Folk Music and its effects on Copyright Law: An In-Depth Analysis of Anamika Sood vs. Saregama

Introduction

The mechanisms of copyright enforcement, particularly automated or unilateral takedown notices on platforms such as YouTube, have increasingly become a point of headache for many creators and have also been a ground for dispute in various instances. You can see our past note and analysis on the copyright enforcement mechanism present on YouTube at https://iprmentlaw.com/2024/05/19/youtubes-policy-pitfalls-a-deep-dive-into-copyright-claims-and-safe-harbor-concerns/.

The recent case of Anamika Sood vs. Google LLC and Saregama India Ltd.[i] serves as an important reference point in examining the balance between copyright claims, rights of independent artists, and public domain status of traditional folk music.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arises from the plaintiff’s song titled “Ferrareee”. The plaintiff, Ms. Anamika Sood (“Plaintiff”), is an independent singer, composer, and songwriter. In March 2020, her representative, Mr. Asif Mohammad Khan, approached Saregama India Ltd. (“Saregama / Defendant”) to explore the acquisition of rights in the said song. It is averred that, during the course of negotiations in March 2020, the Plaintiff’s representative had shared a demo of the Plaintiff’s song with the Defendant and Defendant had knowledge of the Plaintiff’s work at an early stage and did not raise any objection at that time. The discussions with the label did not materialize and thereafter, in March 2021, the plaintiff independently released the song on digital platforms, including YouTube. The song received substantial traction and viewership within a short period.

However, on 11^th March 2021, the plaintiff was informed by YouTube that the song had been removed pursuant to a copyright takedown notice issued by Saregama. Saregama alleged that the plaintiff’s work reproduced the musical composition, of its song “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Da” from the 1957 film “Naya Daur”. Following the filing of the suit on 15^th March 2021, the takedown notice was withdrawn and the song was reinstated on 16^th March, 2021.

Pleadings of the Plaintiff

The plaintiff approached the Court and submitted as follows:

1. The plaintiff stated that she authored, composed, and performed the song “Ferrareee”.
2. The musical arrangement was composed by Mr. Harmeet Singh, who assigned all rights to the plaintiff through an Assignment Agreement dated 4 September 2020.
3. The plaintiff also obtained copyright registration for the lyrics. It was admitted that a portion of the tune was inspired by the traditional Punjabi folk song “Sadke Sadke Jandiya”.
4. However, it was contended that the song as a whole constituted a new and original work involving sufficient skill, labour, and judgment.
5. The plaintiff further alleged that the takedown notice was issued with mala fide intent, particularly in light of the failed commercial negotiations between the parties.
6. In relation to damages, the plaintiff initially claimed expenditure of approximately Rs. 35 lakhs towards marketing and promotions.
7. During final submissions, the claim was increased to Rs. 88,00,000, citing loss of sponsorships, cancellation of promotional opportunities, reduced viewership, and mental distress.

Pleadings of the Defendant

Saregama submitted as follows in its defence:

1. Saregama defended the takedown notice on the basis of its alleged ownership of copyright in the song “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Da”.
2. It was submitted that such ownership arose from an agreement dated 1955 with M/s BR Films, which was further supplemented by agreements in 2007 and 2015.
3. Saregama contended that the plaintiff had copied the “hook part” of the song, which constituted a substantial and identifiable portion of the work. It was argued that copying such a portion amounts to actionable infringement.
4. Saregama also questioned the plaintiff’s title over the work, pointing to inconsistencies in her testimony regarding the assignment agreement with the composer.
5. On the issue of damages, Saregama submitted that the plaintiff had failed to produce documentary evidence such as books of accounts, sponsorship agreements, or proof of revenue, and therefore the claim was unsubstantiated.

Issues:

The Court framed the following issues for determination:[ii]

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of copyright in the song “Ferrareee”.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages.
3. Whether the plaintiff has copied the defendant’s work.

Analysis by the Court:

Legal Framework

The Court initially examined the legal framework relating to authorship and ownership of copyright in a sound recording under the Copyright Act, 1957. Before granting a declaration of copyright in the sound recording “Ferrareee”, the Court stated that it was necessary to examine the originality of the underlying literary and musical works forming part of the sound recording.

