Part 1: Introduction | Music Aligned with Current Copyright Law
Part 2: Musical Traditions Not Aligned with Copyright Law | Mapping Indian Music Onto Copyright Law | Comparative Infringement Analyses | Conclusion
* This essay was written during an internship supervised by Nandita Saikia and Sidharth Chopra at Saikrishna and Associates, India, in May–June 2026. It begins by exploring fundamental understandings of music and law, proceeds to examine how they play out in contemporary contexts including in relation to AI, and finally suggests how music could be protected through viable methods of examining the occurrence of infringement in the Indian context. Determining how to do so has plagued the Indian music industry, not least because forensic musicology is a nascent field in India, and because the Indian copyright statute is far more easily linked to practices and works associated with Western music than to those associated with Indian music.
In writing this essay, Vidita Govindachari has considered issues from the point of view of Western music, and Parvathi Menon has done so in the context of Indian music. Their analysis is, to a large extent, based on subjective understandings of musicology and on sometimes speculative interpretations of the Indian copyright statute, given that India’s corpus juris does not currently contain a body of case law and other materials which could be relied upon to definitively map out a large portion of the terrain the essay covers.
In relation to dispute resolution, the courts are expected to interpret statutory language by applying first principles, having regard to the scheme and purpose of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, even when dealing with new technologies or unfamiliar subject matter. Similarly, where a dispute concerns a specialised field such as music, the function of expert evidence is to assist the court in understanding the technical aspects of the subject matter so that settled legal principles can be applied. Lawyers and judges need not become musicologists; rather, musicologists help explain the facts, and the court determines the legal consequences.
Many of the issues identified in the essay are matters of interpretation and evidence, and the solutions suggested are a reflection of the authors’ perspective. The essay does not claim to conclusively answer questions but aims to support the development of forensic musicology in India.
– SC & NS
III. MUSICAL TRADITIONS NOT ALIGNED WITH COPYRIGHT LAW
Compared to Western music, where a work can generally be transmitted in its authoritative form through notation, and now recording, Indian classical music is far more rooted in iterative renditions, often passed down orally over centuries. The oral transmission tradition means Indian classical works do not strictly exist in a single authoritative fixed form. Performances can vary across gharanas and artists; melodic ornamentation, gamakas, and rhythmic interpretation differ widely between renditions without any one version being considered the ‘original’. Despite this, once a particular recording of a public domain work is registered, any work drawing from the same source can be flagged for infringement. More than a chilling effect, this results in threatening the ways in which Indian classical music is transmitted. The following sections of this essay examine these modes of transmission in detail, and their implications for Indian copyright law.
1. The Architecture of Indian Classical Music
Indian classical music has two closely-related traditions both of which are based on 7 swaras or notes: Hindustani and Carnatic music. The former is prevalent in the northern parts of the country and the latter in the south.[1]
The raga, which forms the ‘backbone’ of composition and improvisation in Indian classical music, is essentially a loose framework of notes arranged in a certain order to evoke a particular emotion in the listener. Hindustani music follows the 10 thaat system[2] in which 10 foundational scales, each consisting of all 7 notes, are arranged in ascending order of the notes. They are considered to be parent ragas and are specific combinations of shuddh (natural), komal (flat), or teevr (sharp) notes.[3] Other ragas are derived from these parent ragas by omitting/altering certain notes to create incomplete/varied swara combinations. In contrast, Carnatic music follows the 72 melakarta system. The melakarta ragas consist of all 7 swaras and are also called sampurna ragas or janaka/parent ragas. The derived ragas, asampurna or janya ragas, are derived from the janaka ragas in a manner similar to that in which ragas are derived in Hindustani music.
Despite ostensible differences, ragas in both traditions are similar in many ways. For example, the Yaman raga in Hindustani music is derived from the Kalyan thaat while Carnatic music’s Kalyani melakarta births the Yamuna Kalyani raga. Both are sampurna ragas that are melodically similar, with the only core difference being that the fourth swara (Ma) is treated differently. Yaman treats Ma in its pure teevr form only, while Yamuna Kalyani allows for an interchangeable treatment between the teevr and shuddh forms of the note.[4]
Music itself is performed to specific rhythms. Indian classical music consists of cycles of rhythm, tala, which are similar to the Western understanding of meter. A tala is basically a hierarchical arrangement of the beats based on how the piece is intended to be performed.
The Hindustani system most commonly follows the teental, which consists of 16 beats as well as other rhythms such as the ektaal (12 beats) and the jhaptaal (10 beats), while Carnatic music has a simpler tala system: the most widely used is the aditala (8 beats) although rupaka (6 beats) and misra (7 beats) are also commonly used.[5]
Both the music systems (especially Carnatic) consist of 12 notes in an octave.[6] However, the way they are applied in both are different.
