Ilaiyaraaja | Photo credit: R. Ragu
Contrary to the practice followed by music composer A.R. Rahman, maestro R. Ilaiyaraaja did not retain the copyright of nearly 4,500 film songs composed by him between the 1970s and the mid-1990s, as he had added a specific clause to this effect in the agreements between him and the filmmakers. Therefore, he cannot claim any rights over those songs, Echo Recordings Private Limited argued before the Madras High Court on Thursday, June 13, 2024.
Commencing final arguments on the original appeal moved by the music label before a first division bench of Acting Chief Justice R. Mahadevan and Mohammed Shafiq, senior advocate Vijay Narayan submitted that if Mr. Ilaiyaraaja had indeed retained the rights, the burden was on him to prove it by producing those contractual agreements before the court, but claimed he miserably failed to do so during the trial.

The Copyright Act 1957 makes it clear that the film producer shall be the first owner of the copyright of the songs composed by the composer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary between them, the senior lawyer said. “I am told that Mr. AR Rahman never gives up copyright. Now, most writers do that. In those days, this concept did not exist and hence Mr. Ilaiyaraaja had no rights,” he added.
Mr. Narayan said there could be several reasons why a composer appointed by a film producer might not retain the copyright: “Sometimes, when a composer is at the beginning of his career, financial considerations may outweigh the need to retain the copyright… It is also possible that an emerging composer may charge a much smaller amount, but in this case, I am told that Mr. Ilaiyaraaja was paid very well.”
Mr Narayan submitted that though the appellant had purchased copyrights for 4,500 songs from various filmmakers, a single judge of the high court had in 2019 wrongly held that Mr Ilaiyaraaja could still exploit those compositions. He also submitted that the single judge was impressed with the composer’s present situation and held that he could never work under a service contract with any producer.
“All persons must be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Perhaps, this (the remarks made by the single judge) is what made my learned friend (senior advocate Satish Parasaran) say that he (Mr Ilaiyaraaja) is above everybody. But the fact is that once a person comes to the court, he must be treated the same as the next person. No person can claim special status, especially when it comes to commercial transactions,” Mr Narayan said.
At this point, the Acting Chief Justice intervened, saying that Muthuswami Dikshitar and Syama Shastri, who are considered the trinity of Carnatic music along with Thyagaraja, had also declared that they were nothing before music. He said a fine guitarist and a fine violinist had also made similar declarations and these statements were also available online.

Continuing his arguments, Mr Narayana said that, while Mr Ilaiyaraaja had admitted to receiving remuneration for the disputed songs, he had only disputed the fact of working under contract with the filmmakers. Mr Narayana said: “Once he gets remuneration for his work, he loses all his rights as far as the copyright issue is concerned.”
After hearing him, the Division Bench decided to hear Mr. Parasaran, representing Mr. Ilaiyaraaja, on June 19, 2024.