By Lucy Rana and B. Michael Shriney
Film music is among the most valuable, and most reused, intellectual property in India, and nowhere more so than in the Tamil and wider south Indian cinema that the composer Ilaiyaraaja helped define. A song written decades ago can anchor a new film, a streaming series or an advertisement, and each reuse raises the same question of ownership and permission. The recent disputes involving Ilaiyaraaja, before the High Court of Madras at Chennai in Tamil Nadu and the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, are a useful lens through which to see how Indian law allocates the two copyrights in a film song, and the rights a composer keeps even when one of them has passed to someone else.
Two copyrights in one song: the musical work and the sound recording
The starting point is that a film song is not a single piece of property. The Copyright Act, 1957 recognises a musical work, meaning the composition of music, whose author is the composer, and a sound recording, meaning the recorded track, whose author is the producer. These are separate works with separate copyrights, and they can be owned by different people. A party that wants to reuse an old film song must therefore clear both: the sound recording, usually held by the producer or the music label to whom the producer assigned it, and the musical work, authored by the composer. A licence to one is not a licence to the other.
Who owns the musical work: the composer, and Agi Music v. Ilaiyaraaja
The composer is the author of the musical work, and, under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, its first owner. In Agi Music Sdn Bhd v. Ilaiyaraaja, decided by the High Court of Madras at Chennai (Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth) in June 2019, the Court held that Ilaiyaraaja is the author and first owner of the copyright in his musical works, and that Section 57 of the Act confers upon him complete moral rights over those works. Those moral rights, the right to claim authorship and the right to restrain distortion, mutilation or modification prejudicial to his honour or reputation, remain with him as the author. The decision is the anchor for the proposition that, whatever happens to the rest of a song, the composer retains the authorship of, and moral rights in, the underlying music.
Who owns the sound recording: the producer and the label, and Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama
The copyright in the sound recording is a different matter. It ordinarily vests with the film producer, who is its author, and producers have long assigned those rights to music labels. The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi confirmed the position in Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited, a Division Bench decision of Justice C. Hari Shankar pronounced in May 2026. The case concerned the song En Iniya Pon Nilave from the film Moodu Pani, whose producer had assigned the sound recording to the music label Saregama. The Court held that Saregama, as the producer’s assignee, owned the copyright in that sound recording, that recreating or adapting it infringed Saregama’s rights, and that the single judge had been justified in restraining the adaptation. Ilaiyaraaja’s appeal was dismissed. The decision underlines that the composer cannot claim ownership of the sound recording of a film song where it has been assigned to the producer and, in turn, the label.
Moral rights: the thread that runs through both
What ties the two strands together is the author’s moral right. Under Section 57, the author of a work, here, the composer of the musical work, has special rights that do not depend on who owns the economic copyright at any given moment. He may claim authorship, and he may restrain or seek damages for distortion, mutilation or modification of the work that would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation. These rights survive the assignment of the economic copyright. For a composer, that is significant: even where a producer or a label owns and can license the sound recording, that licence does not permit the underlying musical work to be distorted, and it does not displace the composer’s moral rights in it.
The Mythri Movie Makers disputes: Good Bad Ugly and Dude
These principles played out in two interim orders of the High Court of Madras at Chennai, both by Justice N. Senthilkumar, in the matters between Ilaiyaraaja and Mythri Movie Makers, the Hyderabad-based production house in Telangana. In September 2025, in the matter concerning the Tamil film Good Bad Ugly, and again in November 2025, in the matter concerning the film Dude, which reused a musical work from the film Panakkaran, the Court granted interim injunctions in favour of Ilaiyaraaja, restraining the use of his musical works in the new films pending adjudication. The orders proceed on a prima facie recognition of the composer’s authorship of, and moral rights in, the musical works, the very rights that a licence to the sound recording from a label does not clear. They are interim orders, and the suits continue, but they illustrate the practical force of the musical-work and moral-rights position even where the sound recording may have been separately licensed.
A precise word on what the courts have, and have not, held
It is important to be accurate about the state of the law, because the headlines can overstate it. No court has held that Ilaiyaraaja owns all the copyright in the songs. The courts have recognised him as the author of the musical works, with continuing moral rights under Section 57, and have protected those rights. But they have also recognised that the copyright in the sound recordings of film songs ordinarily vests with the producer, or its assignee such as a music label, unless there is evidence that the sound recording rights were reserved in his favour. Ownership of the two copyrights, and the moral rights that sit above them, must be assessed separately on the facts and the contracts of each song.
