Rohaan Thyagaraju is a fifth-year BBA LL.B. student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, with academic interests in constitutional law, public policy, governance, and socio-legal studies. His work engages with questions of institutional legitimacy, regulatory frameworks, and the relationship between law, society, and democratic accountability. He has a keen interest in legal research and statutory interpretation, particularly in areas intersecting with constitutional values, media, and public discourse.
Introduction
The Music sabhas in Chennai host various Carnatic music performances each year, which take place both live in concert halls and through digital media. However, as the medium for these performances continues to change away from being performed live on stage, an important question arises as to who owns and profits from the commercial exploitation of these performances? As a result of technology expanding the accessibility of Carnatic music, hence opening up new revenue streams, there is now a multitude of issues regarding copyright, performers’ rights, consent, and fair remuneration for performers. The use of artificial intelligence in recreating or analysing performances adds to concerns over the long term with regard to the preservation, management or ownership of digital archives containing recorded works of Carnatic music, which means that legal issues will go beyond immediate commercial considerations.
Carnatic music is South India’s oldest classical music tradition, embellished by the devotional and cultural values performed in temples and sabhas. Unlike contemporary commercial music, which comprises fixed, copyright-protected pieces, many Carnatic compositions have been handed down from generation to generation and hold a strong connection between the creative response through the reinterpretation of original compositions and the creative artist’s work in the Carnatic music paradigm. In terms of distribution and access, digitisation makes it easier to share and access Carnatic music, including live concert streaming on social media and on several digital music streaming platforms, as well as recorded audio or video files. Not only does digital access to Carnatic music enable musicians to reach their audiences more easily, but it also supports the preservation of Carnatic music’s culture.
However, Carnatic musicians continue to face issues related to copyright infringement, commercial exploitation, and illegal recording, and they have no legal recourse for these violations. The Copyright Act, 1957, provides for composers and performers under various sections (13, 14, 38, 38A, 38B). Yet, the complexity of applying and interpreting copyright law in the context of the traditional collaborative art form, such as Carnatic music, has proved problematic. The transition from live performances in halls to the digital dissemination of Carnatic music raises serious questions about who owns the art form, who has creative control over the works, and whether these works are being preserved for future generations.
I. Authorship and Ownership in Carnatic Music:
a) The Evolution of a Collective Tradition, Along with the Contrasting Laws
Over several centuries, many generations have contributed to what is now known as Carnatic music. Great composers like Tyagaraja, Muthuswami Dikshitar and Syama Sastri, whose music has been performed for hundreds of years, were important in shaping Carnatic music; however, their music was also written long before today’s copyright standards existed. As such, many of the works created by these composers do not have modern copyright attached to them, making it difficult to apply current copyright law to them, as the author of the original work is considered the author when granting copyright protection.
In contrast to modern commercial musical works, Carnatic performances typically utilise traditional lyric structures and distinctive interpretations. Therefore, establishing ownership over a particular performance can be extremely difficult. Many performances have a dual existence from a community perspective and from an artist’s perspective, resulting in a conflict between public access and the individual’s rights to the performance (public vs. private rights).
b) Creative improvisation
Improvisation, or manodharma, is one of the defining features of Carnatic music and is expressed through various forms, such as raga alapana, niraval, and kalpana swaras. It typically happens spontaneously and is mathematically specific to the performer. The Indian copyright law does clarify whether there is an independent legal mechanism to protect works resulting from improvisational creativity. Under sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, musical works and sound recordings are recognized. However if it sheds light especially on the live performance improvisation it can strengthen and provide adequate legal protection. Often, performances are recorded and uploaded to the Internet without the performer’s consent. As a result, the musician has limited control over how their performance can be reproduced or commercially exploited.
II. Performers’ Rights under Indian Copyright Law
a) Statutory Protection for Performers
In 2012, the Copyright (Amendment) Act enhanced performers’ rights in several significant respects, especially the right of a performer to grant permission for the reproduction, distribution, or public performance of their work, by introducing sections 38A and 38B. The act also grants a performer moral rights which is a protection against any alteration or exploitation.
Most performances are recorded for distribution, and someone who distributes a recording of a Carnatic musician’s performance without the performer’s permission might be infringing the copyright of the performer. This is particularly complicated by the informal nature of many recordings made at cultural festivals and sabhas, making enforcement of these rights difficult. In addition, many performers, especially Carnatic musicians, are not sufficiently informed about licensing agreements and digital ownership; as a result, enforcement of the performers’ rights established by statute is often ineffective.
b) Judicial Recognition of Musical Rights
Performers’ rights in India are gradually being recognised, and Indian Courts are expanding how performers’ rights can be protected. For example, in the case of the Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd vs Eastern Indian Motion Picture Association, the Supreme Court was asked to determine the ownership and copyright of music compositions. While the decision concerned music in films, it is also of considerable value in determining ownership of the authorship of musical works performed by performers. This case is significant as it establishes the principles around authorship and ownership of musical works, which can be a basis for resolving future disputes over allegedly unlicensed, digitally recorded, or streamed Carnatic performances.
