The music may belong to the composer. The lyrics may constitute a separate literary work belonging to the lyricist. The sound recording may be owned by the producer or a music label. The cinematograph film itself carries another layer of copyright.
This distinction becomes commercially significant when a composer or lyricist signs an agreement transferring rights to a producer or music label.
For decades, the commercial structure of the Indian film industry was largely built around lump-sum payments and extensive assignments of copyright. The 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act, 1957 changed an important part of that equation by introducing statutory protection for specified royalty rights of authors of literary and musical works incorporated in cinematograph films.
The result is not that every composer or lyricist automatically owns every right in a film song forever.
Nor does the law prevent producers and music labels from owning sound recordings.
The more precise proposition is this:
A composer or lyricist may assign copyright in accordance with law, but certain statutory royalty rights relating to literary and musical works cannot simply be assigned away or waived where the statutory conditions apply.
That distinction has become increasingly important as Tamil film music moves from theatrical releases to streaming platforms, radio, television, caller tunes, digital licensing and other forms of commercial exploitation.
Recent litigation involving the Indian Performing Right Society, Vodafone Idea, Saregama and veteran Tamil composer Ilaiyaraaja demonstrates why the distinction between the underlying work and the sound recording matters in practice.
This article examines that legal framework under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, with particular focus on the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, Section 18, Section 19, underlying musical and literary works, sound recordings, royalty rights and their practical implications for Tamil cinema.
A Film Song Contains Multiple Copyrights
The starting point is to understand that a film song is not necessarily one copyright.
There can be separate copyright interests in:
- the musical work created by the composer;
- the literary work represented by the lyrics;
- the sound recording embodying the recorded song; and
- the cinematograph film in which the song is incorporated.
The Copyright Act expressly treats these as separate categories of works.
A musical work consists of music and includes graphical notation, but does not include words or actions intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music. The composer is recognised as the author of the musical work.
The lyricist, separately, is the author of the literary work constituted by the lyrics.
The sound recording is yet another copyright subject matter, with its own author and ownership rules.
This distinction was brought into particularly sharp focus by the Delhi High Court’s 2026 judgment in Mr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited.
The Division Bench explained that copyright in a song can vest independently in the music, the lyrics and the sound recording. It held that the composer was the author and first owner of the copyright in the musical component of the disputed song, while copyright in the sound recording could vest separately in the producer. The Court also emphasised that the separate copyright in the musical work is not destroyed merely because the music has been incorporated into a cinematograph film or sound recording.
This is an important conceptual foundation for understanding royalty rights.
A song may therefore have the following structure:
Composer → Musical Work
Lyricist → Literary Work
Producer/Recording Owner → Sound Recording
Producer/Film Owner → Cinematograph Film
The precise ownership position will, however, depend upon the statutory provisions and the contracts governing creation and assignment.
What Are Master Rights?
“Master rights” is principally an industry expression associated with rights in a particular sound recording.
Suppose a composer creates a melody for a Tamil film. A lyricist writes the lyrics. The song is then recorded with singers, musicians and other contributors.
The resulting recording is a distinct sound recording.
A producer may own that recording under the applicable provisions of the Copyright Act, or may assign or license the relevant rights to a music label.
The label can then commercially exploit the recording through various channels.
That may include:
- streaming;
- digital downloads;
- YouTube;
- television;
- radio;
- caller tunes;
- licensing;
- promotional use; and
- other forms of commercial exploitation.
The mistake is to treat ownership of the master as equivalent to ownership of every underlying copyright.
It is not.
The master represents one layer of rights. The composition and lyrics constitute underlying works with their own copyright significance.
This distinction is not merely academic. It is central to determining whether a creator retains a royalty entitlement after an assignment of rights.
What the 2012 Copyright Amendment Changed
The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 represented a major shift in Indian copyright policy concerning authors and composers.
Before the amendment, Indian copyright jurisprudence had often given considerable weight to the rights of film producers and owners of sound recordings.