Both traditions also use ornamentation; gamakas are essentially decorations given to the swara in the form of oscillations and inflections to provide character and expression. In Hindustani music, a gamaka is applied through the meend and andolan techniques.[7] An andolan is a more specific oscillation that ‘surrounds’ one particular note and is used to ‘liven up’ flatter[8] notes while meend refers to a smooth glide from one swara to the other in a single, unbroken motion.[9] Meend is an essential part of any Hindustani classical performance and is referred to as a ghaseet (literally meaning ‘to slide’) in instrumental music. In contrast, Carnatic music uses the technique of kampitam, which means that a vibration/oscillation is applied between swaras rather than a smooth glide between them.
In terms of vocal ornamentation, Hindustani singing relies heavily on aakaars[10] and throat cavity singing techniques, particularly seen in semiclassical Hindustani genres like thumri,[11] dadra,[12] and ghazals,[13] while Carnatic music incorporates techniques which are more nasal, and instead of simply singing an aakaar, the performer uses ‘thathari’, ‘na’, ‘ra’, etc., as ornamentations to sing parts that focus on the raga/music over the lyrics. Kalpanaswaram,[14] alapana,[15] niraval,[16], are important improvisational techniques used by performers in Carnatic music.
2. The Structure of Compositions
Hindustani music does not really have fixed compositions. Instead, the spotlight is on improvisations and emotions of the performer. The raga is learnt first, and compositions are based on the raga. A variety of themes such as those featuring romance, betrayal, devotion, and the seasons are employed in Hindustani music. Each composition follows a general arc, and starts with the alap, where the raga is felt and allowed to resonate alone for a bit, followed by the jor, which is when the composition picks up pace and provides a general tempo. At the very end is the jhala, which is when the composition is sped up and rhythmically charged.[17] The jhala is essentially a dramatic accelerando leading from the jor to the climax of the piece although, to a large extent, the performer’s creative licence determines when to transition between the various parts of the composition. The core intention is to feel the raga as an emotion that is not rigid.
Carnatic music does the opposite. There is a strict rulebook (lakshana) for each raga which clearly provides which phrases are allowed, what is prohibited, what gamakas are compulsory and where they are applied. This may also have to do with the fact that Carnatic compositions are more devotional in their themes than their northern counterparts. The general structure of a Carnatic performance is ragam[18] – tanam[19] – pallavi[20] with a non-uniform, complex rhythmic cycle being repeated throughout.[21]
3. Notation and the Fixation of Musical Works
The elements of Indian classical music are complex and fluid in nature, and it is difficult to contain this fluidity in a notation system that is fixed and easily comprehensible. As such, Indian classical music has traditionally been taught orally over centuries and across generations. The contents of the teachings go beyond mere notes, and include instruction relating to various ornamentations such as gamakas that live between notes, the precision that each note (swara) and gamaka requires, the feel that is sought, and even the most minor of tonal inflections that are impossible to capture in mere notation. The knowledge that is passed down is technically stable in the tradition for centuries yet it is not generally written down because the subtlety resists notation.
Gamakas, for example, by their very nature defy categorization as symbols, resulting in such symbols not typically being part of the learning process. Attempts at providing symbols for gamakas have been difficult for performers to interpret due to many subtle variations found amongst them. Performers tend to use basic notation, where it is available, as an aid to remember a gamaka that has already been learnt through hearing and training. An experienced performer knows which gamaka accompanies a swara even when it is not notated. Conversely, a notation for gamakas is comprehensible only to someone who already knows the music. For someone without prior oral training, even the most detailed notation will fail when it comes to ‘translating’ notation into performance.
This is fundamentally different from how stave notation operates in Western traditions: stave notation can usually be ease employed to fix Western music, and it is designed in such a way that a musician in that tradition who is familiar with it can play even a piece he has never before heard. That said, when Western stave notation is used to express Indian classical music, it captures the skeleton of the composition well. Even prescriptive notation retains statistical patterns that allow one to identify the complex ornamentation that a swara carries.[22] However, although identification per se is possible, stave notation fails to capture the nuances of Indian classical compositions as exemplified by its failure to capture ornamentation and, for that matter, improvisations.
Perhaps recognising the inadequacy of stave notation, Indian music has developed a few indigenous notation systems too. The sargam (corresponding to solfège in Western music) is common across both Hindustani and Carnatic traditions, employing seven ‘syllables’ Sa, Re/Ri, Ga, Ma, Pa, Dha, Ni to represent the seven swaras, with marks indicating octaves, altered notes, rhythmic duration. Modern indigenous notation tends to capture the basic pitch and rhythm, and leaves the rest up to oral teaching.
Musicologist Vishnu Narayan Bhatkande introduced the Bhatkande notation system that uses letters and symbols to define raga structures and talas on paper. The system features shuddh notes as capital letters, komal notes with underlines or lowercase letters, and a dot above or below indicating a higher/lower octave, and is commonly used in Hindustani music textbooks.
