Delhi High Court Halts OTT Release of Mask Over Copyrighted Kannada Song, Offers ₹30 Lakh Safeguard

Delhi High Court Halts OTT Release of Mask Over Copyrighted Kannada Song, Offers ₹30 Lakh Safeguard

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order directing the producers of the Tamil feature film Mask to either remove the Kannada song “Naguva Nayana” from the film or deposit ₹30 lakh before releasing it on OTT platforms, satellite television or any digital medium. The Court held that prima facie copyright in the song vests with Saregama India Ltd. and that the filmmakers had failed to show a valid licence for its use.

Factual Background

The dispute concerns the song “Naguva Nayana”, composed by Ilaiyaraja for the 1983 Kannada film Pallavi Anu Pallavi. Saregama India Ltd. claimed ownership of copyright in the sound recording as well as the underlying musical and literary works, based on a copyright assignment agreement executed in 1980 with the film’s producer, Venus Pictures.

According to Saregama, it was discovered on November 26, 2025, that the makers of Mask had used the song as background music without any licence. While the film had already been released theatrically on November 21, 2025, its OTT and satellite release was still pending. Saregama issued a cease-and-desist notice seeking regularisation of the unauthorised use.

Procedural Background

Saregama instituted a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi High Court and sought an interim injunction restraining further exploitation of the song. The application came up before Justice Tejas Karia, who considered the plea at the interim stage prior to the digital release of the film.

Issues

1. Whether Saregama India Ltd. is the prima facie copyright owner of the song “Naguva Nayana.”

2. Whether the licence allegedly granted by the composer Ilaiyaraja authorised the use of the song in the film Mask.

3. Whether interim relief should be granted restraining the OTT and satellite release of the film with the disputed song.

Contentions of the Parties

Saregama contended that under the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer of a cinematographic film is the first owner of copyright in the soundtrack when created for valuable consideration. It argued that Ilaiyaraja, though the composer, was not the copyright owner and therefore had no authority to license the song. Relying on the copyright assignment agreement and judicial precedents, Saregama asserted that the use of the song amounted to infringement.

The filmmakers, on the other hand, claimed that they had obtained a licence from Ilaiyaraja permitting them to adapt and use the track. They argued that such authorisation was sufficient and denied any deliberate infringement.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act and noted that when a musical work is created for a cinematographic film for valuable consideration, the producer becomes the first owner of copyright, unless there is a contract to the contrary. Moreover, relying on the assignment agreement placed on record and the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Performing Right Society, the Court held that Saregama prima facie held copyright in the song.

It rejected the defence based on the composer’s licence, holding that Ilaiyaraja, not being the copyright owner, could not grant a valid licence to the filmmakers. The Court found that Saregama had established a strong prima facie case of infringement.

However, considering that the film had already been released theatrically and that Saregama had expressed no objection to the OTT release provided its interests were safeguarded, the Court adopted a balanced approach. It held that directing a monetary deposit would sufficiently protect Saregama’s rights during the pendency of the suit.

Decision

The Delhi High Court directed the producers of Mask to either remove the song “Naguva Nayana” from the film or deposit ₹30 lakh with the Registrar General before releasing the film on OTT platforms, satellite television or any other online medium. In the event of non-compliance, the filmmakers were restrained from releasing the film with the disputed song included. The matter is next listed for hearing on March 23, 2026.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate, Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Shashwat Rakshit, Ms. Amrit Sharma and Ms. Annanya Mehan, Advocates.