New Delhi: A song composed by AR Rahman for Mani Ratnam’s 2023 Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan: II The Delhi High Court has been found to be similar to a classical composition. On Friday, the court ordered the Oscar -winning musician and Ratnam’s production Madras Talki to pay Rs 2 crore for copyright violations.
In 2023, Indian classical singer Ustad Fayaz Vasifuddin Dagar transferred the High Court to the High Court, alleging that there was a title title. Veera Raja Veera The film was copied from the creation of his father and uncle, Shiva stuti,
Dagger’s father and uncle -osal n. Fayazuddin Dagar and Ustad N. Zahiruddin Dagar -Sang – Hindustani classical music in its family tradition as a pair, known as the Dagravani or Gharna style, and popularly known as Junior Dagar Brothers.
Show full article
The petitioner told the court that his ancestors were Dhrupad singer for about 20 generations. He himself was awarded the Padma Shri in 2010.
Dagar argued that the composition was written by Junior Dagar Brothers for some time in the 1970s, and was borne as his joint writer, making him the first copyright holder of work.
On Friday, a bench of Justice Pratibha Singh found Rahman’s song similar to the heavenly brothers, and said, “The song is not just inspired or motivated by suit composition. Shiva stutiBut in fact, the only suit with change in the song is similar to composition. ,
Keeping in mind the claim of the Dagar, the court mentioned in its 121-Page order that the other elements may have provided Rahman’s song “Peacock like a Modern Composition”, but the original underlying music work was the same.
Relying on the test of violations in Ram Sampat vs Rajesh Roshan (2008), the court replied to the question whether Rachna’s “soul” was copied, saying that it would be a determinant test.
“In this case, the origin of the song imposed Veera Raja Veera Not only is inspired, but is actually similar to the vowels (notes), bhava (emotion) and suit composition. Shiva stutiFrom the perspective of a late listener. Therefore, the composition of the defendant violates the rights of the plaintiff Shiva stuti“The court rejected the rescue of Rahman and the manufacturer Shiva stuti There was a traditional creation, which had no special rights.
However, the court stated that raga, rhythm and stylistic traditions become part of the public domain and all can be used independently, there is a grip. Whenever “a musician arranges, selects, and expresses music notes within these outlines in an original and creative way, and if the specific composition is eligible as” music work “for copyright protection under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which lists various types of copyright, which includes copyright, which includes copyright.
Saying that there was no hesitation in concluding that music works based on Hindustani classical music could be original compositions and original music works, the court ruled, “Suit composition Shiva stuti Such is a basic composition and cannot be deprived of its originality. ,
The court directed that Rahman, along with the producers of the film, deposits an amount of Rs 2 crore with the Registrar General of the High Court, and will be subject to the result of the suit test.
The court also honored the Dagar at a cost of Rs 2 lakh, which will be paid by Rahman and producers within a period of four weeks. In addition, the court ordered that all OTT and online platforms, where the film and the song have been streamful, have to take the credit in relation to the song, saying that the composition is “based on a Dagarwani tradition Dhupada”.
Also read: Why disability rights non-profit has shifted Delhi HC against Swiggy and Zepto
What is copyright?
A “copyright” is an authority given by law to the creators of literary, dramatic, music and artistic works, and cinematographic films and producers of sound recording.
Simply put, it is a bundle of rights, including the right to breeding, communication for the public, adaptation of work and translation. The Act of 1957 wants to protect creative functions that are considered as the manufacturer’s intellectual property (IP).
This can be violated if a large part of the copyright work is used without the authority. In cases of copyright violations, the owners of the copyright can take legal action. Such an owner will also be entitled to treatment, such as prohibitory orders and disadvantages.
Case case
Through his petition, Dagar sought a permanent and compulsory prohibition for the recognition of copyright, which would prevent unauthorized use of creative works of his father and uncle. A permanent prohibition is a court order, which requires a person to take or close a specific action that is issued as a final decision in a case.
In particular, Dagar demanded to stop Rahman and PS -2 Producer, Madras Talkies, using the composition as part of the song Veera Raja VeeraWithout receiving the authority from it, and without holding the moral rights of the original writers or musicians.
In addition, he also sought credit for Junior Dagar Brothers, whenever the song is played in various mediums, including digital, internet, OTT platform, satellite, cable television, and so on.
On the other hand, Rahman and the manufacturers argued that the composition of the dagger was not the original itself because it was a traditional creation. He further stated that the Dhrupad style goes back to Samaveda, which is more than 3,000 years old. Since the above style is known and its practice is common for thousands of artists and musicians, no copyright can be, they argued.
Rejecting this argument, the court stated that “every work or composition that is made in a particular style or raga or style, follows the basic principles of the said style or raga”, but it cannot be said that because they follow a particular discipline, there can be no originality.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)