In relation to Carnatic music, the music scholar Subbarama Dikshitar wrote the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini[23] in the early 1900s, which can be considered one of the earliest documentations of Indian Carnatic music and musicology. It used a list of symbols to denote the 15 gamakas classified by him. Some of them were derived from Western music and given a different musical meaning. However, this system failed to gain traction.
Usually, in Carnatic music, the swaras are notated with dots (similar to those now used in Hindustani music) to indicate the octave. In 2017, Ramesh Vinayakam created India’s first patented box notation system[24] that created a detailed system of notations for different movements within the swaras like slides, speed of oscillation, vibrato, and pitch. The system, however, is complex, and may not be easy to understand unless one is extensively trained.
In general, Indian notation systems have not been designed with the goal of limiting or strictly defining a composition. They primarily serve as memory aids and help performers stay true to the composition. The essence of the work is transmitted mainly through oral pedagogy.
IV. MAPPING INDIAN MUSIC ONTO COPYRIGHT LAW
Although the Indian copyright statute does not require musical works to be graphically notated, in practical terms, musical works need to be fixed in some way for evidentiary purposes. This could be achieved through recording which creates an anomalous situation where the proof of the existence of one work (the musical work) is established via another work, a sound recording or through notation (a transcription of the original musical work, meaning an adaptation of it in terms of the 1957 Copyright Act).
Heritage ragas, talas, and stylistic traditions are in the public domain and are available for all to use. They are not protected by copyright since they are not contemporary compositions which meet the requirements for copyrightability. It is not possible for an individual to own the ancient raga framework, and the same goes for all stylistic principles. The Delhi High Court in the 2025 Veera Raja Veera[1] case opined that innumerable musical compositions can be based off the same set of swaras much like how innumerable literary works exist off the same alphabets. However, just because ragas are in the public domain, it does not mean that individual compositions cannot be protected by copyright.[2]
So, when a composer arranges a piece after carefully selecting, arranging, and expressing the swaras in an original and creative manner, that specific piece potentially qualifies as a musical work eligible for copyright protection as contemplated by Sections 2(p) and 14(a) of the 1957 Copyright Act which define musical works and the rights included in the copyright bundle respectively.
An adaptation is ‘parasitic’ in nature; there is no adaptation without a prior work. Sections 14(a)(i) to (vi) of the 1957 Copyright Act list a number of rights[3] which copyright owners and those authorised by them can exercise in relation to musical works while, in the context of musical works, Section 14(a)(vii) extends those rights to adaptations of such works. The Indian copyright statute defines an adaptation of a musical work as ‘any arrangement or transcription of the work’ in Section 2(a)(iv) and Section 2(a)(v) brings ‘any use [emphasis added] of such work involving its re-arrangement of alteration’ within the scope of the definition of an adaptation. As such, both Sections 2(a)(iv) and (v) presuppose the existence of an identifiable, authored composition that is being transformed; such an interpretation is supported by the phrases ‘of the work’ and ‘of such work’ in Sections 2(a)(iv) and (v) respectively of the 1957 Copyright Act.
To understand what makes for an adaptation in the context of Indian classical music, it is worth considering the construction of classical compositions. The raga lies at the heart of Indian classical music and could be described as a generative system with a grammar of permitted notes, phrases, rules of ornamentation, etc. that acts as a framework within which the composition is made. In Carnatic music, many ragas are derived ragas. They have distinct personalities and characteristic movements that share a common root in the janaka raga. In Hindustani music, misra ragas blend two or more ragas to form a new raga. These derived ragas would, in any case, not be considered to be copyrightable if they were heritage ragas. However, copyright considerations arise in relation to contemporary derivations.
Questions about copyrightability arise with reference to the distinction between idea and expression. Copyright protects specific, original expressions and not the systems, styles, or frameworks within which the expression is created. The composition of a new derived raga system does not alter the source raga. The original framework remains intact, meaning that the alteration requirement under Section 2(a)(v) of the 1957 Copyright Act may not be satisfied. Consequently, it could be argued, on one hand, that a new raga, no matter how creative, enters the tradition as common property and, on the other hand, that it may anyway be unprotectible as a system, but that it may nonetheless be capable of being protected when specific compositions are generated within its framework.
In this context, it may also be worth considering gharanas: lineage-based traditions that interpret the same raga through specific aesthetic frameworks. Over generations, groups of musicians organized themselves into families called gharanas that have rearranged and reinterpreted various ragas and have produced distinctive vocal and instrumental styles based on their interpretations.
Now, the question here is whether one gharana’s distinctive treatment of a composition that another gharana has already interpreted and fixed counts as an adaptation of that prior interpretation, or an independent realization of the raga itself. Considering that heritage ragas are available for use in the public domain, and gharana interpretations are often communal rather than proprietary, in most cases the answer would be that it is an independent unprotected realisation, unless the composition has been demonstrably reworked from the earlier gharana version.
