What makes a song immortal, and who truly profits from that immortality?

Some songs never age. A single lyric will instantly bring you back to the memory or the moment you first heard the music. The classic example is "Hawa Hawa," first released in 1987 by Hasan Jahangir and adapted from a Persian tune composed by Kourosh Yaghmaei, which has been sampled repeatedly in Bollywood, most recently in "Dhurandhar: The Revenge" (2026).

This enduring appeal underscores how much songs can carry forward through generations; however, their success at any given point in time, even as they continue to generate nostalgia, exposure, and revenue, barely provides for the core contributors who wrote and performed them.

This is the central conflict of Indian film music. While songs can endure indefinitely, the people who created them do not always share equally in their immortality relative to their original contributions. This article further explores this predicament.

Hollywood's Artist Economy vs Bollywood's Producer Power
One of the biggest differences between Hollywood and the Indian film industry lies in who stands at the centre of the music itself. In Hollywood and much of the Western music industry, songs often exist independently of films, actors, and cinematic narratives. Albums, solo singles, concerts, and independent music careers form the backbone of the industry, meaning the singer or musician remains the primary identity associated with the song.

Audiences listen to a Billie Eilish track because it is a Billie Eilish song, not because it appeared in a film. The same applies to artists like Dua Lipa or Shakira, whose music careers operate independently of cinema and whose ownership structures centre the artist as the primary commercial entity. The industry, therefore, develops around protecting and monetising the artist's catalogue, image, and publishing rights over long periods.

Indian cinema evolved very differently. In Bollywood, Tollywood, and several other regional industries, music became inseparable from films. Songs are promoted through actors, visualised through elaborate dance sequences, and remembered through the faces of the performers on screen rather than the singers behind them. The playback singer may provide the voice, but the public association often belongs to the actor lip-syncing the track.

A romantic song becomes identified with a Shah Rukh Khan scene, not necessarily the singer who performed it (for instance, 'Woh Ladki Jo). This structure shifts power away from musicians and towards producers, studios, and stars because the song itself becomes an extension of the film's intellectual property. Once a song enters a film, it effectively becomes a corporate asset controlled by the production house and the music label attached to it. The singer contributes creatively but rarely retains long-term ownership or leverage over the work.

Hollywood's royalty system, while far from perfect, is also far stricter and more institutionalised in ensuring continued payments tied to a project's success. Actors, musicians, writers, and performers often receive residuals or royalty payments years after release because unions, contracts, and licensing structures are more firmly established.

Anil Kapoor once mentioned in an interview that he still receives royalties from Slumdog Millionaire, including a recent payment of around £3,000 years after the film's release. Similarly, Ali Fazal has said he is still receiving royalty checks for his brief appearance as Safar in Furious 7. These examples may seem surprising from an Indian perspective because the domestic entertainment ecosystem rarely functions this way.

In India, once an artist is paid for a project, the long-term financial relationship with that work often ends there, unless the individual has exceptional bargaining power or ownership stakes. The system prioritises upfront acquisition of rights over ongoing revenue participation.

This is precisely why many argue that the Indian entertainment industries need to rethink how ownership and royalties work, especially as streaming platforms continue to generate recurring revenue from old content. One reason this shift has been slow is that India historically lacked a strong mainstream pop music culture independent of films.

Only recently have artists like Yo Yo Honey Singh, Badshah, Guru Randhawa, and Karan Aujla begun creating a larger non-film music economy where the artist themselves becomes the brand. Hollywood and Western music industries built that infrastructure decades ago through independent pop stars whose careers did not rely on films.

In India, however, most major singers are still primarily known through playback music. Once a song becomes part of a film, it also becomes the producer's property, giving production houses enormous control over monetisation and royalty structures.

Established stars like Arijit Singh, Sunidhi Chauhan, Sonu Nigam, or Shreya Ghoshal possess enough visibility to avoid being sidelined entirely, but smaller artists often do not have that protection. Kanika Kapoor has publicly stated that she still has not been paid for some songs she sang in Bollywood, a reminder that in India, visibility and success do not always translate into financial security or fair ownership.