What it means for the commercial exploitation of film music
For producers, studios, streaming platforms, advertisers and music labels, the practical lessons are concrete.
- Clear both copyrights: Reusing an old film song requires clearing both the sound recording, usually from the producer or the label that holds it, and the musical work, from or in a manner that respects the rights of the composer. A licence from a label may clear the sound recording, but it does not necessarily clear all rights in the underlying musical work.
- Respect moral rights: A licence to use a song is not a licence to change it. Re-orchestration, remixing or editing that distorts or mutilates the underlying musical work can attract the composer’s moral rights under Section 57, independently of who owns the sound recording.
- Verify the chain of title for each work: Establish who actually owns each right and whether the licensor can grant what it purports to grant. For older songs this often means tracing the producer-to-label assignment of the sound recording and separately addressing the composer’s position in the musical work.
- Mind the effect of the 2012 amendments and royalty entitlements: The date a work was created can affect which rules apply, including the royalty entitlements of lyricists and composers introduced by the 2012 amendment for exploitation outside the cinema hall. Build that question into every clearance.
Why this matters
The value of Indian film music lies in its reuse, and reuse depends on clean rights. The Ilaiyaraaja disputes, across the High Court of Madras at Chennai and the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, are a reminder that a film song is two works, not one, that the musical work and the sound recording can belong to different people, and that the composer’s moral rights sit above both. For anyone building a business on catalogue music in India, the safe course is to treat each song as two chains of title, to clear not only ownership but integrity, and to document the contracts that decide who holds what.
Frequently Asked Questions
Ilaiyaraaja Disputes
A film song contains two copyrights. The musical work is authored and first owned by the composer, who also holds moral rights; the sound recording is authored by the producer and ordinarily vests with the producer and, by assignment, the music label. They can be owned by different people, so ownership is assessed work by work.
No. The courts have recognised Ilaiyaraaja as the author of the musical works, with continuing moral rights under Section 57, but the copyright in the sound recordings of film songs ordinarily vests with the producer or its assignee, such as a music label, unless the sound recording rights were reserved in his favour.
Not freely. The label’s rights cover the sound recording, but reusing the song also engages the musical work and the composer’s moral rights under Section 57, which a licence to the sound recording does not clear. As the Madras High Court’s interim orders in the Mythri Movie Makers matters show, the composer’s rights in the musical work can support an injunction.
The musical work is the composition, authored by the composer; the sound recording is the recorded track, authored by the producer. They are separate copyrights under the Copyright Act, 1957 and may be owned by different people, which is why a film song has to be cleared on both counts.
Who owns the sound recording and whether the licensor can grant it; the position of the composer in the musical work and any moral-rights concerns, particularly if the song is to be altered; and the date of creation, which can affect royalty entitlements. Each song should be assessed as two chains of title.
Yes. A licence from a music label may cover the sound recording, but disputes may still arise regarding rights in the underlying musical work or the composer’s moral rights, depending on the facts and contractual arrangements.
Moral rights include the right to claim authorship of the work and the right to object to distortion, mutilation, or modification of the work that would be prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation. These rights survive assignment of economic rights.
Because a film song may involve multiple copyright interests. Depending on the nature of the proposed use, permissions relating to the underlying musical work and compliance with moral rights may also need to be considered.
Every film song should be treated as involving at least two separate rights: the musical work and the sound recording. Before reuse, parties should verify and clear each right separately rather than assuming that a licence from one rights holder covers the entire song.
The Ilaiyaraaja disputes do not rewrite copyright law; they illuminate its structure. A film song is two works, the musical work and the sound recording, which can belong to different owners, and over both sits the composer’s moral right. For an industry that lives on its back catalogue, from Chennai and Hyderabad to the streaming platforms that now carry this music across India and the world, that is a distinction worth getting right, song by song.
For more information on Copyright, Copyright Registration, Music and Sound Recording Rights, Musical Works and Sound Recordings, First Ownership of Copyright, Assignment and Licensing of Copyright, Author’s and Composer’s Royalties, Moral and Special Rights under Section 57, Film and Content Licensing, Media and Entertainment Law, Music Clearance and Chain of Title, IP Due Diligence, Copyright Infringement, Copyright Litigation, and the Commercial Exploitation of Film Music in India write to us at info@ssrana.com.