Latest news with #Karanjawala&Co
Mint
14-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Mint
A.R. Rahman case revives a frequent clash. But the remedy is hard to find
The copyright dispute between celebrated composer A. R. Rahman and the Junior Dagar brothers has brought into the spotlight a frequent clash between Indian classical music and mainstream film compositions. It's a subject mired in grey areas, where it's tough to separate inspiration from outright infringement. Preventive measures involve conducting music rights due diligence, seeking express permissions from custodians of traditional works, and crediting original authors, according to experts. But traditional musicians encounter obstacles such as the absence of formal copyright registration, oral transmission of works, and limited access to legal remedy, often making it more difficult to establish infringement. 'The legal terrain surrounding infringement of classical music by mainstream composers is fraught with questions of originality, authorship, moral rights, and derivative status," said Gaurav Sahay, founder partner, Arthashastra Legal. 'The intersection of traditional knowledge and commercial music requires nuanced judicial consideration." The Delhi High Court directed Rahman and the makers of Tamil period drama Ponniyin Selvan: Part Two to deposit ₹2 crore in connection with a copyright lawsuit by the Junior Dagar brothers' classical rendition of Shiv Stuti. The Dagar brothers argue that the song is a copy of their rendition of the Shiv Stuti in the Dhurpad genre. Also read |Film broadcast rights drop 10% in 2024 amid shift to streaming, piracy issues The Rahman case is not an isolated incident but part of a broader legal and cultural tension between the domains of classical compositions and popular music production, said Sahay. The core legal challenges involve originality versus a derivative work, which requires examination of sufficient creativity, arrangement, and distinct changes in the adaptation to merit protection. Classical compositions, especially those orally transmitted, often lack formal notations or copyright registrations, making documentation difficult. This makes it hard for the original creators or their heirs to prove ownership or authorship in legal proceedings. Similarly, issues involving moral rights and attribution, wherein, even if a work has entered the public domain, the moral right of attribution can still be invoked by the creator or their heirs on grounds of distortion or use without acknowledgement. Plagiarism Mainstream composers such as Anu Malik, Pritam, and Bappi Lahiri have also been accused of plagiarism regarding the copying of western melodies or occasionally from Indian folk or classical origins, said Meghna Mishra, senior partner at Karanjawala & Co. The basis for complaints frequently relates to the unauthorized use of certain lyrics, compositions and beats that have been recorded or written down, even if they have their origins in traditional forms. 'While the AR Rahman case has brought this issue to the forefront recently, there have been instances where mainstream composers have faced legal scrutiny regarding copyright infringement from classical music," said Anupam Shukla, partner, Pioneer Legal. 'The core contention often revolves around the degree of originality versus derivation." In the film Kantara, the song Varaha Roopam was deemed to infringe on Kerala band Thaikkudam Bridge's Navarasam. 'The main contention in these cases is proving originality within traditional frameworks and distinguishing between protectable creative elements and unprotectable traditional elements," Shukla said. A subtle but significant line In the Indian copyright law, the line between drawing inspiration from a raga and committing infringement is subtle, but significant. While ragas themselves are part of the public domain, original compositions or arrangements based on them can still enjoy copyright protection, said Aishwarya Kaushiq, partner, disputes practice, BTG Advaya. This means that even if a composer bases a song on a traditional raga, the way it is structured, orchestrated, or expressed can be protected. The courts apply the 'substantial similarity" test to assess whether an allegedly infringing work has copied not just the idea but the expression of the original. This becomes challenging when inspiration blurs into replication, especially in the absence of clear credits or documentation. To be sure, small segments of a raga-based composition, like an identifiable melodic phrase or hook, may not always be considered copyright infringement. For example, a fleeting phrase incorporated casually into the background score of a movie might not raise issues of ownership. However, if that same segment forms the main hook, climax, or emotional peak of another work, the dynamics change drastically. 'Courts often rely on the lay listener test, wherein they assess whether an average listener perceives substantial similarity between the two works. However, certain cases might demand an expert evaluation, especially in instances where the borrowed segment's uniqueness lies in subtle nuances and microtones, intricate ornamentation, or the way it connects notes within a raga framework. This dual approach sometimes leads to conflicting judgments," said Abhishek Chansoria, principal associate at Saraf and Partners. Also read | YouTube is preferred launch pad for new originals despite streaming services Multiple instances of infringement disputes involving traditional or classical music have been settled. These settlements typically occur due to prominent composers' reputational sensitivity, the economic value of avoiding an injunction, and the general preference within the entertainment industry to resolve disputes quickly to avoid production delays and adverse publicity. 'To avoid the risk of copyright infringement claims, film producers and composers should take proactive legal and creative measures, such as Due Diligence, before releasing a song based on or inspired by classical compositions. Identifying title documentation, wherein producers ensure they obtain clear and written assignments or licenses for any traditional compositions, recordings, or lyrics being adapted," Sahay said. Derivative works require clearance, wherein the producer must identify the copyright holder and obtain appropriate clearances. Credit attribution, that is, even though no license is required, crediting the source or traditional inspiration can help mitigate claims. Also read | Malayalam cinema thrives at box office as other regional films falter