When a contemporary musician takes a heritage classical composition and, for instance, incorporates it into a commercially-marketable song (as may be done in the film industry) possibly layering music and rearranging the heritage substratum, adaptation rights come into play. The process could lead to the composition of a new adaptation, likely fixed in a new sound recording.[4] If this were the case, the new adaptation could potentially be protected by copyright even though its source material would continue to remain in the public domain.
This is because the copyright status of the existing work and the new work are separate from each other. According to Article 2(3) the Berne Convention, ‘translations, adaptations, arrangements of music [….] shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work’.[5] Also, copyright protection granted to an adaption does not extend a new copyright to the existing work.[6] As such, even if a musical work is in the public domain, an adaptation of the same can still be protected by copyright without the prior work becoming proprietary.
Thus, an adaptation does not necessarily require a copyrightable source work but the copyright status of the source work potentially shapes the rights protecting the new work.
V. COMPARATIVE INFRINGEMENT ANALYSES
Given how complex determining the copyright status of pieces of music can be, it becomes essential to have a system in place to evaluate copyright and assess infringement. In large measure, forensic musicology, the practice of analysing a musical work through its melody, harmony, rhythm and other elements to understand whether it copied from pre-existing music,[1] helps develop the tools to do so. It is used in copyright infringement disputes to help establish the degree of plagiarism and infringement, if any.[2]
The term ‘forensic’ is often defined as the application of scientific methods and techniques used as evidence in a legal matter, and musicology is often similarly defined as the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of music.[3]
There is no single agreed methodology used by forensic musicologists to come to an objective conclusion although analyses commonly tend to rely on aural comparisons and graphical comparisons. These conventional methods, however, tend to be inadequate for the purpose of assessing Indian music, and it is therefore prudent to explore alternatives to them.
1. Conventional Assessment Methods
Aural comparison techniques include the layman and golden ear tests,[4] and the decision of which method to prioritise is ultimately more subjective than objective. The layman test checks to see if the average listener would be able to recognize that a subsequent work has appropriated content from an earlier work. The ordinary listener is the benchmark against the determination of the presence of substantial similarity. But ordinary listeners may not have the familiarity with copyright and musical concepts to enable them to distinguish between copyrightable and non-copyrightable elements. It may therefore be best to avoid the technique because the music is ‘tested’ according to the perceptions of those who may have little claim to musical literacy.[5]
In the latter, that is, the golden ear test, trained musicologists/musicians identify specific musical elements with precision. Ironically, this test may be criticised for relying on nuances which ordinary listeners would completely miss, and which do not affect the experience most people have while listening to music. To perform the golden ear test, ornaments, architecture, rhythmic weight, the treatment of certain swaras, etc., are analysed to compare the works in question. In principle, the technique is capable of distinguishing between generic and specific similarities in the works. However, it carries the risk of two equally qualified experts disagreeing, especially if they each rely on different performance traditions and each evaluate different layers of the music.
Indian classical music has no single authoritative performance tradition. It is transmitted through oral guru-shishya (teacher-disciple) traditions, and each guru has their own conventions for ornamentation, phrases, gamakas, and swara weightage. Experts may be conditioned by their traditions differently to hear and value different layers of the work as being primary. Similarly, one expert may evaluate the composition at the skeletal level where the similarities are easier to identify and are more generic to the raga, focusing on the sequence of swaras, while another may focus on micro-level inflections and gamakas where tradition-specific interpretations play a greater role with the result that they may draw vastly different conclusions when presented with the same factual matrix.
Graphical comparisons, such as those which rely on notation, are arguably more objective than aural ones since they tend to compare written transcriptions of the pieces of music in question by identifying shared note sequences, patterns, parallels in the structure, and phrasal similarities. The method, particularly when used in the Western tradition using stave notation, helps separate the generic, unprotectible elements from potentially copyrightable ones, and to trace the provenance and structure of allegedly infringing musical works. It is commonly used by courts, and was recently employed in the Veera Raja Veera[6] case.
This approach, however, faces several challenges when it attempts to analyse Indian music since stave notation tends to capture the ‘skeleton’ of a musical work rather than the ‘soul’ where the creative identity of a piece resides. Indian classical music is almost unarguably more malleable than Western music. There are delicate nuances that constitute the soul of Indian music that are simply impossible to fully capture in a Western sheet of musical notations.
Western music focuses on only 12 semitones in an octave. However, when it comes to Indian classical music, the concept of shrutis, or microtones, was first formalized in Bharata’s Natya Shastra, which divides the octave into 22 mathematically precise intervals. Shrutis help provide a raga with emotion and the performer may emphasize certain shrutis to help highlight the character of the raga. For example, a slightly raised Ni in the Bhimpalasi raga can evoke a sense of longing in the listener.[7]
Additionally, it is important to take into account that the present meaning of shruti is more connected to melodic shapes and ornamentation rather than fixed pitch positions. This, too, challenges the use of stave notation to analyse Indian music: pitch is considered to be a fluid and relative concept in Indian classical music that is very dependent on the context of the composition and the performance while Western music (and stave notation) tends to treat pitch as being fixed and absolute.[8]
Further, Indian music is heavily reliant on interpretation and improvisations, with techniques such as meend focusing on seamless flow between notes. Contemporary Western classical musicians do not generally focus on improvisation as part of the discipline although students of Indian classical music are trained to do just that. Indian classical music also employs instruments such as the tanpura and sarangi that contribute to the meend and encourage improvisations.
