It may be difficult not to be enthusiastic about the recent Rs 2 crore settlement between the Roshans and composer Ram Sampath, who alleged that they had violated his copyright by using his song in their film Krazzy 4. It has all the trappings of a fairy tale suit in which the small creator wins against the might of the entertainment giants. It perhaps even reflects the original intent of copyright, which has otherwise served mainly the interests of large media corporations against small artists and creators. A number of commentators have hailed the suit and the settlement as a “landmark decision” that serves as an important precedent for future cases. Ram Sampath has himself gone on record saying that everyone in the creative field should get their hands on the 1957 Indian Copyright Act.

Encouraged by Ram Sampath’s success, we can therefore expect many more copyright claims in the field of music and creativity. While Ram Sampath’s case may have been a clear case of unfair use, I would argue that we should be a little cautious in celebrating it as a landmark decision or as a positive step as far as creativity is concerned. The language of the case and the reportage around it rely very heavily on the language of theft, property and damages for infringement of copyright and plagiarism in music. This rather hasty leap of faith to stricter enforcement of music copyright does not seem to find too much support in the history of music itself. While there was surely a violation of propriety in the Ram Sampath case, the important question that emerges is the impact of thinking of creativity only in terms of property. The history of copying, appropriation and plagiarism is in fact central to the history of various forms of cultural production, including music. We should therefore be a little cautious when we celebrate this case for the quick remedy it provided to an act of copying.

... contd.