The historical Supreme Court decision in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association is particularly important in understanding the earlier position.
That case dealt with the rights of authors of musical and literary works incorporated into cinematograph films. The pre-2012 legal framework was interpreted as giving substantial protection to the producer’s rights once the underlying works became part of a film.
The 2012 amendment changed the legislative position.
Parliament specifically introduced protections intended to ensure that authors of literary and musical works incorporated in cinematograph films could not simply be deprived of certain royalty entitlements through broad contractual assignments.
Section 18 became particularly significant.
The provision continues to recognise the general ability to assign copyright. However, its provisos create a special statutory protection for authors of literary and musical works incorporated in cinematograph films.
In substance, the protected right to receive royalties for specified uses cannot simply be assigned away or waived, except within the statutory framework.
This is the crucial distinction:
The 2012 amendment did not abolish copyright assignments. It placed statutory limits on the ability of contracts to eliminate certain royalty rights of authors.
Section 18 and the Statutory Protection of Royalties
Section 18 should be read together with Section 19.
Section 18 permits assignment of copyright, but the 2012 amendment inserted specific provisos dealing with authors of literary and musical works.
For literary and musical works incorporated in a cinematograph film, the law protects the author’s right to receive royalties in respect of specified uses other than the communication of the work along with the cinematograph film in a cinema hall.
The statutory provision further contemplates sharing of the royalty on an equal basis with the assignee of copyright in the circumstances covered by the provision.
The legislation also makes agreements contrary to the specified protection void.
This is why a clause stating:
“The composer irrevocably waives all future royalty claims.”
cannot simply be accepted at face value.
The lawyer must first determine whether the clause attempts to waive a statutory entitlement that the Copyright Act does not permit the author to waive.
The same applies to language stating:
“All rights, title and interest are assigned in perpetuity throughout the world and the composer shall have no further claim whatsoever.”
Such language may be effective for many rights that are legally assignable.
But it cannot automatically override a statutory prohibition.
The correct approach is therefore not to ask whether the agreement contains the words “all rights”.
The correct approach is to identify:
what was assigned, what remains protected by statute, what form of exploitation is involved, and when the agreement was executed.
The 50% Royalty Principle: What It Does and Does Not Mean
The reference to an equal share of royalties is frequently misunderstood.
It does not mean that a composer automatically receives 50% of the entire revenue generated by a film.
Nor does it mean that the composer and lyricist collectively receive half of every rupee earned by a music label.
The statutory framework operates in relation to the author’s protected royalty entitlement in the relevant underlying work.
The composer and lyricist also have different works.
The composer is concerned with the musical work.
The lyricist is concerned with the literary work.
Accordingly, the royalty entitlement must be examined separately in relation to the relevant work and exploitation.
The Supreme Court’s decision in International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) v. Aditya Pandey is important in this broader context because it distinguished between an assignment of copyright and a licence to use copyright.
The Court also considered the post-2012 statutory framework governing royalty rights associated with sound recordings.
The practical lesson is that entertainment agreements should never treat “music rights” as a single undifferentiated asset.
A proper agreement should distinguish between:
- underlying musical rights;
- literary rights in lyrics;
- sound-recording rights;
- film rights;
- licensing rights;
- royalty rights; and
- collection and accounting rights.
The Calcutta High Court’s Vodafone Idea Decision
The post-2012 position received significant judicial attention in the litigation between Vodafone Idea Limited and the Indian Performing Right Society Limited.
The dispute concerned Vodafone’s use of songs as caller tunes and other value-added services.
Vodafone had arrangements with Saregama concerning sound recordings and argued, in substance, that having obtained rights from the sound-recording owner meant that it did not separately need to deal with IPRS in respect of the underlying musical and literary works.
The litigation eventually reached the Calcutta High Court’s Commercial Appellate Division.
In its judgment dated 8 May 2026, the Division Bench considered the legislative changes introduced by the 2012 amendment and the relationship between sound recordings and the underlying literary and musical works.
