The growing tendency among new and emerging music composers in hindi film industry to appropriate some of the finest melodies originally created by the legendary maestros of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, and to repurpose these compositions in contemporary cinema under the aegis of rights held by producers or major music label conglomerates only to present such recreated works as their own, raises serious ethical, artistic, and legal concerns. This practice is not merely a matter of poor taste or creative laziness, it amounts to a form of misrepresentation that undermines the legacy, dignity, and intellectual labour of the original composers and vocalists who gave these melodies their enduring life.
These classic compositions were not incidental creations, they were the result of profound musical insight, cultural sensitivity, and artistic discipline with God gifted genius mind for creativity. Composers of earlier decades worked within the constraints of limited technology yet managed to produce music that has transcended time, geography, and generational divides. Their works continue to evoke deep emotional responses, and for many listeners, they are inseparable from personal memories and collective cultural heritage. To take such compositions, alter them superficially with modern instrumentation or electronic embellishments, and then present them as newly composed works is to diminish their historical and artistic significance.
I found myself genuinely disheartened when, while watching a very recent Hindi blockbuster, I observed that the individual responsible for recreating some old songs was prominently credited as the “music composer,” whilst the names of the original creators such as R.D. Burman, Kalyanji Anandji, Bappi Lahiri, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and folk singers/composers were relegated to obscure, barely noticeable mentions in the credits. This disparity in attribution is not a trivial oversight, it reflects a broader systemic disregard for artistic integrity. The producer appears to offer only a token acknowledgment to the original creators, often through small and inconspicuous lettering, while the remaker is prominently showcased, creating a misleading impression for the audience.
Such conduct suggests a brazen and, at times, shameless assertion of authorship. It creates confusion among audiences, particularly younger listeners who may be unaware of the original compositions and are thus led to believe that these recreated versions are entirely new works. This not only deprives the original composers of their rightful recognition but also distorts the historical record of musical achievement.
A similar concern was expressed by the noted composer Viju Shah, who, during the late 1980s and 1990s, contributed significantly to the Indian music landscape. He publicly lamented that one of his well known compositions had been reused in a modern production without proper credit, with his name omitted entirely and replaced by that of the remaker. Such incidents are not isolated and they represent a recurring pattern that reflects deeper structural issues within the music industry. Similar incident happened with few compositions of oscar winner music composer A.R. Rahman as well.
Regrettably, many contemporary composers do not even attempt to seek inspiration from diverse or global musical traditions. Instead, they frequently rely on the convenient strategy of reusing well-loved melodies from earlier decades particularly from the 1950s, 1960s to 1990s. While a lack of originality or creative confidence may play a role, the more significant factor appears to be the monopolistic control exercised by a handful of powerful music label corporations. These entities have evolved into large scale corporate enterprises, driven primarily by commercial considerations rather than artistic values. In their pursuit of profit maximisation, these corporations often prioritise marketability over originality. They recognise that nostalgia is a powerful emotional trigger and therefore seek to capitalise on the audience’s attachment to familiar tunes. By repackaging old hits with contemporary beats, visual appeal, and star-driven marketing, they create products that are commercially viable, even if they lack genuine creativity or artistic depth. This strategy has become increasingly prevalent over the past decade or more.
However, this approach comes at a significant cost. It contributes to the gradual erosion of originality in film music and discourages innovation among new composers. When the industry consistently rewards recycled content, it creates little incentive for artists to experiment, take risks, or develop a unique musical identity. Over time, this can lead to a homogenisation of musical output, where distinct styles and voices are replaced by formulaic and repetitive patterns.
Moreover, the practice often raises complex issues related to intellectual property rights and credit attribution. Although music labels may legally hold the rights to these compositions, the moral rights of the original creators such as the right to be properly credited and to protect the integrity of their work are frequently overlooked. In many cases, original composers or their families choose not to pursue legal action, not because they condone such practices, but because they are aware of the immense financial and institutional power wielded by large corporate entities. Engaging in prolonged legal battles against such organisations can be both financially and emotionally exhausting, with no guarantee of a favourable outcome.
It is therefore imperative that legislative measures be introduced or strengthened to address this issue. The law should clearly distinguish between an original composition and a recreated version. Any individual who adapts or remakes an existing work should be explicitly identified as a “remaker” or “adapter,” rather than being credited as the composer. Such a distinction would help maintain transparency and ensure that audiences are accurately informed about the origins of the music they are consuming.
Furthermore, the use of original compositions should require the explicit consent of the original composer or, in cases where they are no longer living, their immediate family or legal heirs. This would not only uphold the rights of creators but also foster a culture of respect and accountability within the industry. Proper licensing agreements should include clear provisions regarding credit placement, ensuring that the names of original composers are displayed prominently and not relegated to obscurity. Few years ago when a beautiful composition was launched by the Music Conglomerate in the market then the original music composers Vishal-Shekhar thrraten them to go to the Court immediately and ultimately that song was recreated with the permission and under the vigilance of Vishal Shekhar.
If the legislative and executive branches fail to take adequate action, it may become necessary for the judiciary to intervene. The constitutional courts, including the higher judiciary, have a crucial role to play in protecting fundamental rights and upholding principles of fairness and justice. The right to recognition for one’s creative work can be seen as an extension of the broader right to dignity and expression. As such, courts may be called upon to establish guidelines or issue directives to ensure that original creators receive due acknowledgment.
The denial of rightful credit is not merely an ethical lapse, it represents a deeper injustice that undermines the cultural fabric of society. Music is not just a commodity, it is a form of artistic expression that carries emotional, historical, and cultural significance. When the contributions of original creators are diminished or erased, it weakens our collective appreciation of artistic heritage.
This issue also reflects broader concerns about crony capitalism, where economic power is concentrated in the hands of a few large entities that operate with minimal accountability. In such an environment, artistic integrity is often sacrificed in favour of commercial expediency. The dominance of a few corporations limits diversity in musical expression and marginalises independent artists who may lack the resources to compete.
It is worth recalling that some years ago, the distinguished lyricist and writer Javed Akhtar took a principled stand on similar issues, advocating for the rights and recognition of creators within the industry. His efforts highlighted the need for systemic reform and greater awareness of intellectual property rights. However, the persistence of these problems indicates that much remains to be done.
In this context, professional associations of music composers, if active and organised, have a vital role to play. Such bodies should take the initiative to represent the collective interests of composers, engage in dialogue with policymakers, and, if necessary, pursue legal remedies. They could advocate for clearer regulations, fairer contracts, and stronger enforcement mechanisms to protect the rights of their members.
If these efforts do not yield results, it may become necessary to seek judicial intervention by approaching the higher courts, including the Supreme Court or relevant High Courts. Public interest litigation could serve as an effective tool to bring attention to this issue and to seek judicial directives for systemic reform.
Ultimately, the preservation of artistic integrity requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders like composers, producers, legal authorities, and audiences alike. Listeners, too, have a role to play by supporting original music and being mindful of the sources of the compositions they enjoy. Greater awareness can create demand for authenticity and discourage practices that undermine creativity.
In conclusion, the practice of repackaging and misattributing classic compositions is a multifaceted problem that demands urgent attention. It is not enough to rely on market forces or voluntary compliance, meaningful change will require legal reform, institutional accountability, and a renewed commitment to artistic ethics. Only then can we ensure that the contributions of past and present composers are respected, preserved, and celebrated in the manner they truly deserve.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of LawStreet Journal or its editorial board.
