The Delhi High Court has overturned an interim injunction against renowned music composer AR Rahman concerning the song “Veera Raja Veera” from the 2023 Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan 2. The injunction was originally issued by a single-judge bench in response to a lawsuit filed by classical singer Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, who claimed that the song copied elements from “Shiva Stuti,” a work attributed to his family.
In a ruling by a Division Bench consisting of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, the court found that the single judge made a crucial error by presuming copyright based on performance rather than authorship. The Division Bench emphasized that it did not make a ruling on the substantive issue of copyright infringement but highlighted fundamental flaws in the earlier judgment.
The court noted that the principle of copyright must differentiate between authors and performers. It pointed out that while Dagar performed the referenced composition, he may not necessarily hold the copyright for it. This distinction is crucial in copyright law, particularly in cases involving traditional music.
AR Rahman‘s legal team argued that “Shiva Stuti” is a traditional Dhrupad composition that remains in the public domain. They asserted that “Veera Raja Veera” is an original piece that incorporates Western musical elements. The Division Bench stayed the order to change credits and associated costs but maintained the requirement for a deposit of Rs 2 crore pending the final adjudication of the case.
The court’s decision underscores several key legal points. Firstly, the Division Bench annulled the injunction because it was granted without a proper examination of the merits of the infringement claim. The court stressed the importance of ensuring that preliminary orders do not pre-judge substantive rights before a thorough investigation.
The ruling also serves to clarify the distinction between authorship and performance rights in musical works. As the court acknowledged, copyright claims must consider these differences, especially when traditional compositions are involved. Dagar’s assertion that “Shiva Stuti” falls under public domain Dhrupad music was a pivotal aspect of the case.
Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, the term “composer” is defined specifically in relation to musical works. Section 2(ffa) states that a composer is the individual who creates or composes the music, irrespective of whether it has been recorded. This means that the composer is recognized as the author of the musical work, which grants them exclusive rights including reproduction, public performance, adaptation, and distribution.
Additionally, the law acknowledges joint authorship for collaborative works, ensuring that all contributors share rights and protections. It is also important to note that copyright only applies to the music itself, excluding any accompanying lyrics, which are protected under separate literary rights.
This ruling not only provides relief for AR Rahman but also highlights the need for careful consideration of copyright law in the context of traditional music. The detailed judgment is expected to provide further insights into the legal principles governing such disputes in the future.
