Ilaiyaaraja, the maestro who revolutionized Indian film music, has recently found himself at the center of a heated debate on artistic ownership and intellectual property rights. The controversy stems from his legal actions against fellow artistes and close associates, the latest one being the action against the makers of Rajinikanth’s Coolie for using his tune Disco Disco from Thanga Magan without proper authorization. This dispute has raised fundamental questions about the nature of art, ownership, and the rights of creators versus the employer of the artiste, in this case, film producers.
The Maestro’s standpoint
Ilaiyaaraja, often hailed as one of the greatest composers in Indian cinema, has a rich legacy that spans over four decades and includes more than 7,000 songs. Ilaiyaaraja’s actions are grounded in the belief that as the creator of these compositions, he retains exclusive rights to their usage. He is against the copyright owners using the song for extra money by selling it to other filmmakers and streaming sites.
The musician is currently fighting a case in the Madras High Court against the Echo Recording Company, which happens to hold the copyrights of about 4500 songs of Ilaiyaraaja. From Ilaiyaaraja’s viewpoint, unauthorized use of his music undermines his creative efforts and economic rights. His legal actions against even close friends and collaborators are seen as a necessary measure to win the case against Echo. The composer’s fight touches upon a border issue that goes beyond his gains.
The other side of the argument
On the flip side, critics argue that Ilaiyaaraja’s rigid stance on copyright enforcement is detrimental to the collaborative spirit that defines music and film industries. Music, especially in the context of cinema, is often a collective effort involving directors, actors, and other musicians. Echo’s legal counsel has argued that a song cannot solely belong to Ilaiyaraaja as it belongs to lyricists, singers, and other players who were part of its creation.
Many also believe that Ilaiyaaraja’s legal battles, particularly against close associates, tarnish his public image and erode the goodwill he has built over the years. These actions are perceived as contradictory to the camaraderie and mutual respect that have traditionally characterized the film industry. For instance, Ilaiyaaraja’s legal dispute with S.P Balasubrahmanyam, a celebrated playback singer and his long-time collaborator, left fans immensely disappointed. Recently, Ilaiyaraaja also filed a case against Manjummel Boys makers for using “Kanamani Anboda Kadhalan” from Gunaa. While fans celebrated the film for its incredible tribute to Ilaiyaraaja, the legal notice sent by the musician has been termed egoistic and unwarranted.
The broader implications
The controversy surrounding Ilaiyaaraja’s copyright claims extend beyond individual disputes, touching upon the existential question of who truly owns art. Is art the sole property of its creator, or does it belong to the audience and the wider cultural milieu once it is released into the public domain? This debate is not unique to Ilaiyaaraja; it reflects a global tension between protecting artistes’ rights and fostering a shared cultural heritage.
Ilaiyaraaja’s legal notice against Manjummel Boys hurts the audience because it disrespects the celebration and love the film enjoyed. Suddenly, a fan who cherished the incredible moment of the movie and the song as his own, feels that it can never be his.
Many musicians consider Ilaiyaraaja as their Dronacharya. They have claimed their very existence and success to the creator; Devi Sri Prasad for instance. They claim they were inspired by his music to become musicians themselves. Hence, an artwork, once released to the public domain, becomes something beyond the control of the creator. Thus, Ilaiyaaraja’s case underscores the need for a nuanced approach to copyright law that recognizes the rights of creators while also accommodating the collaborative nature of artistic endeavours. It has also opened a much-needed debate about copyrights and ownership in a country where the laws about intellectual property are still not defined with strict terms.
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
