DAGAR BROTEHRS VS A.R. RAHMAN

Abstract

The landmark copyright dispute between Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, representing the venerable Dagar family’s musical legacy, and acclaimed composer A.R. Rahman presents a watershed moment in Indian intellectual property jurisprudence. This case analysis examines the Delhi High Court’s recognition of originality in traditional Dhrupad compositions, the application of moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the broader implications for protecting classical artistic expressions in modern commercial contexts. The court’s interim ruling affirming copyright protection for the Junior Dagar Brothers’ “Shiva Stuti” composition challenges simplistic notions that traditional works automatically fall into the public domain, establishing crucial precedent for India’s creative landscape.

I. Introduction

The legal dispute between Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar and A.R. Rahman marks a significant moment in Indian intellectual property law. Filed in 2023, this copyright infringement case centers on allegations that Rahman’s song “Veera Raja Veera” from the film Ponniyin Selvan 2 unlawfully copied the classical Dhrupad composition “Shiva Stuti,” created by the Junior Dagar Brothers in the 1970s. The Delhi High Court’s interim order of April 2024 has ignited vital discourse on protecting traditional artistic expressions in the age of modern commercial adaptations.

It is crucial to understand that this dispute revolves around copyright infringement, not trademark infringement. The case concerns the unauthorized use of a musical composition—”Shiva Stuti”—which falls squarely under copyright law’s protection of original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. The Dagar family’s claim was not that Rahman misled consumers about the song’s source or brand identity, but rather that he copied their original musical composition without permission or attribution. This distinction between copyright and trademark law forms the foundation for understanding the legal issues at stake.

II. The Genesis of the Dispute: A Clash of Musical Eras

At the heart of this matter lies the classical Dhrupad composition “Shiva Stuti,” meticulously crafted in the 1970s by the illustrious Junior Dagar Brothers—Late Ustad Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad Nasir Zahiruddin Dagar. The Dagar family, with a musical lineage spanning centuries, is synonymous with the Dhrupad vocal tradition, particularly the Dagarvani Gharana, a distinct and revered style within Hindustani classical music. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, a Padma Shri awardee and custodian of this rich heritage, initiated the legal proceedings.

The controversy arose when A.R. Rahman’s song “Veera Raja Veera” from the blockbuster film Ponniyin Selvan 2 was released. The plaintiff alleged that this song was not merely inspired by, but was an outright infringement of, their family’s “Shiva Stuti” composition. The core accusation lay in the striking similarities in melodic structure, notes (swaras), emotional resonance (bhava), and rhythmic pattern (taal), despite changes in lyrics and the incorporation of contemporary musical arrangements.

III. Understanding Copyright vs. Trademark in This Context

To fully appreciate the nature of this dispute, one must differentiate between copyright and trademark protection:

Copyright protects original works of authorship, including musical compositions. It grants the creator exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display their work. The Dagar family’s claim rested on the assertion that “Shiva Stuti” was an original musical work, and that A.R. Rahman had reproduced its core elements without authorization, thus infringing their exclusive rights as copyright holders.

Trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, designs, or combinations thereof that identify and distinguish the source of goods or services. Had Rahman used the “Dagar Brothers” name or a specific Dagar family emblem to market his song, implying it was created by them, it might have involved trademark infringement. However, the substance of the complaint concerned the musical content itself, not branding or source identification. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of creative expression, which falls within copyright’s domain.

IV. The Plaintiff’s Assertions: Originality in Tradition

Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar’s arguments were multi-faceted and challenged conventional notions of copyright in traditional art forms:

1. Originality of “Shiva Stuti”
The plaintiff contended that while ragas (melodic frameworks) and taals (rhythmic cycles) exist in the public domain and form the grammar of Hindustani classical music, the specific “Shiva Stuti” composition was an original work of joint authorship by the Junior Dagar Brothers. They argued that the unique selection, arrangement, and creative interpretation of swaras within Raga Adana and Sultaal—particularly the distinctive “dragging” of the ‘g’ note and the overall melodic and rhythmic phrasing—bestowed upon it the requisite originality for copyright protection. Evidence included handwritten lyrics, recordings of performances (notably a significant one in Amsterdam in 1978), and an oral family settlement transferring rights to the plaintiff.

2. Substantial Similarity
The copyright infringement claim rested on the assertion that “Veera Raja Veera” was not merely inspired by “Shiva Stuti” but was identical to it. The plaintiff argued that a lay listener, upon hearing both compositions, would discern unmistakable similarity in their fundamental melodic and rhythmic structures, emotional tenor, and overall aural impact. Changes in lyrics or the addition of contemporary orchestration were deemed insufficient to negate this core identity.

3. Violation of Moral Rights
Beyond economic rights, the plaintiff emphasized the moral rights of the Junior Dagar Brothers as enshrined in Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. These rights—namely the right to attribution (paternity) and the right to integrity (protection against distortion or mutilation)—are inalienable and remain with the author even if economic rights are transferred. The lack of proper credit and the perceived misrepresentation of the work in a modern context constituted violations of these crucial rights.

