You could say the court has put a line in the sand on this matter of nostalgia. In a case with an audience of fans and filmmakers alike, Saregama has come out ahead, clamping down on the song’s lyrics and recording. Ilaiyaraaja can no longer assert copyright over the track as a whole.
Why fans and filmmakers should care
Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, in a division bench, made it clear that under a 1980 deal with the producer of Moodu Pani, Saregama India Limited is the one who owns the sound recordings. What is left to Ilaiyaraaja is the right to the composition alone.
They put it in a way you won’t forget: "A song is just a song, a thing of joy to lighten a dreary evening. That is, till it becomes the subject matter of copyright conflict in a court of law, when it suddenly metamorphoses into much more.” He is free to work with the music, but he doesn’t have the authority to let others use the lyrics or the recording.
Nor can he hand over those rights to Vels Film International Ltd. The judges’ view is that the lyrics are the lyricist’s, and the sound recording is the film producer’s – and by extension, Saregama’s.
Think of it as the fine print of the remix age, only in bold. Yes, the composer is the first owner of the work. But that doesn’t mean the vocals or the written word come along for the ride. They are someone else’s to handle.
So if you want to put together a remake, you are looking at a more divided process. One licence for the record, one for the lyrics, and a different one for the composition. The court even called the lyrics a ‘no man’s land’ as far as Ilaiyaraaja is concerned.
Here are the takeaways creators will actually use:
– Composer can adapt only the musical component
– Lyrics need permission from the lyricist or owner
– Sound recording requires the label or producer’s nod
– Film and musical copyrights can coexist separately
– Licences unlock use, as with Rs 30 lakh
How this dispute reached court
It all started in January 2025 when Saregama filed suit against Ilaiyaraaja, Vels and Divo TV over a version of the song in Aghathiyaa. A single judge saw Saregama as the owner and put a hold on the remake. Then, after Saregama was paid a Rs 30 lakh fee from VFIL, the court let the Aghathiyaa version go ahead.
Ilaiyaraaja took that to appeal, contending that as the one who wrote the music, he had the final say on adaptations and had given his ok for Aghathiyaa. He put it to the court that the producer of Moodu Pani had no right to adapt the work, so Saregama couldn’t either. Saregama’s side of it was simple: they weren’t the author of the literary part, and the 1980 arrangement gave them the recording.
What the judges clarified about ownership
The bench went through the rights one by one. They confirmed Ilaiyaraaja’s copyright in the composition is intact, pointing to Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act to show that putting a song in a film doesn’t wipe out the composer’s rights.
They also put aside the idea that the first proviso to Section 17 had stripped the composer of ownership; there was no evidence of a service contract to make that stick. And as for a 2023 paper between Ilaiyaraaja and Vels that was supposed to cede rights to the original and its works? The court said he can’t give what he doesn’t have.
A legacy work at the centre
‘En Iniya Pon Nilave’ is in the DNA of Tamil cinema. With K J Yesudas on the mic and Ilaiyaraaja’s score – some say his 100th film – it is as much an emotional tussle as a legal one.
But the bench wants clean lines. The producer, now Saregama, has the recording. The lyricist has the words. Ilaiyaraaja has the music, but not the song in its entirety.
What comes next
In the end, for a project like Aghathiyaa, you have to keep your agreements in order. The injunction for Saregama is in place. You can use the recording or the words if you have the owner’s say-so.
Ilaiyaraaja is still welcome to do what he will with the musical part. For the rest of us, the takeaway is plain: a hit is not a one-size-fits-all licence. It is three. And as the court has shown, you can’t put a legal claim on a feeling.
