Unlike AR Rahman, Ilayaraja Lost Copyright In His Work When He Was Remunerated: Echo Recording Tells Madras High Court

The submissions were made before a bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq. The bench was hearing an appeal against an order of a single judge holding that Ilayaraja had moral rights over his work and could exploit the same. The court had previously said that Ilayaraja's commercial transactions with music streaming platforms will depend upon the outcome of the appeal. 

Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan, appearing for the music company argued that Ilayaraja had not retained the rights to the 4500 songs composed by him, unlike AR Rahman who added special clauses in the contract, thus retaining his copyright in his work even after giving it to the film producer. It was thus submitted that as per the agreements, as soon as Ilayaraja was remunerated for his work, he would lose all his rights in the work according to the Copyright Act. He added that if Ilayaraja wanted to retain his rights, he could have made an agreement to the contrary like most authors of the works did presently.

Narayan submitted that in the absence of a specific agreement retaining the rights, the first author of the musical work will be the employer who in this case was the producer. He added that in the present case, Ilayaraja did not have any proof to show that he had retained his rights in the music works composed by him.

Narayan also submitted that the single judge had erred in holding that Ilayaraja could exploit the works and was perhaps carried away by his present stature. He added that the single judge was bound by evidence and could not have held that proviso C of Section 17 Copyright Act did not apply to the present case as Ilayaraja could have never worked under a contract of service. He added that the court was bound by evidence and had to treat everyone before it equally.

The matter has been posted to June 19 for further arguments.

Case Title: M/s. Echo Recording Company v Ilaiyaraja and Others

Case No: OSA 51 of 2024