V. The Defendants’ Counter-Arguments: Public Domain and Artistic Freedom

A.R. Rahman and the film’s producers mounted their defense on several grounds:

1. Public Domain Argument
The defendants argued that “Shiva Stuti,” being a Dhrupad composition rooted in ancient musical forms and traditions, effectively belonged to the public domain. They contended that traditional ragas and taals, along with devotional content, were not subject to individual copyright claims.

2. Lack of Originality
The defense posited that the Dagar family’s composition lacked the “originality” required for copyright protection. They suggested that any similarities were coincidental or inherent due to the rigid grammar of Hindustani classical music, and that their song was an independent, original creation broadly inspired by the Dagarvani tradition rather than a direct copy.

3. Transformative Use and Inspiration
While not explicitly framed as such, the underlying argument suggested that “Veera Raja Veera” was a modern interpretation or inspiration—a new work with its own creative elements—rather than a mere reproduction.

VI. The Delhi High Court’s Interim Ruling: A Landmark Precedent

In its interim order, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Pratibha M. Singh, made several critical observations and directives that have far-reaching implications:

1. Originality of “Shiva Stuti” Affirmed
The court emphatically held that “Shiva Stuti” was indeed an original musical work deserving of copyright protection. This crucial finding countered the defense’s “public domain” argument. The court clarified that while elements like ragas and swaras are common, the specific arrangement, selection, and creative expression by a composer within those frameworks can constitute a unique and copyrightable work. The court considered evidence including recordings of performances dating back to 1978, notations, and acknowledgments within the Dagar family to establish the authorship and originality of the Junior Dagar Brothers.

2. Prima Facie Copyright Infringement
The court concluded that there was a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement. Applying the “lay listener” test, the court found the impugned song “Veera Raja Veera” to be “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 court further noted that “the adding of other elements may have rendered impugned song more like a modern composition, but the basic underlying musical work is identical.” This finding underscored that cosmetic changes or modern additions do not absolve a party from copyright infringement if core original elements are substantially copied.

3. Upholding Moral Rights and Attribution
A significant aspect of the order was its emphasis on moral rights. The court directed that all platforms streaming or distributing “Veera Raja Veera”—including OTT and online services—must include clear credit stating that the composition is “based on Shiva Stuti by Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar.” This directive powerfully affirms the right to paternity and recognition for traditional artists.

4. Monetary Deposit and Costs
To secure the plaintiff’s potential claim for damages, the court ordered A.R. Rahman and the film’s producers (Madras Talkies, Lyca Productions) to deposit INR 2 crores with the court registrar. Additionally, litigation costs of INR 2 lakhs were awarded to the plaintiff.

VII. Subsequent Developments

A division bench of the Delhi High Court subsequently stayed the single judge’s order concerning the immediate credit insertion and the deposit of INR 2 crores, pending further detailed hearings. While the interim injunction was stayed, the underlying legal questions and the single judge’s reasoning regarding originality and infringement remain highly relevant for the ultimate outcome of the case. The stay indicates that this legal battle is far from over and will likely involve deeper arguments on these complex issues.

VIII. Implications and Significance

The Dagar Brothers v. A.R. Rahman case holds profound implications for India’s creative landscape:

1. Validation of Copyright in Traditional Music
This judgment sets a crucial precedent, affirming that traditional Indian classical musical compositions, even if transmitted orally for generations, can qualify as “original musical works” under the Copyright Act, provided they demonstrate sufficient creative input and unique expression from specific authors. It challenges the simplistic notion that anything “traditional” automatically falls into the public domain.

2. Redefining “Originality” in the Indian Context
The case offers valuable insights into how “originality” is interpreted within Indian classical music. It distinguishes between public domain elements (ragas, taals) and the unique creative expression within those frameworks.

3. Strengthening Moral Rights
The emphasis on attribution and the right to integrity for classical composers highlights the growing recognition of moral rights in India. This is particularly significant for classical artists whose contributions are often appropriated without due credit in commercial ventures.

4. Balancing Artistic Freedom and Protection
The case underscores the delicate balance between artistic freedom—the right to draw inspiration from existing works—and the protection of intellectual property rights. It suggests that while inspiration is permissible, direct and substantial copying, especially of core original elements, crosses the line into infringement.

5. Impact on the Entertainment Industry
This ruling sends a strong message to the Indian film and music industries. It emphasizes the need for thorough due diligence, proper licensing, and respectful acknowledgment when incorporating traditional or classical elements into modern commercial productions. It may lead to a more cautious approach and greater collaboration with traditional artists and their legal heirs.

6. Cultural Preservation
From a broader cultural perspective, the case represents a victory for the preservation and recognition of India’s rich musical heritage. It empowers the custodians of traditional art forms to assert their rights and ensures that their legacy is protected and duly acknowledged.

IX. Conclusion

The Dagar Brothers v. A.R. Rahman case transcends a simple legal battle. It represents a profound dialogue about the intersection of tradition and modernity, artistic legacy and commercial innovation, and the evolving jurisprudence around intellectual property rights in India’s vibrant cultural tapestry. By affirming copyright protection for traditional compositions that demonstrate originality, emphasizing moral rights, and applying rigorous tests for infringement, the Delhi High Court has charted a path that respects both India’s cultural heritage and the creative industries that draw inspiration from it. Its final resolution will undoubtedly shape the future of how traditional music is recognized, utilized, and protected in the digital age.