The Court held that the 2012 amendments permit IPRS to claim royalties in respect of underlying musical and literary works embodied in sound recordings when those sound recordings are commercially exploited.
The Court further held that Saregama did not have the legal authority to grant Vodafone a licence in respect of the underlying musical and literary works in the circumstances before the Court, and that Vodafone did not have the necessary licence to commercially exploit those underlying works through the disputed arrangements.
Most importantly for practitioners, the Court concluded that agreements between a sound-recording company and a commercial user could not simply negate the statutory royalty rights of the underlying authors.
The decision therefore reinforces a fundamental post-2012 principle:
A commercial licence from the owner of a sound recording does not necessarily extinguish or satisfy the statutory rights associated with the underlying literary and musical works.
At the same time, this decision should not be converted into an overly broad rule that every use of every sound recording always requires a separate licence from a copyright society.
The precise rights engaged depend upon the form of exploitation, the contractual chain of title, the rights administered by the relevant society and the applicable statutory provisions.
What the Ilaiyaraaja Litigation Teaches Tamil Cinema
Few recent disputes illustrate the complexity of film-music copyright more vividly than the litigation involving Ilaiyaraaja and Saregama India Limited.
The dispute concerned the iconic song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the Tamil film Moodu Pani and a proposed recreation of the song for another film.
The case became particularly significant because it required the Court to examine the respective positions of the composer, the producer and the sound-recording owner.
In May 2026, the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench held that copyright in the musical work remained separately protected even though the sound recording had been validly assigned to Saregama.
The Court found that Ilaiyaraaja, as composer, was the author and first owner of the musical work.
It also held that the sound recording constituted a separate copyright, which had vested in the producer and had subsequently been assigned to Saregama.
The Court therefore drew a sharp line between:
the musical composition
and
the sound recording of that composition.
This is particularly relevant to Tamil cinema because the industry contains an enormous catalogue of songs created under contracts spanning several decades.
The Ilaiyaraaja litigation demonstrates why lawyers cannot analyse historical film-music rights simply by asking who currently possesses the master recordings.
The date of the original agreement can be decisive.
The statutory regime applicable in 1980 is not identical to the regime applicable to an agreement executed after the 2012 amendment.
That temporal distinction is crucial.
The 2026 judgment also illustrates another important point: the composer can have rights in the musical work without necessarily having rights in the lyrics or the original sound recording.
In the Ilaiyaraaja dispute, the Court recognised the composer’s independent rights in the musical component while making clear that those rights did not automatically extend to the lyrics, which belonged to the lyricist, or to the original sound recording, which was separately owned.
For Tamil cinema, this is perhaps the most useful practical lesson from the litigation:
A composer, lyricist, producer and label can each have legally distinct interests in what the audience simply calls “the song.”
Historical Agreements Matter: The Pre-2012 Problem
The statutory royalty protections introduced in 2012 cannot simply be applied retrospectively to every agreement made in the history of Indian cinema.
This is particularly important in Tamil cinema, where major catalogues contain songs created in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s.
When reviewing a historical catalogue, lawyers should establish:
- when the song was created;
- when the composer was engaged;
- whether the composer was an employee or independent professional;
- who commissioned the work;
- what the original contract said;
- whether copyright was assigned;
- when the assignment occurred;
- whether the assignment covered the underlying work;
- whether the sound recording was separately transferred;
- whether subsequent assignments took place; and
- whether later exploitation is governed by post-2012 arrangements.
The Ilaiyaraaja litigation illustrates why this exercise matters.
A creator’s present-day assertion of ownership cannot necessarily be analysed without examining the contractual and statutory environment prevailing when the work was originally created and assigned.
Equally, the existence of an old assignment does not automatically answer every question concerning later exploitation.
Each layer has to be examined independently.
Streaming, YouTube, Radio and Caller Tunes
The commercial exploitation of Tamil film music has changed dramatically.
