ABSTRACT:
In this era of digitization and viral content creation, Indian music industry stands at the intersection of tradition and innovation. A resurgence of remixing and sampling practices has been witnessed by the industry, driven by technological advancements. While it seems to be commercially lucrative, these practices occupy a grey zone in the legal field under the Copyright Act,1957.
This article will explore the complex intersection between the copyright law and musical creativity in India, particularly emphasized on recent disputes, the normative role of cultural exceptions and propose reforms to accommodate transformative creativity in a better way while safeguarding the rights of original creators.
INTRODUCTION:
Remixing is now a dominant mode of musical production in India, from revamping Bollywood classics to Instagram-driven mashups- often remastered with contemporary beats, visual aesthetics. Undoubtedly this is commercially profitable, the platforms like Youtube, Spotify in collaboration with major labels such as T-Series and Saregama ensured high level marketing which often results to outperforming original compositions in views and revenues.
However, it simultaneously raises critical concerns regarding the moral rights violations, misappropriation and insufficient legal clarity from the side of original creators and composers. Thus, this tension again prompts the question: Can India’s copyright law accommodate remix culture without infringing creator’s moral rights?
LEGAL FRAMEWORK: COPYRIGHT AND MORAL RIGHTS IN INDIA:
Section 14[1] of the Copyright Act, 1957 grants copyright owners exclusive economic rights including reproduction, adaptation, distribution and public communication. In musical world these rights refers to:
1. Musical works (Composition+ notation)
2. Lyrics (Literary works)
3. Sound recordings
Section 2(p)[2] says, “musical work” means a work consisting of music and includes any graphical notation of such work but does not include any words or any action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music;
Also. Section 14 (e)[3] infers that the parties have to take permission from the original authors to make changes on that work, the original author possess full authority to supervise the reproduction of his work.
Section 2(d)(i)[4] of the Copyright Act, 1957 says that, in the case of literary or dramatic work, the person who writes it will be the author of the work. The lyrics of a song are also considered as a literary work, and the author will be the lyricist. Therefore, the lyricist can obtain copyright protection over the lyrical portion of the song.
Section 57 safeguards ‘moral rights’ which persists along with the economic rights of the author, reads:
(1) Independently of the author’s copyright and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right
(a) to claim authorship of the work; and
(b) to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the said work if such distortion, mutilation, modification or other act would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation[5]
The issue of moral rights were first recognised in the case of Manu Bhandari vs. Kala Vikas Pictures[6].
According to Section 51[7] of the act unlicensed remixing or sampling of substantial parts of a musical work or sound recording subject to infringement.
“The Act is not willing to divulge information on statutory licenses to make remixes. Section 31(c)[8] of the Act states about the licensing of cover versions. The provision seems to proscribe the making of cover recordings without prior consent. It proclaims that “The person making such sound recordings shall not make any alteration in the literary or musical work which has not been made previously by or with the consent of the owner of rights, or which is not technically necessary for the purpose of making the sound recordings”. Notwithstanding, for all practical justifications, an individual can create remixes without permission, thereby attenuating the rights of the original owner. To this day, it is obscure that whether the law apprehends remixes as cover versions under the said Act.”[9]
“Article 6[10] of the Berne Convention mentions the ‘Right to Reproduction’ which states that, “the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification, which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation”10 Moreover, Article 8[11] of the WIPO Copyright treaty mentions that ‘Right of communication to the Public’ which states that, “authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.” [12]
Fair use & Cultural exceptions: Section 52[13]of the act provides the list of “fair dealings” exceptions limited primarily to the uses for private research, criticism, review and reporting. In the U.S., landmark case of Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music Inc.[14] (1994) expanded the scope of fair use by emphasizing that the new work should add something alteration with a different character or different purpose, expression and meaning.
On the other hand, the Indian framework remains formalistic, with minimal consideration for the evolving nature of musical creativity and lacks judicial recognition of ‘transformative use’. Civil Chandran v. Amini Amma[15], Kerala HC allows substantial copying of public interest, frame analogies for transformative use.
RECENT CASE LAWS & CONTROVERSIES:
India’s remix culture has its roots since early 2000s, but streaming platforms turns it into a high-volume profit driven-enterprise.