What Does "Owning a Song" Actually Mean?
Understanding why songs have differing ownership will be easier if you can comprehend what is actually meant by a song, legally speaking. Every song (in copyright terms) is more than a single item; it is made up of many layers, each containing different elements that together create the song. Each element can also have different owners.

The first layer is the musical work, which consists of the actual music and the arrangement and structure that determine how the song sounds. These layers of music are typically created by the musical composer and/or the music director, who will define how the song will sound.

The second layer of the song is the literary work, which comprises lyrics. The lyrics are the words that give the song its voice, meaning, and emotion. These words belong (in principle) to the lyricist as the author of the words.

The third layer of the song is the sound recording, the final output or recorded version of the piece, and all that listeners will hear when they play it. This includes both the sonic output of the performance and the production of the sound recording, as well as the technical recording process itself. Usually, the song's producer or the record label (which financed the song's creation) will own the rights to produce it.

The actual significance of this structure depends on the ability of each layer to be separated, assigned, and controlled independently of the others. For example, a composer creates the music, a lyricist creates the lyrics, and a singer performs the song, resulting in a completed recording that is owned by a producer or a record label if the contracts are structured accordingly.

Thus, this is the first change in perspective regarding how ownership is associated with creation. Ownership is not automatically transferred from the creator to the owner; it flows through agreements, contracts, and financial arrangements. Thus, someone can create a song and not own it. In many instances, the party with the greatest commercial value (i.e., the sound recording) for that song is the party that financed the sound recording, not the person or persons giving it artistic form.

The Producer-Label Power Structure
Historically, power in the Indian film industry has been concentrated in the hands of producers and music labels, who serve as the primary funding sources for film music and its distributors. When a producer commissions a film, they usually contract composers, lyricists, and singers to create music specifically for that film. Typically, those contracts include language providing that the rights to the songs will belong to either the producer or the record label.

Music labels, such as T-Series and Sony Music India, serve as the central fulcrum of film music in India. Music labels are responsible for acquiring the rights to recorded sound, distributing songs across all media platforms, and licensing songs from their catalogues for use in films, advertisements, and digital media. Over time, music labels build large catalogues of songs that become significant assets in their own right.

The rationale for this structure is quite simple; the producer or the label assumes the financial risk in producing and marketing a song; in exchange, they have rights to the recorded song and the right to generate revenue from it through multiple activities — e.g., streaming, radio airplay, licenses for public performance and synchronisation.

This system provides a situation in which the creator of a song has no long-term control or profit potential, yet creators receive payment for performing their work. As these companies have been able to amass a large degree of influence (i.e., power) over time, this is not only true for their individual songs but also for the entire audio recording industry.

Consequently, this has given way to a perception of how things should be within the entire audio recording industry. Because of this significant influence, recording companies can dictate what consumers will purchase and what will subsequently generate the highest revenue.

Where Artists Stand (and Why It's Limited)
Historically, the vast majority of Indian Cinema has involved a single payment to all parties involved in creating a song, thereby severing any future earnings from that song. Typically, when a composer or lyricist agreed with the producer/label, they executed an assignment that transferred the rights to a song in return for a fixed transfer fee. Likewise, when a song was recorded with a playback singer, they received a one-time fee and had not right to earn future royalties from the song's continued commercial success after its release.

Additionally, there are numerous examples of songs that have become extraordinary successes, generating revenue over an extended period after their initial release. Still, the authors of that song, at the time of its creation, did not initially or subsequently receive any compensation or acknowledgement of their authorship from the continued commercial success of that song.

In 2012, the Indian Copyright Act was amended to rectify this disparity by providing lyricists and composers with an unwaivable right to receive royalties, regardless of whether their rights have been assigned to the producer or label. Opining that they would now have a continuing right to earn revenue from the commercial exploitation of their works.