The fact that the Delhi High Court, in the case of Neha Bhasin v Anand Raj, 2006, also determined that performers not only have property rights over their performances but also have the same rights as any other owner of musical works is significant. Likewise, the ruling in Neha Bhasin v. Anand Raj affirms performers’ right to have exclusive ownership in their performances and will assist Carnatic musicians who are seeking remedies for unauthorised digital recordings or distribution of their recordings.
III. Digital Platforms and Emerging Challenges
a) Unauthorised Streaming and Commercial Exploitation
Through digital platforms, the audience for Carnatic music has certainly expanded, as concert performances uploaded to popular streaming services like YouTube now reach a global audience. Unfortunately, unauthorised recordings of performances by audience members and third-party entities ensue, which are then monetised through advertising or subscription services.
Live performers at concerts receive neither credit nor payment for the digital engagement generated by their shows.
Still, audience members’ digital engagement provides greater visibility for these artists within the music community. Additionally, artists who do not want to receive professional credit for their music often ignore the number of times their music is distributed without their consent by the public, thereby validating the infringement of all artists within the classical music ecosystem. To complicate matters further in determining ownership rights in disputes over recordings of performers, contractual relationships between organizers and performers are insufficiently standardized.
b) AI and Archival Issues
Imagine an AI developer taking a year’s worth of publicly accessible recordings from Carnatic concerts to train a model to create music or sing exactly like a famous musician. The results may not be exact replicas of any one performance but could instead reflect unique improv patterns, tonal quality, or stylistic nuances developed by the artist throughout his or her career. Given these scenarios, there are many unresolved issues from a regulatory standpoint. Therefore, AI creates new intellectual property issues for classical musicians as well. AI systems trained on archived recordings can mimic certain aspects of an artist’s vocal stylings, compositional structures, or performance patterns without that artist’s written permission. Current copyright laws do not adequately address the use of machine learning models in traditional artistic archives.
Another factor raising questions of cultural custodianship and equity when it comes to access to digitised archival recordings is that digitised archival recordings held by private collectors or streaming platforms are being commercially exploited as “historical performances,” without the artist having had any meaningful role in the process. If classical traditions are treated as extractive digital commodities rather than as cultural heritage deserving of protection, the value of those keywords will decline dramatically.
IV. Towards a Balanced Legal Framework
The legal framework around Intellectual Property (IP) in India must evolve to reflect the realities of classical performance traditions. One way to assist in distributing royalties fairly and to enforce against unauthorised internet dissemination of classics is to have a collective licensing scheme for classical musicians. Another important area for institutional reform is the implementation of formal agreements between Sabhas and cultural institutions regarding the recording rights of musicians and the manner in which revenue will be shared.
However, equally important is that all classical musicians are educated about their statutory rights under the Copyright Act, as statutory copyright protection is essential to their ability to effectively challenge exploitation in the digital space.
Without this knowledge, performers’ effectiveness in challenging exploitation in the digital environment is limited. Excessive privatisation of performers’ rights could negatively impact Carnatic music, which already exhibits characteristics of both artistic labour and communal cultural heritage. Consequently, Intellectual Property Law should be designed with sensitivity to ensure the protection of performers’ rights whilst guaranteeing ongoing public access to Classical traditions. The current discussions at WIPO on Traditional Cultural Expressions may yield useful models for reform in India.
Conclusion
For the last few centuries, the tradition of Carnatic music has been preserved through shared history, reinterpretation, and collective cultural ownership. As we enter the digital age, the preservation of this tradition will require more than just increasing access to live performance. The establishment of a legal framework to protect the highly individualised improvisational nature of performers is paramount. This framework will also provide protections from the unauthorised use of musicians’ performances in digital forms (e.g., through YouTube) and will help to address some of the emerging issues relating to digital archiving and artificial intelligence (AI).
Technology is already beginning to alter how classical music is produced, distributed, and consumed. Therefore, copyright law must adapt so that any innovation ensures that the cultural significance and artistic freedom of Carnatic musicians are maintained, not compromised. Ultimately, protecting their rights is crucial to ensuring that this living form of music remains intact and continues for future generations.