News18
02-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
Delhi HC Rejects Saket Gokhale's Plea To Recall Defamation Damages, To Pay Rs 50 Lakh
Last Updated: Puri had approached the high court in 2021, alleging Gokhale tarnished her goodwill and reputation by making reckless and false allegations about her financial affairs. The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to recall its order directing TMC MP Saket Gokhale to pay damages of Rs 50 lakh to former diplomat Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri for defamation. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav also junked Gokhale's plea to condone a delay of over 180 days in seeking the relief. "We can't help you. We have to reject both the applications," the judge said. Justice Kaurav said no explanation was offered for the delay in approaching the court. Puri had approached the high court in 2021, alleging Gokhale tarnished her goodwill and reputation by making reckless and false allegations about her financial affairs in the context of an apartment that she owned in Geneva. In the July 1, 2024 verdict, aside from directing publication of an apology and payment of Rs 50 lakh as damages, the high court restrained Gokhale from publishing any more content on any social media or electronic platform concerning his imputation against Puri. Puri was represented by senior advocate Maninder Singh and law firm Karanjawala & Co.
Hindustan Times
30-04-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Courts can modify arbitral awards but must exercise ‘great caution': Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled by a 4-1 majority that appellate courts can modify arbitral awards 'under certain circumstances', ending uncertainty over the extent of the court's power in interfering with the awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench, however, underlined that such power was limited and must be exercised with 'great caution'. A detailed judgement is awaited. Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Kumar and AG Masih held that such limited power to modify arbitral awards could be exercised in circumstances where the award is severable, for correcting typographical or clerical errors, for correcting or modifying post award interest in certain circumstances, and that the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to modify awards to do 'complete justice to a case.' Justice KV Vishwanathan dissented from the majority on certain aspects including the appellate court's power to modify post award interest. Justice Vishwanathan held that the Supreme Court could not use Article 142 to modify interest post award and that the issue should be referred back to the arbitrator. The ruling came on a reference to the constitution bench by a three-judge bench on the court's powers in January this year while dealing with petitions under sections 34 and 37 of the Act. The two provisions in the 1996 Act deal with the court's authority in setting aside the arbitral awards and appeals against such orders respectively. One set of rulings previously indicated that the power of the courts was limited to setting aside the arbitral awards, strictly in terms of the specific grounds enshrined under the provision. In a second set of judgments, the top court did not only set aside the arbitral award but also modified them. After a three-day hearing, the constitution bench reserved the judgment on February 19. The issue arose out of a dispute between ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited, a company engaged in the business of dealing with products relating to Information technology, and its former employee over termination of an employment agreement. The employment agreement was made subject to the provisions of the 1996 Act. The matter was initially heard by a three-judge bench comprising justices Dipankar Datta, KV Viswanathan and Sandeep Mehta. At the time, senior counsel Arvind Datar, appeared for the former employee and senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, along with a team of associates from Karanjawala & Co appeared for ISG Novasoft. During arguments before the constitution bench, solicitor general Tushar Mehta for the Union government argued that the law only permitted courts to wholly or partially set aside an award and did not grant them the power to modify it. Mehta also urged the bench to refrain from reading such a power into the law, emphasising that the issue should be left to the 'wisdom of the legislature'. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who appeared for the former employee, argued in support of the courts' power to modify arbitral awards and reasoned that the power to partially set aside an award was essentially the power to modify it. Datar argued that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was intended to accommodate international arbitration and was not meant for instances of domestic arbitration. Datar suggested at the time that adding a few words to Section 34 would make it workable by giving courts the power to modify. Senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, however, opposed Datar's submissions and argued the addition or subtraction of words under a statute was a legislative exercise, not a judicial one. Kirpal argued that allowing modification would not necessarily expedite the arbitration process.