Enforcement has been inconsistent (uneven) in practice; there is still a lack of awareness about the complexities of contracts; and the disparity (power imbalance) between creators and stakeholders in the music industry continues to govern the outcome of the relationship. Although the law may have established creators' rights, converting these rights into a fair and equitable payment system remains challenging.

The Business Behind the Song
After a song has been released, its movement through the revenue ecosystem becomes increasingly complicated. Several channels will generate income for each song: streaming, radio broadcasts, TV audio, live performances, and licensing agreements for commercials and movies. All these different uses of songs earn royalties each time they occur, but the methods and timelines for paying songwriters and performers are rarely straightforward.

Organisations such as the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) are central to facilitating this process, as they collect royalties on behalf of rightsholders and distribute them in accordance with pre-established arrangements. Specifically,  IPRS represents composers and lyricists, and PPL represents record labels and the owners of sound recordings.

However, the effectiveness and efficiency of these organisations in collecting royalties largely depend on how the rights were assigned in the first place. If a composer or lyricist has been assigned or signed away a majority of their rights, or their contracts lack clarity, their ability to claim royalties will be limited if the data-tracking or reporting mechanisms utilised by these organisations are inconsistent.

Here is where many songs will have large fan bases and generate lots of revenue, yet provide very little to their individual creators after paying all necessary overhead and expenses through intermediaries, contracts, etc. The maze here is not only in the complexity of distribution channels but also in how value is divided across different phases of the distribution process.

Royalties vs Copyright
Although copyright and royalties are often used interchangeably in everyday language, they represent two distinct types of rights and income. Copyright is the legal right that allows the owner of a creative work to determine how that work can be used, copied, and distributed. It serves as the basis for the entire copyright system; therefore, copyright determines who owns the song.

Royalties, on the other hand, represent the payments earned from a creator's work being used by others. Royalties are the financial representation of copyright in action. Anytime that a song is streamed, performed on the radio, publicly performed, or licensed for use, royalties are generated and distributed to those people who hold rights in the copyright to that song.

Understanding the difference is important because copyright does not automatically guarantee equitable royalties, and receiving royalties does not necessarily mean you own something. For example, a composer may receive royalties for a song but not own the recording. In contrast, a record label may own the recording and receive the majority of the revenue generated by selling or licensing the song.

This separation creates space for imbalance. It allows systems in which control and earnings are concentrated in different hands, and in which the people who contribute creatively to a song may have limited influence over how it is monetised or how much they earn from it over time.

Pay to Play: The Hidden Cost of Staging Music
Staging a musical in India is not just a creative exercise; it is also a legal and financial commitment that begins long before the curtain rises. Any public performance that uses music, whether live or recorded, requires proper licensing from the relevant copyright holder.

For musical and literary works, organisers must obtain permission from the Indian Performing Rights Society, which represents composers and lyricists. At the same time, the use of pre- recorded tracks requires a license from Phonographic Performance Limited, which manages sound recording rights on behalf of music labels. These licenses are not optional; they are a legal requirement for public performances, including stage musicals, concerts, and ticketed shows.

The fees can be substantial, often starting around ₹50,000 and scaling based on factors like venue size, seating capacity, or even calculated metrics such as approximately ₹1.50 per square foot, and in some cases, a percentage of ticket sales.

Importantly, this cost is not the purchase of copyright itself but a royalty payment for the right to use copyrighted material. In simple terms, the copyright remains with the rights holder. At the same time, the license grants temporary permission to perform it, turning every staged musical into both an artistic production and a negotiated transaction.

How Streaming Changed Everything (and Not Always for the Better)
The shift from physical sales to digital streaming has forever changed how music is made and sold. Revenue was based on selling albums and distributing CDs, but now it is based on how many times a song is streamed, how many times it's clicked, and whether or not the song is visible due to algorithms. Many people discover, listen to, and purchase their new favourite song via platforms like Spotify and YouTube.

At first glance, this transition appears to be an opportunity for everyone to gain access. Songs can be heard by listeners all over the world within minutes, and independent musicians can now release their music without traditional gatekeepers (record labels, radio, etc.).

