What is the copyright dispute between Saregama and Ilaiyaraaja? | Explained

The story so far: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) ruled in favour of music label Saregama India Ltd. in its copyright dispute with composer Ilaiyaraaja, restraining him from broadcasting or communicating the songs in question from 134 films dating back to 1976, till further orders. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that while Mr. Ilaiyaraaja continues to enjoy copyright over the musical compositions he created, those rights do not extend to the sound recordings incorporated in films, the copyright in which vests with the producer, Saregama.

What is the matter?

The dispute arose from two copyright infringement suits filed by Saregama India Ltd. against composer Ilaiyaraaja and, in a connected case, Black Madras Films.

Saregama said that between 1976 and 2001 it entered into assignment agreements with producers of 134 cinematograph films, acquiring the copyright in the sound recordings as well as the underlying literary and musical works contained in those films. It claimed to have commercially exploited those rights ever since.

According to the company, it discovered in February 2026 that Ilaiyaraaja had uploaded the same sound recordings on digital platforms such as Amazon Music, Apple Music, JioSaavn and Spotify while claiming ownership over them. It also alleged that he had granted a licence to Black Madras Films to use the song Naguva Nayana from the 1980 Kannada film Pallavi Anupallavi in the film Mask, despite Saregama claiming ownership of the recording.

The High Court had initially granted an ex parte injunction in February restraining Ilaiyaraaja from using the disputed works.

What does the law say?

The Copyright Act, 1957 recognises separate copyrights in different elements of a song. A musical work refers to the composition or melody created by the composer, while a sound recording is the recorded performance that incorporates the music, lyrics and vocals. These are distinct copyrighted works.

Under Section 17, the author is generally the first owner of copyright. The composer is the author of a musical work, while the producer is the author and first owner of a cinematograph film. Since a cinematograph film includes its soundtrack, the producer is typically the first owner of the copyright in the sound recording.

Further, Section 13(4) provides that copyright in a cinematograph film or sound recording does not affect the separate copyright in the underlying works. This means a composer may retain copyright in the musical composition even if the producer owns the copyright in the sound recording incorporated in the film.

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

Sound recording is a composite work and the author is the producer of the cinematograph film as per provisions of Section 2(d) (v) of the Act.

What is the ruling?

The court observed that “Ilaiyaraaja has rights to the extent of “musical composition” of the songs and not even the lyrics and much less the sound recordings. The indelible rights as “owner” and “author” bestowed by the Act clearly vest in the Producer first, then unto the plaintiff by virtue of various assignment deeds executed by the Producers with the plaintiff”. The court held that the producer of the cinematograph film would be the copyright owner of the sound recording embodied or incorporated into the said film. And Ilaiyaraaja would be the “author” and be vested with the copyrights over the musical composition alone. The court noted that “musical composition and cinematograph film are two separate and distinct works”.

The judgment explained that once a sound recording is incorporated into a cinematograph film, it forms part of the film. Therefore, the producer becomes the first owner of the copyright in that sound recording.

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

“Since there is no denial to the broadcasting of songs which are subject matter of the suit referred cinematograph films, the defendant/Ilaiyaraaja, prima facie, appears to be indulging in acts which would tantamount to infringement,” the court added.

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