Context

• Carnatic music, an ancient and revered form of Indian classical music, has long existed outside the strict boundaries of copyright law.
• This exclusion is due to both historical factors and the unique nature of Carnatic music, which emphasises improvisation and oral tradition.
• However, as the recent Margazhi music season in Chennai demonstrated, copyright concerns are becoming increasingly relevant.
• The existing legal framework does not adequately protect performers, raising pressing questions about whether the law should evolve to reflect the realities of Indian classical music.

The Legal Dilemma: Copyright and Carnatic Music

• A Unique Dilemma
  • The relationship between copyright law and Carnatic music presents a unique dilemma that stems from the nature of classical compositions, the role of improvisation, and the historical context of Indian copyright legislation.
  • Unlike Western classical music, which relies heavily on written scores, Carnatic music is primarily an oral tradition, passed down from teacher to student over generations.
  • This fundamental difference raises complex legal questions about how intellectual property rights should apply to an art form that thrives on fluidity and creative reinterpretation.
• The Western Influence on Indian Copyright Law
  • Copyright law in India, originally enacted in 1914 during British rule, was influenced by Western legal frameworks, particularly British copyright law.
  • The legislation, which was revised in 1957, continued to operate under the assumption that music is a composition that can be reduced to written notation.
  • This perspective is aligned with the Western classical tradition, where composers write detailed scores specifying every note, dynamic, and articulation.
  • The role of a performer in Western classical music is often to faithfully interpret these compositions rather than to improvise or innovate.
• The Challenges of Implementation of Copyright Law in Carnatic Music
  • Carnatic music, by contrast, does not function in the same way, while written notation exists, it serves only as a skeletal framework for a composition.
  • The essence of Carnatic music lies in its improvisatory aspects, manodharma sangeetam, which includes raga alapana (melodic improvisation), neraval (improvised elaboration of a phrase), and kalpana swaras (spontaneous note sequences).
  • Because these elements are not fixed in writing, they do not fit neatly into the legal definition of a ‘musical work’ under copyright law.
  • This raises the fundamental question: Should copyright law define music based on a Western understanding, or should it evolve to accommodate non-Western traditions like Carnatic music?

The Public Domain and the Question of Improvisation

• One of the major reasons Carnatic music has remained outside mainstream copyright discussions is that most of its foundational compositions belong to the public domain.
• The works of composers such as Tyagaraja, Purandara Dasa, and Gopalakrishna Bharati were created before copyright laws existed, meaning their compositions are freely available for anyone to perform.
• However, Carnatic musicians do not merely reproduce these compositions—they reinterpret them, often introducing complex improvisations and personal stylistic touches.
• These additions, while artistically significant, do not currently receive copyright protection. This leads to several critical legal questions:
  • If a musician improvises a section of a song, does that improvisation qualify as a new, copyrightable work?
  • If a performer reinterprets a composition by changing its raga or tempo, should they have rights over that specific rendition?
  • Should a performer’s unique style, such as Madurai Mani Iyer’s distinctive approach to Eppo Varuvaro, be considered an intellectual property right?

Existing Copyright Protections and Their Limitations

• Composer and Lyricist Rights
  • The composer and lyricist of a song receive copyright protection for their lifetime plus 60 years.
  • This ensures that their work cannot be commercially exploited without permission.
  • However, in the case of Carnatic music, most compositions by great composers like Tyagaraja, Muddusvami Dikshitar, and Shyama Shastri are already in the public domain, meaning anyone can perform or record them without seeking permission.
• Mechanical Rights (Rights Over Sound Recordings)
  • When a song is recorded onto a tangible medium, such as an audio CD or a digital file, the entity that records the song (such as a record label or an individual artist) gains mechanical rights over that specific recording for 60 years.
  • While this provides some form of protection, it does not extend to live performances where improvisation plays a significant role.
• Performers' Rights
  • Performers, including singers and instrumentalists, have the right to prevent unauthorised recordings of their performances.
  • This is particularly relevant for live concerts, where artists might not wish their music to be recorded and distributed without consent.
  • In theory, performers should also be entitled to royalties from streams or sales of their music.

The Need for Legal Reform

• The spontaneous nature of Carnatic improvisation complicates its protection under existing copyright laws.
• Unlike compositions that are formally documented, improvisations are often ephemeral, making it difficult to claim ownership.
• Yet, the contributions of performers should not be overlooked. Musicians should have the right to commercially benefit from their unique interpretations, just as composers and lyricists do.

Necessary Measures Towards a More Inclusive Framework

• Recognising Improvisation as Intellectual Property: Laws should account for original variations and improvisations in a performance, granting musicians limited rights over their unique contributions.
• Stronger Performers’ Rights
  • Existing laws on performers’ rights should be enforced, ensuring that artists can control and monetise recordings of their concerts.
  • Unauthorised uploads to streaming platforms should be subject to stricter penalties.
• Fair Royalty Distribution
  • Streaming services and concert venues should be required to compensate artists for performances.
  • The royalty flow from digital platforms should be strengthened, ensuring that musicians benefit financially from their work.

Conclusion

• The current copyright framework in India does not reflect the realities of Carnatic music, leaving performers vulnerable to exploitation.
• While classical compositions are in the public domain, the creativity infused into their rendition deserves recognition and protection.
• Instead of forcing music to fit outdated legal definitions, copyright law should evolve to safeguard the rights of musicians.
• By reforming copyright laws to include improvisation and strengthening performers' rights, India can ensure that Carnatic musicians receive the recognition and financial security they deserve.