Published On: July 22nd 2026
Authored By: Aahana Bhavsar
Jindal Global Law School
Abstract
The right of attribution, which is a major part of moral rights, guarantees the authors’ acknowledgment for their creative efforts. In fact, Indian copyright law safeguards this right through Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957. However, its implementation in the music sector in India is not regular. This article explores if the attribution right in India should be made waivable and analyses the disconnect between the law and the common practice of the industry. It makes a comparative study of France and the USA and finds that India is somewhere in between, i.e., it has strong legal protection but weak enforcement. The article suggests that attribution should be regarded as a non-waivable right and be bolstered by setting forth clearer legal norms and establishing better enforcement arrangements, especially in the digital music environment.
1. Introduction
Authorship is all about giving credit to the right person. In the music world where the production of a piece is a result of the combined effort of several people, it is very important to identify lyricists, composers, and performers for their recognition, that is, both internal identity and external professional development. Indian copyright law indeed recognizes this aspect through the granting of moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.[1]
Nevertheless, in reality, there is a big disconnection between what the law says and what is done. Attribution is regularly diminished or even entirely wiped out to Favor the producers and labels, while digital platforms, on the other hand, make it even harder for the contributors to be acknowledged. Such changes leave us with two major questions: should an attribution be allowed to be waived and why is it so weakly enforced even though there is a law protecting it.
This paper believes that Indian law theoretically backs strong moral rights but the doubt about waiver and the structure of the industry make the law practically ineffective. By looking at the examples of France and the United States, India would have a much better and clearer way of protecting attribution.
2. Conceptual and Legal Framework of Attribution in India
Author’s moral rights, which serve the authors’ personal and reputational interests, separate them from economic rights which are subject to being transferred and commercially exploited. These rights include authorship recognition and work integrity.[2]
Attribution right allows an author to identify oneself as the author and prevents attribution that is false or misleading. In this way the author keeps the link between the creator and the product alive. Under Copyright Act, 1957 authors are given the right to claim authorship of a work and to complain or get compensation in case of distortion, mutilation or modification to one’s prejudice of one’s honour or reputation.[3] These rights exist irrespective of economic ownership and after copyright assignment or transfer as well.[4]
Indian law is in line with Article 6bis of the Berne Convention in this respect, which requires protecting moral rights even when the economically wronged party is not the holder of economic rights.[5]
Indian legal commentators continually point out that moral rights touch on the person’s nature as author and thus remain separate from the usual property rights.[6] The legal system too has recognised their ongoing and personal nature, and has treated them as means of upholding authorial dignity.[7] India recognizes judicial protections for attribution rights of an author, specifically Sartaj Singh Pannu v. Gurbani Media Pvt. Ltd[8], In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that an author has a right to credit his work. The Court also stated that crediting the author is an important part of the moral rights of an author under Section 57 of the Copyright Act of 1957 (“Act”). The Court’s ruling establishes that attribution is not only a commercial right, but also a legal right that is connected to the author’s personality, reputation and ongoing relationship to the work. Therefore, an author’s claim for credit will continue as a moral right, even after economic rights have been transferred/assigned to the respective copyright owners. On the other hand, comparative studies show that in civil law countries the personal aspects of authorship receive more attention, whereas common law countries usually stress economic motivations and the efficiency of the market.[9]
As for the question of attribution, Indian law does not definitely say if it is possible to waive it. Thus there is a legal uncertainty brought about by the silence of the law, especially as in some other sectors contracts continue to be the main way of doing business, thereby giving less weight to the right of attribution as a matter of practice.
3. Waiver vs Inalienability: Should Attribution Be Denied?
The question of waiver reveals a deeper conflict between freedom of contract and the protection of authorial identity. Although modern copyright law to some extent allows contracts to create a law between the parties, moral rights are founded on the notion that the author is so closely linked to the work that this connection cannot be broken simply by commercial agreements.
At the same time, Indian legal theory has been relatively strict in regarding moral rights as the author’s rights as inalienable and non-waivable[10] But in reality, contractual provisions quite often limit or hide attribution, especially in cases where authors are less powerful in bargaining.
From a comparative point of view, this dilemma stands out more clearly. French copyright law is the most protective by the principle of droit moral, which means that the right to be recognized as the author belongs to the author forever, cannot be sold and even cannot be given up.[11]The author is considered to be naturally linked to the work. On the other hand, the United States has a quite different model where moral rights are brought down to bare minimum and they can be waived through contracts in many cases.[12] This has given rise to phenomena like ghost-writing and corporate attribution which, in effect, leave the original creators unrecognized.
India occupies an intermediate position. Although its statutory framework resembles the French model in recognising strong moral rights, industry practice often mirrors the American emphasis on contractual freedom. The case of Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v Aditya Pandey[13] shows that how a person’s work is licensed or how their income can be derived in relation to the use of their intellectual property will directly affect their ability to claim/recognise their author’s rights. On the other hand, the court in Sartaj Singh Pannu v Gurbani Media Pvt Ltd[14] resoundingly acknowledges that attribution right is an independent right of authorship deserving protection and that this protection exists outside of economic considerations. This tension represents a primary issue for Indian Copyright law; attribution is a right that is recognised and has legal protections, but the realities in the marketplace result in reduced protections for people who wish to enforce that right.
