The 2012 Copyright Act amendment does not apply retrospectively
Introduction:This case revolves around the alleged copyright infringement of the song "En Iniya Pon Nilave" from the 1980 Tamil film "Moodu Pani" by Saregama India Ltd. (the plaintiff) against Vels Film International Ltd. (defendant no. 1). The plaintiff claims to hold exclusive rights to the sound recording, musical composition, and literary work (lyrics) of the song, while the defendant contends that the music composer (defendant no. 3) retains rights to adapt and recreate the composition under the Copyright Act, 1957. The suit primarily concerns whether the producer of a cinematograph film or the original music composer holds the copyright to a song used in the film.
Plaintiff’s Business & Copyright Claim:Saregama India Ltd. (formerly Gramophone Company of India Ltd., known as His Master’s Voice - HMV) is engaged in acquiring, distributing, and exploiting copyrights in sound recordings, musical compositions, and lyrics across various media.The plaintiff owns an extensive catalog of Indian film music, including Tamil music, and licenses these works to third parties.The producer of the 1980 film "Moodu Pani," Raja Cine Arts, assigned all copyright in its songs, including "En Iniya Pon Nilave," to Saregama via an agreement dated February 25, 1980.This agreement granted Saregama exclusive ownership of the sound recording, musical composition, and literary work (lyrics) in perpetuity.
Alleged Infringement by the Defendants:On January 9, 2025, the plaintiff discovered that Vels Film International was promoting a song titled "recreation" of "En Iniya Pon Nilave" in its upcoming film "Aghathiyaa."The defendants (Vels Film International & music composer, defendant no. 3) created a new recording of the song, using the same lyrics and composition.Despite receiving a cease-and-desist notice on January 10, 2025, the defendants continued releasing and streaming the song.Defendant no. 1 argued that it had legally obtained a license from the original composer (defendant no. 3) to use and adapt the song.
Interim Injunction & Court Proceedings:On January 16, 2025, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from publishing, releasing, or distributing the song on any platform.On January 27, 2025, defendant no. 2 (the distributor) was removed from the case after it complied with the court’s order to take down the song.Defendant no. 1 (Vels Film) continued its defense, arguing that it had legitimately licensed rights from the original composer, making the lawsuit unwarranted.
Plaintiff’s Submissions (Saregama India Ltd.):Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 states that the producer of a cinematograph film is the first owner of all copyrights in the sound recording, lyrics, and composition.Since the film producer (Raja Cine Arts) assigned the rights to Saregama, the music composer (defendant no. 3) does not hold any rights to issue licenses for adaptation.Defendant no. 3 is not the author of the lyrics and cannot grant rights over them.The adaptation claim is false because the defendants copied the original composition and lyrics without any substantial modifications.The 2012 Copyright Act amendment does not apply retrospectively, meaning any claim of rights by defendant no. 3 post-2012 is invalid.
Defendant No. 1’s (Vels Film International) Submissions:Defendant no. 3 (composer) is the original author of the musical composition and retains the right to adapt it under Section 14(1)(a)(vi) of the Copyright Act.The plaintiff’s reliance on Section 17 is flawed, as Section 13(4) ensures that composers retain copyright even if their work is used in a film.The Delhi High Court’s ruling in RDB & Co. HUF v. Harper Collins held that screenplay authors retain rights, implying that music composers also retain their rights.Defendant no. 1 paid ₹5,40,000 to defendant no. 3 for adaptation rights, making the claim of infringement unfounded.Plaintiff’s request for an injunction would cause irreparable harm to the defendant since the film was scheduled for release on January 31, 2025.
Defendant No. 3’s (Composer) Submissions:As the composer, he owns the "musical work" and retains the right to adapt, reproduce, and license it.Section 14(1)(a)(vi) explicitly grants composers the right to create adaptations, which he legally exercised.The 2012 Copyright Act amendment reinforces composers’ rights, and Saregama’s claim contradicts legislative intent.The plaintiff cannot claim a blanket copyright over all aspects of the song without proving a specific assignment of adaptation rights.
Issues: Does the plaintiff (Saregama) hold exclusive copyright over the song, including its adaptation rights? Can a music composer (defendant no. 3) grant adaptation rights if the song was originally assigned to a third party (Saregama)?Does the 2012 Copyright Amendment impact rights in a song composed in 1980? Does creating a "recreation" using the same lyrics and composition amount to infringement?
Key Findings & Reasoning of the Judge:The original agreement (1980) assigned all rights to Saregama, meaning the composer cannot license adaptation rights independently.The defendants' version was not an adaptation but an unauthorized reproduction, making it a clear infringement.The 2012 amendment is prospective, meaning it does not affect prior assignments, invalidating the composer’s claim.Vels Film’s monetary investment does not justify copyright infringement; however, the court considered an alternative remedy.
Decision & Relief Granted: Injunction granted: Vels Film cannot use the song without Saregama’s license.Monetary relief granted: Defendant no. 1 must pay ₹30 lakh to the court registry within two days to use the song in its film.Failure to pay would result in a complete ban on using the song.
Concluding Note:This judgment reinforces that:Film producers hold the first copyright in a film’s music unless expressly stated otherwise. Composers do not retain adaptation rights after assigning their work to film producers.The 2012 Copyright Amendment does not apply retrospectively. Unauthorized recreation of music using the same lyrics and composition is infringement, not adaptation.The decision balances copyright protection and commercial interests by allowing the defendant to use the song only upon payment of a fair license fee.
Case Title: Saregama India Limited Vs. Vels Film International Limited & Ors.
Date of Order: January 30, 2025
Case No.: CS(COMM) 38/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:647
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
[Patent and Trademark Attorney]
High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