A song that was originally created for theatrical exhibition may now generate value through:
- Spotify and other streaming services;
- YouTube;
- television;
- FM radio;
- caller tunes;
- digital advertisements;
- social-media platforms;
- short-form video services;
- public performance;
- licensing and synchronisation.
The legal analysis must therefore move beyond the traditional producer-versus-composer model.
The Calcutta High Court’s Vodafone Idea v. IPRS decision is particularly useful here because it involved commercial exploitation of sound recordings as caller tunes.
The Court’s reasoning reinforces the importance of distinguishing the sound recording from the underlying literary and musical works.
This distinction is especially relevant to digital platforms.
A platform may receive a licence concerning a sound recording from a label, but the legal question may not end there if the underlying literary or musical works are independently implicated.
Whether an additional licence, royalty payment or society arrangement is required depends on the precise nature of the exploitation and the rights involved.
For entertainment lawyers, therefore, the phrase “digital rights” should never be treated as sufficiently precise by itself.
The agreement should identify exactly what digital uses are being licensed or assigned.
Copyright Societies and the Collection of Royalties
The statutory royalty system becomes commercially meaningful only when royalties can actually be identified, collected and distributed.
Copyright societies therefore occupy an important position in the music ecosystem.
The Indian Performing Right Society, commonly known as IPRS, is particularly relevant to authors, composers and publishers of literary and musical works.
Where rights have been entrusted to a copyright society, the society can administer those rights and collect royalties from relevant exploitations.
The Calcutta High Court’s 2026 Vodafone Idea decision also demonstrates the significance of the relationship between individual rights, copyright societies and sound-recording companies.
For creators, however, society membership should not be treated as a substitute for contractual due diligence.
A composer or lyricist should retain:
- executed agreements;
- split sheets;
- work registrations;
- accurate composer and lyricist credits;
- royalty statements;
- licensing records;
- publishing information;
- correspondence relating to assignments; and
- records of subsequent licences or transfers.
Accurate metadata is increasingly important.
A creator may have a statutory entitlement, but if the work is incorrectly credited or the underlying work cannot be properly matched to exploitation data, practical royalty recovery can become significantly more difficult.
A Practitioner’s Rights Map
For entertainment lawyers, the easiest way to analyse a film song is to separate the rights before examining the contract.
| Asset | Typical creator/right holder | Key question |
| Musical work | Composer | Who owns/controls the composition? |
| Lyrics | Lyricist | Who owns the literary work? |
| Sound recording/master | Producer/label, depending on chain of title | Who owns the recording? |
| Cinematograph film | Producer/assignee | Who owns the film copyright? |
| New adaptation/re-recording | Depends on underlying rights | Has the underlying work been licensed? |
| Statutory royalty entitlement | Relevant author, subject to the Act | Can the entitlement legally be assigned or waived? |
This table should be the first page of any entertainment-lawyer’s rights review.
The next step should be a chain-of-title analysis.
Drafting Checklist for Entertainment Lawyers
A modern music agreement should avoid using “all music rights” as a substitute for actual rights allocation.
At minimum, the agreement should separately address the following.
Identify the underlying works
The agreement should identify the musical work and literary work separately.
For example:
“Underlying Works” shall mean the original musical composition created by the Composer and the literary work comprising the lyrics created by the Lyricist, as separately identified in Schedule A.
Identify the sound recording
The agreement should separately define the master.
“Sound Recording” shall mean the specific recording embodying the Underlying Works, including all masters, mixes, edits and approved versions thereof identified in Schedule B.
Separate the assignment from statutory royalty rights
A drafting provision can make the distinction explicit:
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as an assignment, waiver or relinquishment of any statutory right to receive royalties that cannot lawfully be assigned or waived under the Copyright Act, 1957, as amended from time to time.
This is safer than attempting to contractually eliminate every possible royalty claim.