However, most musicians will not earn income commensurate with their songs' success due to streaming platforms' business models. Streaming platforms use only a volume-based revenue share to pay musicians. This means that the amount paid out to musicians each time someone streams their song will likely not be much, so musicians may not generate much income even if they have millions of streams on the song they released.

There is now a large gap between how popular a song is and how much money it generates from streaming. There is also potential for large revenues for record labels and streaming services from thousands of songs in their catalogues (by many of their musicians) being played billions of times daily.

The core tension here is clear. Streaming amplifies reach but compresses individual value. It rewards scale over singular success, making it harder for individual creators to translate popularity into meaningful income, especially when existing ownership structures already limit their share.

When Ownership Gets Messy
Legal disputes arise from the complexity of music ownership in the music business and often expose gaps between creators and rightsholders. The dispute can be over the authorship of songs, licensing agreements or how songs are used in new ways. This can occur when songs that were created many years ago are remixed or used for contemporary audiences.

One example of this is the dispute over whether a producer or record label has the right to approve a remake of a song used in a motion picture, and whether they have the right to the revenue generated by that remake. Producers and record labels believe that they have the right to approve the remake because of their original agreements with the author of the song; however, the authors of the song believe that they still have the right to approve the remake and receive money from any revenues generated by using the song in a motion picture.

In addition to disputes over remakes of songs, there are also many legal disputes relating to the attribution of authorship of songs, and whether or not the authors of songs are credited or compensated for their contributions to a song and have control over how their songs are used.

These legal disputes illustrate the changing nature of music ownership today; it is no longer a fixed legal concept but a dynamic one that is constantly negotiated through contracts and the evolving ways music is consumed and reused. Each dispute ultimately exposes the gap between what the law is meant to protect and how the industry operates in practice.

YouTube, Copyright Strikes, and Control
Platforms such as YouTube have created new ways to enforce copyright in an era when everything is digital. Automated systems have been developed to identify and flag instances of copyright infringement. Rights holders can then claim revenue generated by video content that includes their song, or prevent the song from being used entirely.

Larger production companies and record labels have been able to exert tremendous control over their work through these systems. For example, Yash Raj Films actively monitors and enforces its rights by filing copyright claims when its songs are used on YouTube without permission. This way, all monetisation generated by videos that use their songs will go back to Yash Raj Films rather than to the person uploading the video.

For creators using these systems, there will be both benefits and drawbacks. Benefits include the ability to protect creators' work from misuse by third parties and to ensure that creators are compensated for its use in ways they agree with. However, one drawback of using these systems is that some forms of expression, especially those associated with cover songs, remixes, or commentary, are not always protected under fair use.

As a result, we now live in a digital world where ownership is continually claimed and disputed, not only through contracts and the courts but also through algorithms and automated enforcement systems operating at scale.

Case Study - Ilaiyaraaja
Few individuals exemplify the conflict between artistic creation and ownership better than Ilaiyaraaja. After many decades of work creating a catalogue of music that has influenced the sound of Indian cinema (as well as many other genres), he has become increasingly vocal about his rights as a composer and his expectation of receiving royalties for the use of his works.

Through his legal challenges and public comments regarding the ownership of music, he has drawn attention to the much larger issue of whether composers should have more control over their compositions even after those compositions have been used in films, by asserting his rights and challenging decades-old industry practices which favour producers and record labels at the expense of individual creators.

The industry reaction to Ilaiyaraaja's position regarding music rights has been mixed. Some people view the stance he has taken as an important step towards fairness and recognition of creative labour. In contrast, others are concerned that Ilaiyaraaja's stance disrupts established systems that have governed the production of recorded music for decades. Regardless of one's viewpoint, Ilaiyaraaja has sparked a broad-based discussion about the value of creative labour and the extent to which it should be protected.

All things considered, his situation exemplifies a widespread issue in the industry today. It is not just about one composer's rights, but about redefining the balance between creation and ownership in a system that has historically separated the two.

