When Tradition Meets Copyright: Who Owns Raag-Based Compositions?

Introduction

Indian classical music is often described as eternal, spiritual, and passed down from generation to generation. Raags, taals, and musical forms like Dhrupad or Khayal are considered to be a part of our heritage. Therefore, many people believe that anything composed in a raag is “traditional” and therefore free for the use of anyone. This belief becomes stronger when modern film music, influenced by classical music, displays it as a source of inspiration. However, the law does not treat traditional music in this simplistic way. Although raags and musical forms are communal, specific compositions in those raags can still be ascribed to specific composers. The recent legal dispute over A. R. Rahman brought out this confusion.

Understanding “Public Domain” in Indian Classical Music

In Indian classical music, there are certain elements that are a part of the common cultural heritage. Raags are not owned by anyone. For example, Raag Adana or Raag Darbari Kanada are a part of the tradition and can be freely used by anyone. Similarly, taals like Teentaal, Chautaal, or Sultaal are rhythmic patterns that are a part of the public domain. Music styles like Dagarvani and Dhrupad are a collective property that have been developed over the centuries. No individual or family can claim to be the sole owners of a raag, taal, or music style. As these are in the public domain, any composer can set down a new composition in Raag Adana or Darbari Kanada without taking permission from anyone. A musician can claim that his work is inspired by Dhrupad or Dagarvani, and this is a valid claim in itself. The law does not restrict the use of raags or music styles since these are similar to the language or structure of music. Just as no one owns the English language, no one owns a raag. However, this is only a part of the story. The actual legal concern occurs when an individual replicates not only the raag but also a distinct piece composed by a recognized composer within that raag.

Raag versus Composition

A raag is a set of musical tenets. It tells the musician which notes to play, how they can be arranged to ascend and descend, and what kind of mood the music should create. But a composition is a specific artistic arrangement created under these rules. Two people can use the same raag and still come up with two completely different compositions. The difference between a raag and a composition is like the difference between grammar and poetry. Grammar is universal, but a poem written using that grammar can be said to belong to a particular poet. When a composer comes up with a new melody, chooses a particular pattern of notes, uses a particular rhythm, and expresses a particular emotional pattern, that composition can be said to be original. The Indian Copyright Act protects it if it is original. This means that while the basic tenets of the music may be common, the final artistic expression can still be the property of the composer alone.

When Does a Traditional Composition Become Protectable by Law?

A work that feels traditional will acquire legal protection if it is shown to be original. Originality does not mean that the work has to be completely new and unknown. This only means that the composer had to exercise skill and judgement to arrange the musical elements in such a way as to reflect individual creativity. Even with very strict raag rules, there is enough room for creative choice. The Indian courts have held that classical music compositions can be said to be original even if they are based on traditional patterns. The originality is to be found in the individual choice of notes, the repetition of certain phrases, the choice of the rhythmic cycle, and the building up of the emotional progression of the composition. If a composition has this level of creative input, it can be said to be an original musical composition under copyright law. A composition will therefore retain its legal protection even if it is in a traditional style. Tradition provides the framework, but the creativity within that framework can still be ascribed to an individual.

Inspiration in music is normal and good. Musicians learn from previous works, learn from masters, and follow traditions. The law does not punish inspiration. A musician is free to take inspiration from a raag, a genre, or even the whole feel of a traditional song. The problem arises when inspiration becomes imitation.  When the basic melodic pattern, the main musical hook, or the essence of a song is taken and placed in another song, it becomes more than just inspiration. Judges often use a technique called the lay listener test. This test determines if an average listener can tell that the new song is very similar to the old song. If they can, the court may decide that it is a case of copying, even if the new musician claims to have been inspired by tradition. In the case involving A. R. Rahman, the court looked at whether the new song borrowed elements from the raag or simply copied the basic melodic essence of an earlier classical song. The court focused not on the raag's usage, but on whether the unique creative expression of a different composer had been used without permission.

Moral Rights

One key topic in this debate is the concept of moral rights, which writers have under the law of copyright in India, as moral rights gives authors the right to have their contributions recognised. This moral right does not vanish when an author licenses or permits others to use the work. The bond between the author and his or her creation is protected by moral rights. It can be damaging to an author's reputation and legacy if they are not acknowledged when another person makes changes to their creative work, or if their work is referred to as "traditional". In the area of classical music, the importance of both heritage and tradition are stressed along with the recognition of the creators and innovators. In the case of the dispute involving. A. R. Rahman, there was a dispute not only over copying, but also over acknowledgement. The issue was that to simply say that a piece of music is traditional is not enough if a specific and identifiable element of musical material has been used. Therefore, if a contemporary piece of music borrows a prominent melody from a famous classical piece of music, then to recognise the prior creator is not only the right thing to do, but it is also legally required to do under the moral rights.

Balancing Cultural Heritage and Copyright Protection

Concerns of monopolizing tradition through the copyrighting of classical works are valid, however, they are entirely misinformed.  No one holds the exclusive rights to use raags or styles, that is what copyrighting protects, while specific works are copyrightable, it does not prevent others from creating new works within the same style and tradition but with totally different compositions. That said, this balance between allowing for the growth of tradition, while recognizing the individual creativity of each person has to be maintained, otherwise risk losing the works of those who have contributed towards building a "tradition" which could potentially stifle future innovation. The A. R. Rahman's case illustrates the courts' attempts to create a balance between these two competing interests in an extremely difficult scenario artists are permitted to utilize classical elements, while being required to respect original works and give appropriate credits where sufficiently identifiable with the source.

Conclusion

The statement that "Traditional and raag-based music in the public domain can be used by anyone without an individual making proper attribution" is, to some degree, true. Any raag, any taal, any music style can be used by people. However, there are composers who have created original raag compositions under their own style. These unique pieces created by the composer and or their heirs still have copyright protection as you cannot take these without proper credit being given to the composer. The recent issues relating to the works of A R Rahman highlight this point. In simple terms, any raag belongs to the tradition; but, any tune you create from that raag belongs only to you.

Author: Navanshu Pawar, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

1. AR Rahman V. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar & Ors., 2025 FAO (OS) (Comm) 86/2025

2. Dr. Midhun P and Arunkumar A S, The Synergy of Sanskrit Verses and Indian Classical Music: Matching Meters with Ragas to Enhance Emotional Expression, ISBN: ISSN-2348-5892, April 2025

3. The Copyright Act, 1957, Act No. 14 of 1957

4. Eastern Book Company V. DB Modak, 2007, AIR 2008 SC 809

5. Manu Bhandari V. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd. and anr., 1986, AIR1987DELHI13