Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court held that the plaintiff, as the assignee of the copyright in the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the cinematograph film “Moodu Pani”, owns the copyright over its sound recording, lyrics, and musical composition. The court ruled that the defendants had used the song without authorization, which amounts to copyright infringement.
However, considering the imminent release of the defendants’ film “Aghathiyaa”, the court allowed them to use the song, but only on the condition that they deposit ₹30 lakh with the Registrar General of the court within two days. If the defendants fail to deposit the amount, they will be restrained from using the song in their film.
Facts of the Case:
- The plaintiff is a company engaged in acquiring, selling, and distributing copyrights in sound recordings and musical works. The plaintiff was previously known as “The Gramophone Company of India Limited (HMV)” and has a large catalog of copyrighted works.
- The producer of the film “Moodu Pani”, Raja Cine Arts, entered into a copyright assignment agreement with the plaintiff on February 25, 1980. Under this agreement, the plaintiff acquired the rights over the sound recordings, lyrics, and musical compositions in the film, including the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave”.
- On January 9, 2025, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants had used the song in their new film “Aghathiyaa” and were promoting it as a ‘recreation’.
- The plaintiff immediately sent a cease-and-desist notice on January 10, 2025, demanding that the defendants stop using the song.
- The defendants, however, ignored the notice and released the song on streaming platforms.
- The defendants claimed they had obtained a license from the song’s original composer (defendant no. 3), who had allegedly assigned them the rights to use the song.
- The plaintiff filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, arguing that only they had the right to use or license the song, not the composer (defendant no. 3).
Issues Before the Court:
- Who owns the copyright in the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave”?
- Does the plaintiff hold exclusive rights over the song due to the 1980 copyright assignment?
- Does defendant no. 3, the original composer, have any remaining rights in the song?
- Can defendant no. 3 license the song to defendant no. 1?
- If the composer assigned all rights to the producer, can he still license the song to others?
- Does the defendants’ use of the song amount to copyright infringement?
- Is the defendants’ version of the song a valid adaptation under the Copyright Act, 1957?
- Does modifying a song and re-recording it make it a new work, or is it still an infringement?
Petitioner’s (Plaintiff’s) Arguments:
- Producer is the First Owner Under Section 17 of the Copyright Act
- The Copyright Act, 1957 states that the producer of a cinematograph film is the first owner of the copyright in its sound recordings, musical works, and literary works.
- The 1980 agreement between the producer of Moodu Pani and the plaintiff assigned all rights in the song to the plaintiff.
- Defendant no. 3 does not own the song anymore and cannot license it.
- Defendant no. 3 Cannot Grant a License to Defendant no. 1
- Defendant no. 3 (the composer) was only the author of the musical composition.
- The lyrics and sound recording were owned by the plaintiff.
- Defendant no. 3 had no right to grant a license to defendant no. 1.
- The Defendants’ New Version is Not an ‘Adaptation’
- The defendants used the same lyrics and melody, making only minor changes.
- This does not qualify as an adaptation under the Copyright Act.
- It is unauthorized reproduction, which amounts to copyright infringement.
- Section 13(4) Does Not Help Defendant no. 3
- Section 13(4) states that a musical work can have a separate copyright, even if it is part of a cinematograph film.
- However, once the producer acquires the rights, the composer loses control over the work.
- Supreme Court judgments have upheld that producers own film music copyrights.
Respondents’ (Defendants’) Arguments:
- Defendant no. 3 Owns the Musical Work
- Defendant no. 3 (composer) claimed that he owns the musical work under Section 14(1)(a) of the Copyright Act.
- He argued that only the sound recording was assigned to the plaintiff, not the underlying musical composition.
- Since he was the composer, he retained rights over the melody and could license it.
- The 2012 Amendment Strengthens the Composer’s Rights
- The 2012 amendment to Section 17 states that composers retain rights over their works even if they are used in a film.
- Defendant no. 3 argued that the plaintiff’s claim was outdated because post-2012, composers cannot lose their rights.
- The Defendants’ Version is a Valid Adaptation
- Defendant no. 1 argued that their version of the song was a new creative work and qualified as an adaptation under Section 14(1)(a)(vi).
Court’s Analysis:
1. Plaintiff is the Lawful Copyright Holder
- The 1980 agreement shows that the film producer assigned all rights in the song to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff legally owns the sound recording, lyrics, and musical composition.
2. Defendant No. 3 Had No Right to License the Song
- Once a composer assigns his work for a film, he loses control over its usage.
- Defendant no. 3 could not grant a license to defendant no. 1.
3. The Defendants’ Version is Not a Legal Adaptation
- The Copyright Act defines adaptation as a substantial transformation of a work.
- The defendants used the same lyrics and melody, meaning it was not an adaptation, but an unauthorized reproduction.
4. The 2012 Amendment Does Not Apply
- The 2012 amendment cannot apply retrospectively.
- Since the agreement was made in 1980, the law before 2012 applies.
- The producer owned all rights, so the composer had no remaining rights.
Conclusion:
- Plaintiff owns the copyright in the song.
- Defendant no. 3 had no rights to assign the song.
- Defendant no. 1’s use of the song is illegal.
- Defendant no. 1 must pay ₹30 lakh to use the song in its film.
- If the deposit is not made, the song cannot be used.
Implications of the Judgment:
- Music Composers Lose Control Once Rights Are Assigned
- A composer cannot license a song once the producer has acquired the rights.
- Producers Hold Strong Copyrights Over Film Music
- The ruling strengthens film producers’ control over songs in their movies.
- 2012 Amendment Does Not Apply Retroactively
- Copyright assignments before 2012 remain valid under old law.
- Unauthorized ‘Recreations’ Can Be Copyright Infringement
- This ruling discourages remakes of old songs without proper licensing.
This ruling sets a major precedent in film music copyright disputes, ensuring that producers’ rights prevail over composers’ claims.