The Falguni Pathak Neha Kakkar’s case (2022): Neha Kakkar’s modernized remake of ‘maine payal hai chahankai’ (originally sung by Falgumi Pathak in 1999) received severe backlash from public for being disrespectful to the original emotional essence as well as from the original singer. No legal action was taken, but ignited debate over whether moral rights should protect against aesthetic changes in remixes. [16]
Badshah’s controversy (2023): Badshah’sGenda Phool controversy illustrates how uncredited use of traditional folk lyric even if presented in the public domain can violate an author’s moral and economic rights. [17]
Ilaiyaraaja vs. Agi Music & Ors. (2019 Madras HC)[18], The Madras HC reaffirms that the composer retains moral rights under Section 57 of the act even if the economic rights of sound recording assigned to the producer under section 17(b)of the act. Consent is required in case of any adaptation or alteration prejudicial to composer’s reputation. [19]
THE WAY FORWARD: TOWARDS A BALALNCED LEGAL APPROACH
- The Copyright Act should be amended to recognize the approach of transformative use as a distinct category under fair dealing with clear guidelines.
- Specific thresholds such as duration, modification, attribution can be defined through statutory amendments or industry guidelines.
- Simplified and centralized licensing models for remix rights is needed for broadcasting with equitable remuneration to original authors and performers.
- The author’s right over the royalty and other benefits need to be safeguarded as 2012 amendment was not able to resolve he problems in Remix culture. The exploitation of the composers and songwriters should be protected.
CONCLUSION:
The Remix culture neither completely destructive nor purely innovative, it occupies a grey space which requires legal upgradation. Copyright law in India stands at the critical point where original creators rights must be safeguarded. In this transformative era of music making, the question is not whether to allow remixing, but how to regulate it fairly and forwardly.
[1] The Copyright Act 1957, s 14.
[2] ibid s 2(b)
[3] ibid s 14(e)
[4] ibid s 2(d)(i)
[5] Copyright Act 1957, s 57
[6] Manu Bhandari v Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt Ltd AIR 1987 Del 13
[7] ibid s 51
[8] The Copyright Act 1957, s 31C
[9] ‘Legality of remix music in accordance with copyright laws in India’, Lexology (Sakshar Law Associates, 31 January 2022) accessed 11 August 2025 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f9a18338-7502-4bbd-ae32-5dca7761cd3c
[10] Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (adopted 9 September 1886, last amended 28 September 1979) art 6bis
[11] WIPO Copyright Treaty (adopted 20 December 1996, entered into force 6 March 2002) art 8
[12] An Analysis of Legality of Remix Culture: Compliance or Violation of Copyright Laws’, Manupatra (accessed 11 August 2025), https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/AN-ANALYSIS-OF-LEGALITY-OF-REMIX-CULTURE-COMPLIANCE-OR-VIOLATION-OF-COPYRIGHT-LAWS
[13] The Copyright Act 1957, s 52
[14] Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc 510 US 569 (1994)
[15] Civil Chandran v Amini Amma 1996 SCC Online Ker 271
[16] In controversy over remixed Falguni Pathak song, thorny questions of ownership, rights and respect’ The Indian Express (29 September 2022) https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/music/falguni-pathak-neha-kakkar-maine-payal-hai-chhankai-remix-controversy-8133134/ accessed 11 August 2025.accessed 12 August 2025.
[17] ‘Here’s everything to know about Badshah’s Genda Phool controversy’ The Indian Express (2 April 2020) https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/music/badshah-genda-phool-ratan-kahar-bengali-folk-song-copyright-6342128/ accessed 12 August 2025.
[18] Ilaiyaraaja v Agi Music & Ors 2019 SCC Online Mad 1234
[19] M/S Agi Music Sdn Bhd v Ilaiyaraja (Madras High Court, 24 November 2007) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1285410/ accessed 12 August 2025
Authored by: Ms. Bristee Biswas
Ms. Bristee Biswas is a fourth-year law student at Heritage Law College (University of Calcutta), she is passionate about Intellectual Property Rights, Corporate Law, and legal research. She has actively participated in moot court competitions, debates, and public speaking events, and she enjoys writing on contemporary legal developments. Her interests also extend to exploring intersections of law, technology, and culture. On a lighter note, She is an avid traveler at heart, loves exploring new places, and has a keen interest in literature and creative expression.
Leave a Reply