4. Attribution in Practice: The Indian Music Industry
Despite strong legal acknowledgment, attribution in the Indian music industry is still inconsistent due to a combination of structural, contractual, and technological reasons. Contractual norms give an advantage to producers and labels, who, as control the distribution, are also the main decision-makers as far as attribution goes. As a result, lyricists and composers usually get the short end of the stick in terms of recognition.
These problems are reflected in cases like the one involving composer Ilaiyaraaja, which show how; authorship and ownership are at odds with each other. Even famous artists need to fight for their rights getting the better of the system, which is a sign of the insecure nature of attributing authorship on the ground.
The control that copyright owners have also comes out in the open in Saregama India Ltd v Balaji Motion Pictures Ltd case, where control over music rights comes at a premium overshadowing author centric considerations.[15]Though not directly a moral rights case, this serves as a example of how ownership structures may indirectly influence attribution.
The unevenness of bargaining power makes things worse. New artists, for instance, often sign contracts that waive their attribution rights in order to gain access to the industry. This raises doubts about whether their waiver can truly be considered voluntary.
Besides that, digital platforms have made things even more complicated. They have undeniably increased access to music. However, missing or incorrect metadata often lead to contributors being overlooked when it comes to getting credit. A study of the law scholars have acknowledged that, despite moral rights being properly established in Indian law, there is still a serious lack of enforcement.[16]
The industry conversation voices similar worries. Eminent personalities such as Javed Akhtar, and controversies surrounding Sonu Nigam, including comments by Amit Trivedi, point to ongoing problems of credit and control which show that attribution is governed just as much by industry practices as by legal rules.
5. Comparative Insights and Reform
The comparative study reveals some insightful lessons. France shows how effective strong, inalienable moral rights can be for the preservation of the author’s identity and the assurance of continuous attribution.[17] On the other hand, the United States exposes the dangers of a very high trust in contractual freedom, where attribution could be sacrificed for commercial interests.[18]
India’s mixed position has both pros and cons: its legal system on paper seems to grant a strong protection, yet the unclear situation regarding the author’s waiver of his/her moral rights as well as the weakness of the enforcement mechanisms essentially leave the country at the mercy of whoever infringes the rights. The weak attribution is not therefore still the result of lack of law but a very dominant structural position of copyright owners, familiar contractual practices and technological difficulties in credit attribution systems. So reform has to go beyond just recognizing the importance and focus on making it absolutely clear that in its core form attribution cannot be waived, getting a hold of contract arrangements that hide the author’s name and making correct and transparent attribution through digital platforms possible. Otherwise, attribution rights may be little more than mere symbols instead of a real and enforceable legal guarantee.
6. Conclusion
Attribution rights are very important to the essence of creativity, but is still somewhat unrecognised right in Indian music industry despite clear statutory provisions in this regard. Uncertainty concerning waiver, coupled with industry habits and the issues of digital domain have rendered its real significance quite low.
On Comparing, France seems to offer assured protection whereas, United States show how dominant contracts can be in jeopardizing the exercise of one’s rights. India should go further than simply acknowledging attribution as a statutory moral right; it needs to provide an effective mechanism for authorial recognition as well. By clarifying that the majority of rights associated with attribution are non-waivable, strengthening the enforcement mechanisms associated with this right, and mandating that appropriate practices are used to attribute authors across any and all digital platforms, the law will come closer to achieving its ultimate intent. In today’s digital music ecosystem (streaming services, metadata-based distribution and AI-enhanced creation), attribution needs to be more than just a symbolic ability. Attribution needs to function as an actual legal guarantee that maintains the link between creators and their creations and that provides for artistic recognition to not be compromised through the use of the works commercially.
7. References
[1] Copyright Act 1957, s 57.
[2] Nikhil Agarwal and Vinayak Ojha, ‘Moral Rights: International Framework and Indian Approach’ (2017) 6 Christ University Law Journal 1, 2–3.
[3] Copyright Act 1957, s 57.
[4] Pankaj Kumar, ‘Moral Rights under Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957’ 1–2.
[5] Asheesh Yadav and others, ‘Recognition to Implementation’ (2025) 30 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 295, 296.
[6] Richa Kapoor, ‘Moral Rights in India’ (2024) 7 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 2121, 2122.
[7] Yadav and others (n 5) 296.
[8] Sartaj Singh Pannu v Gurbani Media Pvt Ltd 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9627.
[9] Sreelakshmi B, ‘Moral Rights: Comparative Analysis’ (2019) 1(2) NLUA Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 135, 136–37.
[10] Yadav and others (n 5) 296.
[11] Russell J DaSilva, ‘Droit Moral and the Amoral Copyright’ (1980) 28 Bulletin of the Copyright Society of the USA 1, 3–5.
[12] Scott A Cromar, ‘Copyright & Moral Rights in the U.S. and France’ (2011) 2–3.
[13] Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v Aditya Pandey 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2642.
[14] Sartaj Singh Pannu (n8).
[15] Saregama India Ltd v Balaji Motion Pictures Ltd (2017) 2 Bom CR 1.
[16] Yadav and others (n 5) 295–96.
[17] DaSilva (n 10) 4–5.
[18] Cromar (n 11) 2–3.
