematographic film according to the provisions of § 2 letter d) point v) of the Act.

What is the verdict?

The court noted that “Ilaiyaraaja has rights to the extent of the ‘musical composition’ of the songs, and not even the lyrics, much less the sound recordings.” The indelible rights of “owner” and “author” conferred by law clearly belong first to the producer and then to the plaintiff by virtue of the various assignments entered into by the producers with the plaintiff. The Court held that the producer of a motion picture shall be the owner of the copyright in the sound recording embodied or incorporated in said motion picture. And Ilaiyaraaja would be the “author” and would be vested with the copyright of the musical composition itself. The court noted that “a musical composition and a cinematographic film are two separate and distinct works”.

The judgment explained that once a sound recording is incorporated into a cinematographic film, it forms part of the film. The producer therefore becomes the first owner of the copyright to this sound recording.

Thus, the Delhi High Court allowed Saregam’s application for an interim injunction and barred Ilaiyaraaja from broadcasting or communicating songs from 134 films through any online music platform, including Amazon Music, Apple iTunes and JioSaavn, during the trial or until further orders.

“Since there is no denial of airing of the songs which are the subject of suit of the said cinematographic films, the defendant/Ilaiyaraaja, prima facie, appears to be indulging in acts amounting to violation of law,” the court added.

The order includes an extensive list of 134 films, including well-known titles like Annakkili (1976), 16 Vayathiniley (1977), Mullum Malarum (1978), Netrikkann (1981) and Raaja Paarvai (1981).

Published – 4 Jul 2026 16:08 IST