Address collection through a copyright society
Where the relevant rights are administered through a copyright society, the agreement should recognise that arrangement.
For example:
The Parties acknowledge that any statutory royalty entitlement which is required by applicable law to be administered, collected or distributed through a duly authorised copyright society shall remain subject to such statutory framework and the applicable rules and distribution arrangements of such society.
The contract should not casually state that the creator “waives all rights to collect through IPRS” if the effect would be to circumvent a statutory protection.
Include accounting obligations
A commercially useful agreement should provide:
The assignee/licensee shall maintain complete and accurate records of exploitation of the Sound Recording and shall provide royalty or usage statements to the Composer/Lyricist at such intervals as specified in this Agreement, subject to applicable law and the rights administered by any copyright society.
Address future forms of exploitation
Instead of relying only on “all media now known or hereafter devised”, identify exploitation categories wherever commercially practical.
This can include:
- streaming;
- downloads;
- mobile services;
- caller tunes;
- television;
- radio;
- public performance;
- advertising;
- promotional use;
- synchronisation;
- short-form video;
- social media;
- licensing and sublicensing.
The broader the grant, the more important the royalty and accounting provisions become.
A Rights-Review Checklist for Composers and Lyricists
Before signing an agreement, creators should ask:
- What exactly am I assigning?
- Am I assigning the composition, the lyrics, the recording, or all three?
- Who will own the master?
- What rights remain with me?
- Does the contract contain a royalty provision?
- Does it attempt to waive statutory royalty rights?
- What does the agreement say about IPRS or another copyright society?
- Who will collect royalties?
- Will I receive royalty statements?
- What happens if the master is sold to another label?
- What happens if the song is licensed to a streaming platform?
- What happens if a new recording is made?
- What happens if the song is adapted or recreated?
- Is the agreement governed by the law applicable at the time of execution?
- Are the territorial and duration provisions clearly stated?
The most important question may be:
Is the agreement transferring the master, the underlying work, or both?
Those are not interchangeable.
A Rights-Review Checklist for Producers and Music Labels
Producers and labels should approach the issue from the opposite direction.
Before exploiting or acquiring a catalogue, they should verify:
- the identity of the composer;
- the identity of the lyricist;
- the original commissioning arrangement;
- the first ownership position;
- every subsequent assignment;
- the date of each assignment;
- whether assignments comply with statutory requirements;
- whether royalty rights are affected by Section 18 or Section 19;
- whether rights have been assigned to a copyright society;
- whether the intended exploitation requires additional licensing;
- whether the chain of title covers digital exploitation;
- whether the agreement covers adaptations and new recordings;
- whether sublicensing is permitted; and
- whether the catalogue contains pre-2012 agreements requiring separate historical analysis.
A catalogue acquisition should therefore be treated as a copyright due-diligence exercise, not merely a purchase of master recordings.
Common Mistakes in Tamil Film Music Agreements
Several recurring drafting mistakes create unnecessary disputes.
Treating “music rights” as a single asset
A contract should distinguish composition, lyrics and sound recording.
Assuming master ownership equals underlying-work ownership
It does not necessarily follow.
Using blanket waiver language
A clause attempting to waive statutory rights may be ineffective to the extent it conflicts with mandatory provisions of the Copyright Act.
Ignoring the date of the original agreement
A 1980 agreement and a 2020 agreement cannot automatically be analysed under identical assumptions.
Failing to account for later exploitation
Streaming, digital licensing and new recordings can create rights questions that were not commercially obvious when an original agreement was signed.
Ignoring copyright-society arrangements
Where rights are administered collectively, the contractual structure needs to account for the statutory framework governing the society and the relevant repertoire.
What the Recent Case Law Means for Tamil Cinema
Taken together, the jurisprudence provides several practical propositions.
First, the underlying musical and literary works are legally distinct from the sound recording.
Second, the 2012 amendment materially strengthened statutory protection for specified royalty rights of authors and composers.