Thus, nuance eludes notation-based comparison when it comes to Indian classical music, and it may not take the raga into account. Two compositions built on the same raga will inevitably have similarities in their notations, and comparing their notation may be misleading as shared musical grammar may be flagged as illegitimate copying; stave notation fails to reliably differentiate between the two.
The textual/graphical method makes an evidentiary assumption that a musical work can be meaningfully represented in written or graphical form, and that comparing them will reveal whether copyright infringement or plagiarism has occurred. In the case of Western music, the notation is often the work in a legal sense, and, as a result, a comparison of notations of two works is a comparison of what the law protects. But in the case of Indian classical music, the assumption fails at the root. Comparison using graphical representation is reliable only to the extent that graphical notation actually captures the music it is intended to transcribe; as matters stand, notation does not capture Indian music well.
In the world of Indian classical music, stave notation may be useful for the purposes of teaching and performance[9] but the moment notations wander from that bubble and venture into the legal world, the inadequacies of stave notation become increasingly significant, leaving infringement assessments messy and complicated with no real, uniform system to rely on for answers.
2. Viable Assessment Methods in the Indian Context
That the standard aural and graphical methods to compare pieces of music resist being applied to Indian classical music without modification does not mean that comparative analyses are impossible. On the contrary, such analyses can be conducted using various structured evidentiary methodologies. For example, the ‘virtual identity’ test can be applied (instead of the conventional substantial similarity test) to assess the likelihood of infringement having occurred.
The substantial similarity test, referenced by the Supreme Court in RG Anand v. Delux Films,[10] simply asks if a person who has interacted with both the works involved in a copyright dispute would get the same impression from both, i.e., whether the later work is so similar to the prior work that it must have been copied from the prior work rather than having been independently created. For Indian classical music, this standard is poorly calibrated: two entirely independent compositions in the same raga will produce the same overall impression in any listener precisely because the raga itself generates that impression, meaning the substantial similarity test will routinely find similarity where there is none beyond shared public domain grammar. The ‘virtual identity’ standard corrects this by requiring the similarity to be demonstrated at the level of specific original expression rather than overall aural effect. As such, a finding of infringement cannot be reached unless an allegedly infringing work is ‘virtually identical’ to the existing copyrighted work it is compared to.[11]
When a work draws heavily on a shared public domain framework like a raga, its copyrightability is thin, and the protection must be narrow accordingly. The specific choices made in the process of composing the work beyond the basic grammar of the raga must be taken into consideration. For a work to be considered protectible, one may argue that it should have original elements which are capable of distinguishing it from its source, and these elements integrated with the source must be selected and arranged in a manner that their sequential combination constitutes an original work of authorship.
Conversely, having two works merely sharing melodic similarity would not automatically result in a finding of infringement even if the prior work were protected. From the point of view of infringement analysis, assessing whether ‘enough’ has been copied to constitute infringement requires a layered structural analysis rather than a purely quantitative or purely qualitative one. The quantity of overlap may substantially be a function of the raga rather than of copying, and qualitative aural impression may subjectively be determined by the emotional and aesthetic character of the raga itself.
The analysis, whether from the point of view of originality and authorship or of reproduction and infringement, must therefore proceed in layers of increasing compositional specificity. The first layer contains the raga grammar and must be stripped out entirely before comparison begins bearing in mind that where the raga is age old, it would be in the public domain. Similarity at the second layer, the compositional skeleton of specific swara sequences and rhythmic choices, is relevant but insufficient alone to make any assessment since those choices remain substantially constrained by raga grammar and common tala conventions. It is at the third and fourth layers, that is: the ornamental and gamaka architecture specific to the composition, and the characteristic elaboration choices that constitute the composer’s individual signature respectively that individuality actually resides in Indian classical music, and the primary indicator of copying should be demonstrated at these final layers.
This framework gives the expert witness a defined analytical framework to figure out at which layer the similarity resides and whether that layer reflects individual compositional choice or shared traditional practice. Formalising this standard would give courts a structured analytical path rather than leaving them to oscillate between the impressions of listeners, with varying degrees of musical literacy, who may not hear much beyond the underlying the raga or who may have hyper-technical and inconsistent parameters for comparison on one hand and a notation comparison which may not hear the music at all on the other hand relying, as it would, entirely on visual cues to assess what is an essentially aural art in the Indian context. Where allegations of protected works having been infringed are made, this analytical framework prevents illegitimate claims which are built on raga-level resemblance alone to proceed and simultaneously prevents legitimate claims from being defeated by pointing to skeletal differences despite the reproduction of ornamental architecture.