When Songs Go "Copyright-Free"
Copyright only lasts for so long. In India, copyright lasts 60 years after the author's death; after this, the works enter the public domain, and they can be used without permission or royalty payments.

The change in copyright status presents an oddity in the song's life. After being limited in use and earnings, it is suddenly accessible to everyone. Therefore, filmmakers, musicians, and content creators can legally adapt, remix, or reuse the songs without limitations.

But there is also a twist of irony. When a song is completely free from copyright, the creators of that song have often passed away; therefore, the financial/monetary/legal profits associated with this song are generally distributed before it becomes free. While this work has moved into a shared cultural space, the original financial/legal rewards have already been split among many.

This raises an even deeper question about ownership. If a song, after a period of time, ends up in the public domain, some would argue that it belongs to no one but to everyone simultaneously - what does this mean for ownership? And who ultimately benefits from the creation of a song, from the time when that song becomes part of the collective memory?

The Knowledge Gap
There is less visibility to, but more impact from, a creator's knowledge-to-system (K2S) capability gap in the music industry. Many emerging artists (and sometimes even mid-career artists) do not have a sufficient understanding of their rights regarding publication, licensing, and royalties, which are typically part of an artist's career.

Many contracts are entered into early and often created under pressure or without adequate legal support, locking artists into potentially unbeneficial long-term relationships. The contracts can be very complicated and may not have an obvious impact.

When K2S gaps exist, the system can function faster than the people within it. Although it may not appear to be the case, the way these gaps function creates an environment for exploitation rather than one that assists everyone equally. Often, the exploitation that results from K2S gaps is due in part to asymmetrical information/assets/experience/resources among the parties involved. Over time, as a result of the K2S gap, the system can create different rates of return for the parties involved (control over a song, or lack thereof, based on the type and amount of the creator's initial or ongoing commitment to the song).

Sampling, Remixes, and the New Ownership Wars
There are now many more complications in music ownership because of a growing culture of remixing and new digital tools for creating music. Under normal circumstances, one needs permission from multiple entities to sample another song. You would need to obtain permission from both the owner(s) of the sound recording (an artist or record label) and the creator(s) of the underlying composition (the songwriter).

This means that creating a new track that samples one or more existing tracks can involve negotiations with multiple parties, each with its own expectations regarding compensation and other issues. If permission to sample is not granted or not obtained, then there is potential for proceeding without adequate legal clearance, which could have the effect of causing legal action (i.e. lawsuits), removal from the internet, and other time-consuming and expensive consequences.

Similarly, remixes introduce old songs to new audiences by giving them a contemporary perspective or interpretation. However, remixes raise similar issues to those found with sampling. Questions arise regarding who benefits when a remix becomes popular – the original creator(s), the new producer(s), or the rights holder(s) who own the underlying material?

As it becomes easier for people to manipulate and redistribute music with technology, traditional notions of ownership become increasingly unclear. What is critical moving forward is that the music business develops ways to adapt to new forms of creativity while maintaining mechanisms to recognise and compensate original work. The continued tension between these issues represents a trend that will shape the next phase of the music business's evolution.

The Takeaway
So who really owns a song? On paper, the answer appears straightforward. Ownership lies with those who hold the rights, the producers who financed it, the labels that distribute it, and the platforms that host it, converting it into data, streams, and revenue. The system is built on structure, contracts, and legal backing, and within that framework, ownership is clearly defined and enforceable. But songs do not live on paper alone.

They live in memory, in repetition, in the way a familiar line can echo years later without needing a film, a credit roll, or a contract to remind you where it came from. They move through weddings, playlists, reels, and quiet personal moments, carried by listeners who reshape their meaning with each replay.

Yet, somewhere along this journey between law and lived experience, a gap remains unresolved. A song may belong to a label in legal terms, to a platform in distribution, and to an audience in emotion, but that layered ownership does not always come back to its origin. The irony is difficult to ignore. Those who come back to it may not fully belong to it, even after everything it becomes; they are the ones who made it.