Third, a broad contractual assignment does not automatically eliminate a statutory royalty entitlement that the law makes incapable of assignment or waiver.
Fourth, the commercial exploitation of a sound recording can raise independent questions concerning the underlying literary and musical works.
Fifth, the exact outcome can depend heavily on the wording and date of the relevant agreements.
Sixth, the Ilaiyaraaja litigation demonstrates that historical film-music catalogues require careful chain-of-title analysis rather than assumptions based solely on present-day possession of masters.
Seventh, the Vodafone Idea litigation demonstrates the continuing commercial importance of copyright societies and the statutory rights associated with underlying works.
These principles are particularly significant in Kollywood because Tamil cinema has an exceptionally deep catalogue of music created under contracts from very different eras.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is intended solely as a general legal information resource concerning the Copyright Act, 1957 and Indian copyright law. It is not legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for examination of the specific agreement, rights chain or factual circumstances of a particular song, film or recording.
Copyright law is highly fact-sensitive. The legal position may depend upon the date on which a work was created, the date on which an agreement was executed, the precise contractual language, the identity of the parties, the nature of the rights assigned or licensed, subsequent assignments, the manner of exploitation and amendments to applicable legislation or judicial interpretation.
The 2012 amendment should therefore not be applied mechanically to historical agreements.
In particular, the statutory protection of royalty rights should not be interpreted as creating an unlimited entitlement to royalties from every exploitation of every film song. The statutory provisions contain specific conditions, limitations and exceptions, including the treatment of communication of the work along with a cinematograph film in a cinema hall.
The discussion of judicial decisions in this article is intended to explain legal principles and should not be read as a determination of rights in any particular song or catalogue.
Parties dealing with composers, lyricists, producers, music labels, broadcasters, streaming platforms or copyright societies should obtain transaction-specific legal advice before entering into or relying upon an assignment, licence or royalty arrangement.
In Copyright Law, “The Song” Is Not One Asset
Tamil cinema’s music industry demonstrates why copyright law cannot be reduced to the simple question of who owns a song.
A song may contain a musical work owned by a composer, lyrics owned by a lyricist, a sound recording owned by a producer or label, and a cinematograph film owned or controlled by another party.
The 2012 amendment changed the commercial balance by protecting specified royalty rights of authors of literary and musical works.
The subsequent jurisprudence has made the distinction between these rights increasingly important.
The Calcutta High Court’s decision in Vodafone Idea v. IPRS demonstrates the continuing significance of statutory royalty rights in the commercial exploitation of sound recordings.
The Delhi High Court’s 2026 decision in Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama demonstrates, in the context of a celebrated Tamil-film composition, that copyright in the underlying musical work can remain legally distinct from copyright in the sound recording.
These cases should not be collapsed into one universal rule.
They illustrate a more important principle:
Copyright in a film song is a layered bundle of rights, and each layer must be traced separately.
For composers and lyricists, the lesson is that signing an agreement described as an “all rights” assignment does not necessarily mean that every statutory royalty protection disappears.
For producers and labels, the lesson is equally important: acquiring a master does not eliminate the need for careful analysis of the underlying works and the statutory rights attached to them.
And for entertainment lawyers, the practical task is clear: separate the composition, lyrics, sound recording and film rights; identify the statutory royalty protections; establish the date and chain of title; and draft the commercial agreement around those distinctions rather than attempting to solve everything through a blanket assignment clause.
In Tamil cinema, therefore, the legally meaningful question is not simply:
“Who owns the song?”
It is:
“Who owns the composition, who owns the lyrics, who owns the master, what rights were actually assigned, what statutory royalty rights survive, and how is the work being commercially exploited today?”
That is the question the post-2012 copyright framework requires the industry to ask.
Need help auditing your music catalogue or drafting a bulletproof entertainment agreement?
Protect your creative works and navigate complex statutory royalty rights with expert guidance from a dedicated music industry lawyer in Chennai. Get in touch with DS Legal today to schedule a consultation.