The Court observed that Section 13(3)(b) of the Act provides that copyright would not subsist in a sound recording if the underlying literary, dramatic or musical works infringed any existing copyright. Accordingly, the Court held that the issue relating to the Plaintiff’s entitlement to copyright was intrinsically connected with the allegation of copying raised by Defendant, and both issues were required to be examined together.

Ownership and Originality

The Plaintiff contended that she had produced, written and performed the song “Ferrareee”, while the musical composition was created by Mr. Harmeet Singh (MixSingh), who had assigned all rights in her favour through an Assignment Deed dated 4^th September, 2020. The Plaintiff also relied upon a copyright registration certificate relating to the literary work.

The Court observed that although the registration pertained only to the literary and dramatic components of the song, it credibly supported the Plaintiff’s claim that the lyrics were her original creation.[iii]

Insofar as the musical composition was concerned, Defendant sought to dispute the Plaintiff’s ownership by relying upon certain portions of the cross-examination. However, upon examining the entire record, the Court held that the No Objection Certificate (Ex.PW1/4) and the Assignment Agreement (Ex.PW1/3) placed on record sufficiently established that the rights in the musical composition had been validly assigned in favour of the Plaintiff by Mr. Harmeet Singh (MixSingh).

The Court further observed that mere inconsistencies sought to be elicited during cross-examination, in the absence of any substantive rebuttal evidence, were insufficient to displace the documentary evidence proving such assignment. Accordingly, the Court held that the Plaintiff had duly established her rights in the musical work forming part of the song “Ferrareee”.

Folk Inspired Composition

The Plaintiff admitted before the Court that a portion of the musical composition of “Ferrareee” was inspired from the old Punjabi folk/traditional song “Sadke Sadke Jandiye Mutiyare Ni.”

The Court, therefore, examined the legal position relating to originality in derivative or inspired works and referred to the decision of Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak,[iv] wherein it was held that even a derivative work, if it involves sufficient skill, labour and minimal creativity, qualifies as an original work. Applying this test, the Court compared the Plaintiff’s song “Ferrareee” with the traditional Punjabi folk song and observed that the folk song had existed in the public domain for decades and formed part of the traditional cultural repertoire of Punjab. The Court noted that such traditional works, owing to their antiquity and absence of identifiable authorship, do not enjoy copyright protection and are part of the public domain.

Upon comparison, the Court found that although the Plaintiff’s song drew limited inspiration from the folk melody, the overall composition, arrangement, rhythm, lyrics, beat structure and production were materially distinct. The Court observed that the Plaintiff had incorporated modern musical elements, independent lyrical content and a distinct sound recording, thereby transforming the traditional base into a new expression. Accordingly, the Court held that the Plaintiff’s underlying literary and musical works satisfied the test of originality laid down in Eastern Book Company (supra), as the works involved sufficient skill, labour and a minimum degree of creativity.

The Court further referred to the decision of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Bathla Cassette Industries Pvt. Ltd.,[v] wherein the Delhi High Court, while relying upon R.G. Anand v. Delux Films,[vi] explained the legal position relating to works derived from traditional music and the extent of copyright protection available in such works. Applying the principles from RG Anand, the Court held that the Plaintiff’s song “Ferrareee” was, at best, inspired by a traditional folk melody which formed part of the public domain. The Court observed that the Plaintiff’s work constituted a distinct and original expression, with substantial differences in composition, lyrics and arrangement from the traditional folk song.

The Court further clarified that no monopoly or exclusivity could be claimed over the underlying folk tune by either the Plaintiff or Defendant since traditional folk compositions forming part of the public domain are incapable of exclusive ownership. The Court held that copyright, if any, would subsist only in the distinct expression, arrangement and creative elements introduced by a particular artist.

Infringement of Sound Recording?

The Court thereafter examined the allegation of copying raised by Defendant in relation to the Plaintiff’s song “Ferrareee.” Defendant contended that the Plaintiff had copied the “hook part” or musical composition from the song “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Da” from the film “Naya Daur.” Defendant claimed ownership over the said song on the basis of an Agreement dated 17^th October 1955 executed between M/s BR Films and the predecessor of Defendant, namely ‘The Gramophone Co. Ltd.’, along with subsequent supplementary agreements, through which copyright rights were allegedly assigned in its favor.

