The delhi High court has directed renowned composer A. R. rahman and the makers of 'Ponniyin Selvan 2' to deposit Rs 2 crore with the courtroom, following a copyright dispute regarding the junior Dagar Brothers' classical rendition of Shiv Stuti.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh, in an intervening time order issued on april 25, observed that from a listener's attitude, the essence of Rahman's track 'Veera raja Veera' became "no longer simply inspired, however, is, in reality, identical" in notes, emotion, and aural impact to shiva Stuti.
The choice stated that this constituted a contravention of the rights of the original composers of the devotional piece committed to Lord Shiva.
The courtroom additionally ordered that a slide crediting the junior Dagar Brothers—the overdue Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and the past due Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar—needs to be inserted into the movie across all OTT and online systems. Additionally, it presented Rs 2 lakh as costs to the member of the family of the past due artists.
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, the son of Faiyazuddin Dagar and nephew of Zahiruddin Dagar, argued within the lawsuit that he holds the copyright to all authentic compositions of the junior Dagar Brothers, together with Shiv Stuti, and that the defendants had unlawfully infringed upon it.
"In the final analysis, therefore, this court docket holds that the impugned music isn't simply based totally on or inspired by the fit composition shiva Stuti but is, in fact, equal to the suit composition with mere alternate lyrics. The including of other factors can also have rendered the impugned music extra like a current composition, but the simple underlying musical work is identical," the court docket held.
The courtroom also added, "Therefore, the defendant's composition infringes the plaintiff's rights in shiva Stuti."
The court clarified that Rahman, madras Talkies, and lyca productions must deposit Rs 2 crore, which would be kept in a fixed deposit pending the final results of the case.
It, in addition, held that the plaintiff had a prima facie case for copyright infringement and that if an intervening time order were not granted, "irreparable damage would be caused to the innovative rights and ethical rights of the original composers who are no longer alive."
"Defendant number one (Rahman), who has earned global acclaim, initially did not deliver any popularity to the plaintiff's paintings. While the plaintiff contacted defendant #1, the acknowledgement was given, albeit reluctantly," the court noted.
"The defendant numbers 6 and 7, who sang the impugned song, are disciples of the plaintiff. Those information reveal the problematic link to the shiva Stuti and Veera raja Veera musical compositions," the court docket found.
The court concluded that the stability of comfort lay with the plaintiff, including that any delay should motivate a lack of effective representation by the time the trial concluded.
Rahman's suggestion argued that Shiv Stuti become based on the conventional dhrupad style, which is a part of the general public area, and that neither the fashion of making a song nor the composition turned into something authentic enough to qualify for copyright safety.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel