Editorial: Ownership of art

CHENNAI: Stakeholders in the creative industries have been keenly following a case for the past few months. It involves the legendary Tamil film composer Ilaiyaraaja who has been engaged in a legal tussle with recording companies over the copyrights of his compositions. The composer had initially claimed exclusive rights on as many as 4,500 songs composed by him. Even as the case was being heard in the Madras High Court, Ilaiyaraaja sent a legal notice to the makers of Rajinikanth’s new film Coolie, for using a portion of a song called Va Va Pakkam Va from the 1983 film Thangamagan, that was scored by him. The composer’s legal team stated that the song was used in the new film without Ilaiyaraaja’s explicit authorisation and payment of consideration.

Ilaiyaraaja’s team had also sent a legal notice to the producers of the Malayalam film Manjummel Boys, which uses the song Kanmani Anbodu, originally featured in the 1991 Tamil film Gunaa. The makers of the film in turn, replied that they had indeed acquired the rights to the song for use in the survival thriller. The observations in this case that were placed before the Court by a recording company called Echo, were recently made public. And they offer some juicy food for thought on who exactly happens to own a work of art that is created collaboratively. The company submitted before the Madras High Court that since Ilaiyaraaja has not retained the copyrights of his works with film producers, he is not in a position to claim the rights to his songs, composed between 1970 and 1990.

Composer AR Rahman is cognisant about the fine print, and had embarked on a campaign way back in 2006 to secure the financial rights of composers and lyricists, and even producers. In Ilaiyaraaja’s case, the recording company affirmed that as Ilaiyaraaja had received remuneration for his works, the copyright for the songs vested solely with the respective producers (citing Section 17 of Copyrights Act). These cases in India seem to be in line with developments transpiring across the world in the popular music scene. A non-profit group called the World IP Organization had reported some time back that crowd-pulling new artistes like Dua Lipa, Taylor Swift and Rihanna have bought back the rights to their music, while the likes of Bruce Springsteen, David Bowie, Bob Dylan and Dr. Dre sold theirs. The group explained this phenomena as ‘when a musician sells their catalogue, it means they’re selling the rights to their songs, including the royalties paid when their music is consumed and used.’

Under a record contract, copyright and related rights are distributed between the artist and the record company. Since the 2020s, investment funds have also been picking up these catalogues, driving up their value. While the catalogue sales continue to rise, many artists are buying back their own music and regaining control of their rights. Under the copyright system, those holding rights to a creative work retain control of the creation for up to 70 years following the death of the original creator, depending on the country. By selling during their lifetime, a creator can effectively transfer this expected future income to the present. The question of creative ownership remains a touchy one. Just ask the makers of the 1968 independent horror film Night of the Living Dead. It was mistakenly released into the public domain as the original distributor failed to replace the copyright notice when changing the film's name.