Further, the assessments could be made by expert panels comprising musicians and musicologists well-versed in the relevant performance traditions rather than by individual experts; this would potentially result in more informed outcomes and suppress differential findings born of subjective individual assessments.
One may also suggest that recorded performances, whether audio or audiovisual, should be treated as the primary evidentiary document when allegations of infringement arise, with notation serving only as a secondary cross-reference, in the context of Indian music. Indian courts already rely on recordings as a proxy for fixation because the copyright law was not designed to protect unrecorded oral pieces of music although it recognises them as musical works.[12] If the recording is formalised as a primary standard rather than a proxy, it would cause the evidentiary framework to align with both existing judicial practices and the 1994 amendment to the 1957 Copyright Act which recognised musical works without notation, and would help ameliorate, if not bypass, the challenges which transcribing Indian music using stave notation poses to infringement analyses.
This approach is reinforced by the structure of Section 13 of the 1957 Copyright Act. Copyright subsists independently in original musical works and in non-infringing sound recordings per Sections 13(1)(a) and (c) of the statute respectively. Sound recordings are a distinct category of protected subject matter rather than mere evidence of musical works. When a musical composition has never been reduced to notation, copyright potentially subsists in it both as a musical work and, if it is recorded, as a sound recording. The sound recording’s own copyright is contingent on the underlying musical work (or any other work) not having been infringed in its making. A direct line can be drawn from Section 13 of the 1957 Copyright Act to the dual nature of Indian classical music which has not been graphically captured, and it may therefore be argued that formalising a reliance on sound recordings as the primary tool to compare such music aligns Indian copyright statute.
Finally, instead of relying on graphical comparisons or aural analyses, computational analysis of works in dispute can help capture microtonal inflections, gamaka variations, swara treatments, etc., that cannot be documented by notation systems.
On the forensic authentication side, the standard methods used to validate and compare digital audio recordings for the purpose of dispute resolution include spectral analysis, waveform comparison, and Electric Network Frequency (ENF) analysis.[13] A case of sampling can be clearly identified by targeted analysis. According to Braun, the basic forensic workflow starts with directly comparing the notations of both the works. Since most samples are changed in speed and pitch, it becomes important to normalize the pitch and tempo difference before comparing audio recordings.[14] This step is extremely relevant to Indian classical music, where different performers of the same composition will naturally produce recordings at different tempos and in different registers.
ENF analysis also provides for means of authenticating when and where a recording was made by detecting the fluctuations of frequency embedded in the recording environment. In principle, ENF analysis could authenticate the origin and timestamp of the recording to establish priority of fixation with forensic precision over mere testimonial evidence.[15]
However, methods such as ENF analysis have primarily been developed to assess recorded Western music. Indian classical music does not merely compare fixed compositions but also performances, and the musical relationship is mediated by a shared raga framework that standard forensic comparison tools are not specifically designed to process.
A better way to carry out analyses of Indian classical would be perceptual hashing.[16] In this method, a unique digital fingerprint is generated from an audio file’s acoustic characteristics rather than its notation. They do not change much even with frequent changes made to the audio, and they are resistant to even minor modifications that would defeat detection. This resilience is necessary due to audio recordings being inherently variable. The fingerprinting method can survive this variability while still identifying underlying similarity. A framework that combined the Panako 2.0 and OLAF algorithms, two algorithms used for the purpose, was, for example, reportedly able to correctly identify 98.5% of tampered files in spite of exponential pitch manipulations, time compress and stretches.[17]
However, this fingerprinting technique will require careful adaptation before being applied to Indian classical music. Perceptual hashing fingerprints the entire signal indiscriminately and may not be able to accurately differentiate between similarities arising from shared raga frameworks and similarities arising in consequence of plagiarism or infringement. Research has proposed enhancements in perceptual hashing that specifically suit Indian classical music as it has unique needs due to intricacies in the variations, and it has been suggested that fingerprinting approaches tailored to a particular set of inputs can significantly strengthen copyright protection in Indian classical music.[18]
This suggests a two-step hashing process. First, the raga is to be isolated and generic features of the raga that would be common to any composition set in it are to be discounted. Following this, a fingerprint is to be generated for the ornamentations and structural aspects that constitute the composer’s creative additions. Until the hashing is modified in this manner, it remains a tool that best analyses Western music with the potential to be useful in the context of Indian classical music.
VI. CONCLUSION
Indian copyright law cannot assess musical works effectively if it continues to rely on musical assumptions without adequately defining them. Although the lack of definitional clarity affects music both in Indian and Western traditions, this is especially true for Indian music, which cannot be evaluated on the basis of a system that derives from a Western classical approach. There are limits to fixation, notation, and listener-centric originality and infringement analyses, and the nuances of Indian classical music tend to highlights the inadequacies of standard methods in use to conduct musico-legal analyses.
