New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has directed acclaimed music composer A R Rahman and the makers of the film ‘Ponniyin Selvan 2’ to deposit ₹2 crore with the court following a copyright lawsuit over Junior Dagar brothers’ classical rendition of ‘Shiv Stuti’.
Justice Prathiba M Singh, in an interim order passed on April 25, ruled that from a listener’s point of view, the core of Rehman’s song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ in the film was “not just inspired but is, in fact, identical” in notes, emotion and aural impact to the ‘Shiva Stuti’.
It was in violation of the rights of the original composers of the musical tribute to Lord Shiva, the judge said.
The court directed insertion of a slide in the film on all OTT and online platforms to give due credit to Junior Dagar Brothers Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar for the composition, and also awarded ₹2 lakh as costs to the family member of the late artists.
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, the son of Faiyazuddin Dagar and nephew of Zahiruddin Dagar, contended in the lawsuit that he held the copyright in all original compositions of Junior Dagar Brothers, including ‘Shiv Stuti’, which the defendants had unlawfully infringed.
“In the ultimate analysis, therefore, this court holds that the impugned song is not merely based on or inspired from the suit composition Shiva Stuti but is, in fact, identical to the suit composition with mere change in lyrics. The adding of other elements may have rendered the impugned song more like a modern composition but the basic underlying musical work is identical,” the court held.
“Hence the defendant’s composition infringes the plaintiff’s rights in Shiva Stuti.”
The defendants Rahman, Madras Talkies and Lyca Productions shall deposit ₹2 crore with the court and the same shall be kept in a fixed deposit, subject to the final outcome of the lawsuit, the HC clarified.
It said the plaintiff had a prima facie case for copyright infringement by the defendants and if an interim order was not passed in his favour, “irreparable injury would be caused to the creative rights and moral rights of the original composers who are no longer alive”.
“Defendant number 1 who has earned global acclaim, initially did not give any recognition to the plaintiff’s work. When the plaintiff contacted defendant number 1, the acknowledgement was given albeit reluctantly,” it said.
“The defendant numbers 6 and 7 who sang the impugned song are disciples of the plaintiff. These facts demonstrate the intricate link to the Shiva Stuti and Veera Raja Veera musical compositions,” the court observed.
The balance of convenience is thus in favour of the plaintiff as once the movie and song lose their audience by the time the trial is concluded, the plaintiff would have lost any possibility of effective acknowledgement, it said.
Rahman’s counsel had argued that ‘Shiv Stuti’ was based on the traditional dhrupad genre which was in the public domain, and since the manner of singing and the composition itself was not original, it was not capable of copyright protection.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
