Music, Sampling, Remixes And Copyright: Is Indian Legal Framework Still Struck In CD Era?

On August 5, 2024, the single Chuttamalle debuted and streamed from the Indian motion picture Devara: Part 1. The music was created by Anirudh Ravichander and the lyrics were written by Ramajogayya Sastry. Within hours of its release, netizens were quick to compare Chuttamalle and the song that has gone viral in Sri Lanka and around the world, Manike Mage Hithe. Manike was originally written by Chamath Sangeeth in 2020, and a cover by performer Yohani launched the track further into fame in 2021.

Listeners to the new song drew comparisons to the instrumental arrangements, shared chord progressions and style of rhythm and melodic feel. As is the norm with music industry discussions, some netizens quickly accused Anirudh Ravichander of copying Manike, while others defended the composition as a musical homage or inspiration. Notably, Chamath Sangeeth himself expressed that he welcomed the comparison and told a media outlet that it was energizing to work with Anirudh and that he respected Anirudh's creativity.

Because of all of this activity, there was no legal dispute to follow; however, some larger questions are raised regarding copyright law, the new remix culture, and the streaming era.

Copyright in Tune: Adaptation, Remix & Public Release

1. Adaptation (Section2(a))

Definition: Adaptation is the creation of new works from previously existing works - for example, transforming a song into a different form, arrangement or medium.

Types of adaptations may include:

a) Changing the arrangement and/or orchestration of a composition.

b) Taking a tune and pairing with new lyrics.

Law's Intention: For a work to be a copyrightable new work, the adaptation must require skill and judgment (not just duplication) to create additional copyrightable subject matter.

2. Remixes/Cover Versions (Section 52(1)(j))

It basically said making a sound recording of a musical work for the purpose of creating a cover version would not represent copyright Read more infringement, if the creator had:

a) Provided notice to the original copyright holder of the intention to create a cover version.

b) Paid a royalty fee to the original copyright holder.

3. Communication to the Public (Section 2(ff))

Definition: Making available to the public, by any means — broadcast, streaming, live performance, upload to YouTube, etc.

But in fact, these ideas often come into conflict with a digital-age remix culture that tends to spread inspiration quickly, and resolve disputes socially (like in Chuttamalle) rather than legally.

Key Indian Case Law

Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (Delhi HC, 2010)

In this case, the plaintiff, Gramophone Company of India, claimed it had copyright in old Hindi film songs, while the defendant, Super Cassettes (T-Series), had produced new recordings based on those songs without giving proper notice to Gramophone or compensating it. The issue in the case was whether or not those recordings could be characterized as lawful "cover versions” under Section 52(1)(j) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The Court held that cover versions can only lawfully be made and marketed under the Copyright Act when there are narrow conditions co-existing with the necessary statutory provisions, including giving; notice to the copyright holder and paying a royalty. Since the defendant did not do this, the recordings comprising of the record producers' cover versions were copyright infringements of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the case confirmed that the cover version exception can only be utilized narrowly, copyright owners are entitled to the use, scope and control of their works on an exclusive basis until they choose not to, and unless the statutory provisions on cover versions are followed, copyright owners retain their control over their copyright works.

Why the 2012 Copyright Amendment Falls Short in the Streaming Era

The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 was a significant reform in India to allow a middle ground between the competing interests of creators (i.e. authors, lyricists, composers) and producers (i.e. film/music companies). The Act also introduced provisions that made it impossible for authors of literary and musical works in films and sound recordings to assign away their respective rights to receive royalties. Section 18 and 19 were amended to ensure that even after assigning rights to producers, creators would receive a portion any time their works were exploited commercially (i.e. broadcasts/plays at restaurants/use at concerts, etc). This was designed to favour artists over large producers and music labels that used to exploit complete control over distribution and sales.

While the 2012 Amendment to India's Copyright Act was progressive, it lags behind the changing realities of the streaming and YouTube age and raises many issues. Chief among these is the uncertainty surrounding the calculation of streaming royalties: the law was written with more traditional forms that does not clarify how royalties should be calculated and shared on platforms that thrive on micro-payments and advertising revenue, like Spotify, YouTube, or short-form video apps. As a result, creators receive a mere fraction of what producers take home. Another issue concerns the platforms' liability. While the Act imposes obligations on producers and collective management organizations such as IPRS, it does not bind digital platforms, leaving authors and composers with little to no bargaining power over the terms under which platforms engage with song producers. Additionally, although the law is territorial, music consumption is inherently global, meaning that songs released in India immediately consume an international audience. The consequence of this misalignment is that unequal enforcement and royalty collection can occur across jurisdictions. Further, the issue of user-generated content (UGC) has not been satisfactorily resolved, as this legislation comes at a time when platforms like YouTube are actively promoting remixes, covers, and mashups, while the Amendment does not provide a clear way to determine how a copyright protected work is to be paid for when it is used in conjunction with UGC. These gaps are emblematic of a pressing need for a contemporary framework that addresses the challenges presented by digital distribution, platform economies and participatory culture.

Remix Culture and Copyright: A Comparative View of US, UK, and India

In the United States, landmark cases on sampling including Grand Upright v. Warner Bros. and Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films affirmed that licensing even small samples is required, whereas transformative works categorized as parody or remix are protected by the fair use doctrine (as was the case in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose). In the UK, fair dealing exceptions are narrower to the scope of intended use for criticism, review, parody, or pastiche and provides less flexibility for remix culture; there has been growing recognition of transformative creativity. In India, although the 2012 Copyright Amendment protected authors' moral rights and their entitlements to a royalty, the law provides limited clarity regarding sampling and transformative fair use, and instead relies on a de minimis test and an infringement test. These legal regimes create tension because remix culture is fundamentally about borrowing and transformation, while Indian copyright law primarily protects creators' reputational rights, which has proven challenging for digital first rights holders in practices like streaming, YouTube remixes, and sampling.

Reforming Law for the Remix and Streaming Era

A reform of copyright legislation as applicable to music is immediately needed to be responsive to a new version of creativity and consumption that reflects the realities of modernity. The first move should be to allow compulsory licensing for remixes. This would allow creators to license their use of an original at a set royalty rate without lengthy negotiations. This move would benefit the original artist by compensating them for uses of their music while providing new opportunities for new musicians! Second, there needs to be clarity in the rules surrounding sampling because as the law stands, it should clearly indicate when a short sample, loop, and/or beat is being infringed upon. It should also explain when the use of short samples, loops, or beats are permissible artistic applications such as de minimis or transformative. Once artists clearer standards to follow, they would be less uncertain, and may even lessen frivolous lawsuits by artists who don't understand the law and would be more likely to use the law legitimately! In addition, today the law was literally drafted and developed in an era where the focus was physical media such as CD, vinyl, etc. Today we have streaming, mashups, TikTok, AI generated music, etc. and cross-border digital circulation. The law must address these obsolescence border issues if it is to help creators protect their rights and revenue while promoting creativity, cultural exchange, and developing a productive and viable system that recognizes and provides appropriate protections for the present-day cultural economy to work within the new realities of the global music community. Additionally, India's copyright law needs to develop to achieve balance between protection and innovation, promote and compensate artists and recognize remix culture that characterizes contemporary music ecosystems.

The author is a 2nd Year Law Student at Birla Global University, Bhubaneswar. Views are personal.