To determine questions of adaptation, authorship, and infringement, it is advisable to move toward a layered analysis methodology that differentiates musical frameworks available in the public domain from original compositional/performance choices made by the musician. Appropriate evidentiary weight should to be adequately assigned to recordings, expert musical analyses, and computational methods to understand and accurately analyse musical structures. This could potentially reduce the risk of overprotection, prevent unjustifiable claims over common musical frameworks, and better protect works in not only the Western tradition by also in Indian classical music traditions.
Ultimately, the aim of introducing non-conventional forensic musicology is not to substitute current copyright doctrine or practice but to supplement it and enhance its musical literacy especially with reference to musical traditions with which conventional copyright is unfamiliar. By better understanding the terms of art already used by the Indian copyright statute, and by bridging the gap between legal analysis and the realities of musical practice, the law can be better equipped to separate borrowing from infringement, tradition from original contemporary authorship, and common heritage from protected expression. This essay is an attempt to support the process of realising these aims.
[1] Vijay Prakash Singha, An Introduction to Hindustani Classical Music: A Beginners Guide (2014) 14.
[2] A thaat is a complete raga that contains all seven notes from which incomplete ragas are derived.
[3] Spardha Learnings, ‘How is Carnatic Music Different from Hindustani Music?’ (Spardha School of Music, 28 December 2024) https://www.spardhaschoolofmusic.com/blog/how-is-carnatic-music-different-from-hindustani-music-2#compositions accessed 8 May 2026.
[4] Ibid.
[5] P. Sambamurthy, A Practical Course in Karnatik Music, Book II (The Indian Music Publishing House, Madras).
[6] While the raga consists of 7 notes only, the octave consists of all the variations of the 7 notes, except Sa and Pa which are naturally occurring/fixed notes. Ma is the only note which has a teevr variation, while Ri, Ga, Dha and Ni have komal variations. So essentially 7 shuddh notes + 4 komal notes + 1 teevr note form the 12 notes in an octave.
[7] Drishti Art Centre, ‘The Notation System in Indian Music’ (Drishti Art Centre Magazine, Issue 9) https://drishtiartcentre.com/drishti-art-centre/magazine/issue-9/the-notation-system-in-indian-music/ accessed 15 May 2026.
[8] ITC Sangeet Research Academy, ‘Andolan’ (archived 21 December 2008). https://web.archive.org/web/20220522011250/http://itcsra.org/andolan accessed 12 June 2026.
[9] ITC Sangeet Research Academy, ‘Meend’ (archived, 29 May 2022) https://web.archive.org/web/20220529112028/http://itcsra.org/meend accessed 12 June 2026.
[10] An aakaar is a singing technique where the singer uses only vowel sounds (commonly the ‘aa’ sound) to sing notes instead of words.
[11] More lyrical, conversational way of singing with very delicate ornamentations and microtonal inflections. Improvisations are based on the lyrics of the composition and due to its origins from courtesans and dancers, it focuses mainly on entertainment and delight, most commonly evoking the shringara rasa (expression of love and joy).
[12] Originally accompanied by the dadra tala and is a lighter vocal tradition, it combines languages. The sthayi (opening section) is sung in local dialects like Awadhi, Bhojpuri, or Braj bhasha while the Antara (verse) is sometimes in Urdu.
[13] A poem that consists of independent couplets (shers) and is set to music, usually performed solo.
[14] Improvised note sequences created by the performer that are not set in the composition itself.
[15] Similar to an aakaar, and is used before the composition to set the mood of the composition and communicate the swaras that are fixed and permitted.
[16] One or two meaningful lines are taken and repeated with improvised melody by the performer.
[17] Biplab Munshi, ‘A Comparative Study of Carnatic and Hindustani Classical Music: Structures, Practices, and Aesthetics’ (September 2025) ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395178780_A_Comparative_Study_of_Carnatic_and_Hindustani_Classical_Music_Structures_Practices_and_Aesthetics accessed 12 June 2026.
[18] The beginning of the composition, where the musician uses melodic improvisation which gives an idea about the raga and communicates the notes and phrases that are allowed in the raga (alapana).
[19] A rhythmic variation of the alapana where the raga is expanded using syllables ‘a-nam-tam’.
[20] A one-line composition.
[21] Biplab Munshi, ‘A Comparative Study of Carnatic and Hindustani Classical Music: Structures, Practices, and Aesthetics’ (September 2025) ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395178780_A_Comparative_Study_of_Carnatic_and_Hindustani_Classical_Music_Structures_Practices_and_Aesthetics accessed 12 June 2026.
[22] KKM, ‘Historical Perspective of Indian Music Notation’ (Kalyani Kala Mandir, 5 May 2026) https://kalyanikalamandir.com/historical-perspective-of-indian-music-notation/ accessed 18 May 2026.
[23] Subbarama Dikshitar, Sangita Sampradaya Pradarsini (English edn, translated by P P Narayanaswami, Vidya Jayaraman and others, Guruguha/ibiblio) https://www.ibiblio.org/guruguha/ssp.htm accessed 18 May 2026.
