New Delhi: A song composed by A.R. Rahman for Mani Ratnam’s 2023 Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan: II has been found by the Delhi High Court to be identical to a classical composition. On Friday, the court ordered the Oscar-winning composer and Ratnam’s production Madras Talkies to pay Rs 2 crore for copyright infringement.
In 2023, Indian classical singer Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar had moved the high court, alleging that the song titled Veera Raja Veera from the film had been copied from his father and uncle’s composition, Shiva Stuti.
Dagar’s father and uncle—Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and Ustad N. Zahiruddin Dagar—sang as a duo in their family tradition of Hindustani classical music, known as the Dagarvani or Gharana style, and were popularly referred to as Junior Dagar Brothers.
The petitioner told the court that his ancestors had been Dhrupad vocalists for nearly 20 generations. He himself has been awarded the Padma Shri in 2010.
Dagar argued that the composition was written by the Junior Dagar Brothers sometime in the 1970s, and was borne out of their joint authorship, making them the first copyright holders of the work.
On Friday, a bench of Justice Pratibha Singh found Rahman’s song identical to that of the late brothers, and said, “The song is not merely based on or inspired from the suit composition Shiva Stuti, but is, in fact, identical to the suit composition with mere change in lyrics.”
Upholding Dagar’s claim, the court noted in its 121-page order that the addition of other elements may have rendered Rahman’s song “more like a modern composition”, but the basic underlying musical work was identical.
Relying on the test of infringement laid down in Ram Sampath vs Rajesh Roshan (2008), the court turned to answering the question of whether the composition’s “soul” was copied, saying that this would be the determinative test.
“In this case, the core of the impugned song Veera Raja Veera is not just inspired, but is in fact identical in Swaras (notes), Bhava (Emotion) and Aural impact (impact on the ear) of the suit composition Shiva Stuti, from the point of view of a lay listener. Hence the Defendant’s composition infringes the Plaintiff’s rights in Shiva Stuti,” the court ruled, rejecting Rahman and the producer’s defence that Shiva Stuti was a traditional composition, over which there were no exclusive rights.
Although the court said that ragas, taals and stylistic traditions form part of the public domain and can be freely used by all, there is a catch. Whenever “a composer arranges, selects, and expresses musical notes within these frameworks in an original and creative manner”, that specific composition qualifies as a “musical work” eligible for copyright protection under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957—a provision which lists the different kinds of original works over which copyright can subsist, including films, artistic or musical works, among others.
Saying that it had no hesitation in concluding that musical works based on Hindustani classical music can be original compositions and original musical works, the court ruled, “The suit composition Shiva Stuti is one such original composition and cannot be deprived of its originality.”
The court directed that Rahman, along with the film’s producers, deposit a sum of Rs 2 crore with the Registrar General of the high court, and the same shall be subject to the outcome of the trial of the suit.
The court also awarded costs worth Rs 2 lakh to Dagar, which would be paid by Rahman and the producers within a period of four weeks. Besides this, the court ordered that all OTT and online platforms, where the film and the song is streamed, will have to carry credits with respect to the song, stating that the composition is “based on a Dagarvani Tradition Dhrupad”.
Also Read: Why disability rights non-profit has moved Delhi HC against Swiggy & Zepto
What is a copyright?
A “copyright” is a right given by the law to creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, and producers of cinematographic films and sound recordings.
Simply put, it is a bundle of rights, including the right of reproduction, communication to the public, adaptation and translation of the work. The 1957 Act seeks to protect such creative works, which are deemed as the creator’s intellectual property (IP).
It can be infringed upon if a substantial part of copyrighted work is made use of without authorisation. In cases of copyright infringement, the owner of the copyright can take legal action. Such an owner will also be entitled to remedies, such as injunctions and damages.
Dagar’s case
By way of his plea, Dagar sought a permanent and mandatory injunction for the recognition of the copyright, which would prevent the unauthorised use of his father and uncle’s creative work. A permanent injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action that is issued as a final judgment in a case.
Specifically, Dagar sought to restrain Rahman and PS-2 makers, Madras Talkies, from using the composition as part of the song Veera Raja Veera, without obtaining authorisation from him, and without attributing the moral rights of the original authors or composers.
Besides this, he also sought credit for the Junior Dagar brothers, whenever the song is played across different mediums, including digital, internet, OTT platforms, satellite, cable television, and so on.
On the other hand, Rahman and the producers argued that Dagar’s composition itself was not original as it was a traditional composition. They further contended that the Dhrupad genre traces back to Samaveda, which is more than 3,000 years old. Since the said genre is known and its practice is common to thousands of artists and composers, there can be no copyright, they argued.
Rejecting this argument, the court noted that “every work or composition which is made in a particular genre or Raga or style follows the basic principles of the said genre or Raga”, but it cannot be said that because they follow a particular discipline, there cannot be any originality in the same.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: How a ‘dog mafia’ circular landed a Navi Mumbai woman in contempt & earned her a week behind bars