However, the Court observed that even assuming such assignment was valid, the rights remained subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Copyright Act. Since the song “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Da” had been published in 1957, copyright in the sound recording subsisted only for sixty years, i.e., till 2017. Accordingly, the Court held that on the date of institution of the suit in 2021, no subsisting copyright existed in the sound recording and Defendant could not claim infringement thereof.[vii]

Accordingly, the Court held that the Plaintiff’s song “Ferrareee” comprised original literary and musical works, despite drawing limited inspiration from a traditional Punjabi folk song in the public domain. The Court further held that the Plaintiff, being the producer, was the author and first owner of the sound recording under Sections 2(d)(v) and 17 of the Copyright Act and was entitled to a declaration of copyright in “Ferrareee.”

However, the Court clarified that the Plaintiff’s rights were confined only to her original expression embodied in the sound recording and did not extend to exclusivity over the traditional folk melody “Sadke Sadke Jandiye Mutiyare Ni,” which continued to remain in the public domain.[viii]

Damages

On the issue of damages, the Court noted that the Plaintiff originally claimed damages of Rs. 20,00,000/- in the plaint. However, at the stage of final written submissions, the Plaintiff enhanced the claim to Rs. 88,00,000/- by introducing a segregation of alleged losses under different heads.

The Court relied upon the decisions in Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Co.,[ix] and B.C. Hasaram & Sons v. Smt. Nirmala Agarwal,[x] wherein the Delhi High Court held that the burden of proving damages lies upon the plaintiff and damages cannot be awarded on the basis of speculative or hypothetical assertions.

The Court held that the Plaintiff had failed to sufficiently establish entitlement to the damages claimed. The Court observed that the enhanced claim of Rs. 88,00,000/- was unsupported by pleadings or evidence and appeared to be an afterthought. The Plaintiff had also failed to place on record documentary evidence such as account statements, proof of payments or verified records substantiating the alleged financial losses.

The Court further noted that, as per the Plaintiff’s own case, the impugned video had been taken down on 11.03.2021 and reinstated on 16.03.2021, and therefore the duration of removal was brief. Nevertheless, considering that the song had admittedly been taken down pursuant to the copyright strike issued by Defendant, the Court held that such temporary removal would have caused some inconvenience, loss of viewership and mental distress to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, while rejecting the substantial damages claimed, the Court awarded nominal damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Plaintiff towards mental agony, inconvenience, loss of viewership and revenue resulting from the takedown of the song.

Final Judgment:

The Court therefore partly gave judgement partly in favor of the plaintiff. It formally declared the plaintiff as the author and first owner of the sound recording “Ferrareee” explicitly noting that her rights were confined to her original expression and not the underlying public domain folk melody. The Court wholly rejected Saregama’s allegations of copyright infringement. Finally, the Court awarded the plaintiff Rs. 5,00,000 in nominal damages to compensate for the mental agony and lost viewership caused by the takedown, while directing both parties to bear their own legal costs.

Conclusion

The judgment gives a vital safeguard for independent creators and musicians in the music industry. The Court’s adherence to Section 27 of the Copyright Act is a triumph for legal clarity. This judgment serves as a stern reminder that intellectual property rights are not infinite, and copyright cannot be artificially extended beyond their legal scope.

The Court by acknowledging traditional folk music, like the tune “Sadke Sadke Jandiya”, protected the artistic tradition of drawing inspiration from such past compositions. If the Court had ruled in favor of Saregama, it would have set a dangerous precedent allowing corporations to monopolize folk melodies. The ruling correctly distinguishes between a public domain melody and the unique, modern expression of an artist.

---

[i] (CS (COMM) No. 170/2021)

[ii] Ibid, Para 32.

[iii] Ibid, Para 79.

[iv] (2008) 1 SCC 1.

[v] 2003 SCC OnLine Del 843.

[vi] (1978) 4 SCC 118.

[vii] Supra 1, Para 89.

[viii] Supra 1, Para 92.

[ix] 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5594.

[x] RFA(COMM) 214/2025.

Image generated on Dall-E