The Commercialisation of Devotional Music and Its LegalChallenges

By Anushka N Ankasadoddi & Saura Sarkar

All throughout history, devotional music has played a significant part in society. It is embedded in tradition and consists of bhajans, aartis, qawwalis, kirtans, chants, mantras, gospel hymns, and spiritual songs that were previously sung in the privacy of temples, or during early morning family prayers. Contemporarily, traditional spiritual chants are gaining popularity not only within religious circles, but also within entertainment. For instance, the phrase “Hare Ram Hare Ram, Hare Krishna Hare Ram” that was previously famous as a meditative hymn that is soothing and divinely loving is being utilised today as a peppy commercial number in the movies. This transformation from devotional invocation to mass entertainment leads to a relevant question - what are legal concerns when devotional songs are reinterpreted, repackaged, and marketed in mainstream media? If devotional music is becoming more commercial, is it losing its original intention and spiritual character as well? These are some of the ethical concerns in an escalating controversy involving not only artistic freedom and modernisation but ownership, ethics, and boundaries of cultural respect.

Legally, the case is nudence. Traditional devotional songs, like mantras or ancient hymns, are generally in the public domain and hence belong to everyone and no one. These are centuries old and are credited to anonymous sages, saints, or passed down by generations by word of mouth. Due to their age and public domain origin, no person or entity can exclusively own rights to the original text or tune of these sacred compositions. Yet, copyright law takes hold when someone or some entity makes a particular musical setup, performance, or recording of such material. Here, although the original mantra is in the public domain, the specific rendition with musical composition, instrumental accompaniment, vocal treatment, and effects of production can be copyrighted. For instance, if a musician performs a unique version of the ‘Hanuman Chalisa’ with orchestration and contemporary production, that specific version falls under the cover of copyright law, and unauthorised copying of that recording amounts to infringement.

Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Act”), singers may gain protection for their original rendering or interpretation of sacred music, but only for the particular rendition that they perform, not over the devotional songs or the mantras and chants themselves, which shall remain in the public domain. The legislation makes it clear that it separates performance from worship - it safeguards the wrapping, not the wrapped content. Section 14 of the Act grants owners of copyright exclusive rights in their recordings like reproducing, distributing, or making them publicly available but not ownership in the sacred texts incorporated within. This means that though creativity is compensated, cultural heritage goes unclaimed and free. But as ancient mantras find entry into club mixes and movie spectacles, a deeper dilemma arises not legal, but ethical. Converting holy lines into entertainment does not always breach copyright but can breach collective reverence.

Moral rights apart, Indian law also grants copyright. Section 57 of the Copyright Act also bestows moral rights upon the owners of artistic works, in addition to the copyright itself. These moral rights preserve the personal relationship between the author and the work. A distorted, vulgarised use or use that tends to degrade the dignity of the original composition or its community of use would give rise to claims even when no technical infringement of copyright takes place. In these instances, cultural respect and moral duty are as crucial as legal ownership.

There have been arguments about whether religious material should be brought under a special intellectual property regime. Yet, religion’s single driving purpose is universal access and the betterment of humanity. Invoking exclusivity by way of intellectual property law would be contrary to the very essence of religious teachings, which are supposed to be shared and reinterpreted freely across time and generations. Creators can certainly be permitted to protect and profit from their own interpretations, but no one should be permitted to own the spiritual foundation itself.

However, numerous artists and producers take a lot of time and effort to create devotional content. Copyright protection provides them with legal protections to safeguard their work from being duplicated unjustly or misused. There needs to be a balance, one that honours both. 

Because of overall ignorance regarding the extent of copyright, there is frequent misunderstanding. Most individuals feel that they own rights over whole works, when they may only have rights over a specific version.

A devotional recording tends to be a combination of various pieces -

• Traditional words (public domain)

• Contemporary music or arrangement (copyrightable)

• Vocal performance (copyrightable)

Unless particular rights to individual pieces are obtained, protection is only available for the entire recording, not for its constituent parts. Keeping this difference in mind is important for producers and consumers alike.

In conclusion, devotional music commercialization is at the crossroad of law, ethics, and culture. As much as the copyright law helps in protecting people against the duplication of unique performances and recordings, it does not and should not impede the accessibility of ancient sacred material that all man is entitled to. As devotional music is reconsidered on modern platforms, an element of caution must be exercised to make sure that the sacred roots are not undermined. Artistic freedom and innovation can thrive alongside reverence and respect, but only if the spiritual essence of such works remains intact and unexploited.

In conclusion devotional music commercialization is at the crossroad of law, ethics, and culture. As much as the copyright law helps in protecting people against the duplication of unique performances and recordings, it does not and should not impede the accessibility of ancient sacred material that all man is entitled to. As devotional music is reconsidered on modern platforms, an element of caution must be exercised to make sure that the sacred roots are not undermined. Artistic freedom and innovation can thrive alongside reverence and respect, but only if the spiritual essence of such works remains intact and unexploited.

References:

1. Copyright Act, § 14, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).

2. Copyright Act, § 57, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).

3. Copyrighting Sacred Knowledge: Legal and Ethical Challenges in the Commercialization of Religious Texts, Chants, and Indigenous Traditions, CSRI–PRNU SU R&L (July 8, 2025), https://csriprnusrl.wordpress.com/2025/07/08/copyrighting-scared-knowledge-legal-and-ethical-challenges-in-the-commercialization-of-religious-texts-chants-and-indigenous-traditions/.

4. Komal Ahuja, Protection of Traditional Indian Music and Arts: A Legal Framework, Bhatt & Joshi Associates (Jan. 4, 2025), https://bhattandjoshiassociates.com/protection‑of‑traditional‑indian‑music‑and‑arts‑a‑legal‑framework/