[24] A Padmanabhan and others, ‘Gamaka Box Notational System’ (Patent Cooperation Treaty Patent, WO2017125945A2, published 27 July 2017) https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017125945A2/en, accessed 18 May 2026; Ramesh Vinayakam, Gamaka Box Notation: Overview (Scribd) https://www.scribd.com/document/691244004/Gamaka-Box-Notation-overview accessed 18 May 2026.
[25] A R Rahman v Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar and Others 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6159 [Del HC (DB), 24 September 2025].
[26] Smriti R Saroja and Sunand Subramaniam, ‘Copyright and Classical Music – Analysis of Delhi HC Decision’ (LiveLaw, 12 May 2025) https://www.livelaw.in/articles/delhi-high-court-judgment-ustad-faiyaz-wasifuddin-dagar-vs-ar-rahman-critical-analysis-291955 accessed 20 May 2026.
[27] These rights include the rights of reproduction, adaptation, and public performance.
[28] TheLaw.Institute, ‘Comprehensive Guide to Copyright Rights in Literary, Dramatic, and Musical Works’ (Law Notes by TheLaw.Institute, 13 October 2025) https://thelaw.institute/copyright-and-related-rights/comprehensive-guide-copyright-literary-dramatic-music-works/ accessed 13 June 2026.
[29] Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (adopted 9 September 1886, revised at Paris 24 July 1971 and amended 28 September 1979) 828 UNTS 221.
[30] Copyright Office, Government of India, Practice and Procedure Manual: Literary Works (Copyright Office 2018) https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/Manuals/LITERARY_MANUAL.pdf accessed 16 May 2026.
[31] Gary A Greenberg, ‘Forensic Musicology and Expert Witnessing’ (2005) 1 Jurimetrics Journal (reproduced online) https://www.jurispro.com/files/articles/forensicmusicology_6302.pdf accessed 17 May 2026.
[32] Joan Serrà, Gopala K Koduri, Marius Miron and Xavier Serra, ‘Assessing the Tuning of Sung Indian Classical Music’ in Proceedings of the 12th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2011) (University of Miami 2011) 157-162. https://www.academia.edu/15681682/Assessing_the_tuning_of_sung_indian_classical_music#outer_page_1 accessed 17 May 2026.
[33] Stefan K Braun, ‘Forensic Evidence of Copyright Infringement by Digital Audio Sampling: Analysis – Identification – Marking’ (2014)(3) International Journal of Cyber-Security and Digital Forensics 187. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264383699_Forensic_Evidence_of_Copyright_Infringement_by_Digital_Audio_Sampling_Analysis_-_Identification_-_Marking accessed 20 May 2026.
[34] Eric P Smith and Gary A Klein, ‘Automating Music Similarity Analysis in “Sound-Alike” Copyright Infringement Cases’ (2014) 25(2) NYSBA Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal 60.
[35] Ibid.
[36] A R Rahman v Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar and Others 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6159 [Del HC (DB), 24 September 2025].
[37] Ibid.
[38] Serenade Team, ‘Understanding Microtones in Indian Classical Music: An Analysis of Shrutis and Their Importance in Ragas’ (Serenade Magazine, 24 September 2025) https://serenademagazine.com/understanding-microtones-in-indian-classical-music–an-analysis-of-shrutis-and-their-importance-in-ragas/ accessed 20 May 2026.
[39] Sadhana, ‘Notating Indian Classical Music’ (Raag Hindustani) https://raag-hindustani.com/Notation.html accessed 25 May 2026.
[40] R G Anand v Delux Films 1978 SCC OnLine SC 195.
[41] Aparajita Lath, ‘Out of Tune: Supreme Court Backs Off from Dagar-Rahman Copyright Battle’ (Supreme Court Observer, 20 March 2026) https://www.scobserver.in/journal/out-of-tune-supreme-court-backs-off-from-dagar-rahman-copyright-battle/ accessed 23 May 2026.
[42] A R Rahman v Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar and Others 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6159 [Del HC (DB), 24 September 2025].
[43] Stefan K Braun, ‘Forensic Evidence of Copyright Infringement by Digital Audio Sampling: Analysis – Identification – Marking’ (2014)(3) International Journal of Cyber-Security and Digital Forensics 187.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Harsha Aswani, ‘Authorship in an Impromptu Performance Under Indian Copyright Act’ (Mondaq, 9 March 2022) https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1170044/authorship-in-an-impromptu-performance-under-indian-copyright-act accessed 19 May 2026.
[47] N Kavitha, Rashmika S J and Reshika A S, ‘Perceptual Hash Techniques for Audio Copyright Protection in Decentralized Systems’ (2025) 16(7) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications https://thesai.org/Downloads/Volume16No7/Paper_31-Perceptual_Hash_Techniques_for_Audio_Copyright_Protection.pdf
[48] Ibid.
