Latest news with #SabYaadRakhaJayega
The Print
04-06-2025
- Politics
- The Print
What copyright, plagiarism mean for art and artists
While the Ponniyin Selvan: II case is sub-judice, we can shine the torch on the details of Aziz-Dube case. Copyright is a right that protects your valuable intellectual property. When it is not honoured, it results in a loss of equity for the creator and can attract costly consequences for the infringer—especially at a time when awareness of intellectual property rights (IPR) has grown and legal enforcement has become stronger. In April, Justice Pratibha M Singh of the Delhi High Court passed an interim order on allegations of copyright infringement in the song Veera Raja Veera from the film Ponniyin Selvan: II . The same week, poet Aamir Aziz challenged the unauthorised use of his poem, Sab Yaad Rakha Jayega , by artist Anita Dube. During the 2019 anti-CAA protests, Aziz's Sab yaad rakha jayega (Everything will be remembered) echoed on the streets. In May that year, he also released the song Ballad of Pehlu Khan on the mob lynching of the 55-year-old dairy farmer from Haryana. Sab yaad rakha jayega was recited, in English, by Pink Floyd guitarist Roger Waters in a 2020 protest in London against the arrest of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Aziz had found his voice, his oeuvre, and a place in the hearts of many, including artist and first woman curator of the Kochi-Muziris Biennale, Anita Dube. In 2023, Dube came up with a set of four works carrying excerpts from Aziz's poem. They were on exhibition and available for sale from 15 March to 19 April 2025 at the Vadehra Art Gallery in New Delhi. As there were no wall captions, no credit was given to Aziz. Dube had used another poem by Aziz in an earlier work, Intifada, which was exhibited in Delhi and Mumbai. When Aziz got to know that his work was borrowed without his 'knowledge, consent, credit or compensation', he posted on Instagram, calling it 'theft'. 'This is my poem, written in velvet cloth, hung inside a commercial white cube space, renamed, rebranded, and resold at an enormous price without ever telling me,' the poet wrote. He added that it was not 'conceptual borrowing', but 'the entitled section of the art world doing what it does best, extracting, consuming, profiting while pretending it's radical.' For Aziz, it was ironic that while his poem raged against injustice, Dube, by commodifying it, extended the injustice. In her defence, Dube claimed that she used Aziz's lines with clean intent, as an act of celebrating them. She added that she has also quoted Martin Luther King and bell hooks in the past 'in the same spirit'. Moral rights and plagiarism Using someone's work as inspiration as against structure are two different things. In response to the famous copyright dispute in the US involving a portrait of American singer Prince, Columbia Law School professor Timothy Wu said, 'If the underlying art is recognisable in the new art, then you have got a problem.' Dube's act, by this measure, is problematic. In academic writing, to lift even an idea without adequately crediting the source is considered plagiarism. Here, stanzas were taken in an unauthorised manner. Copyright is possible only for original work and automatically belongs to the author. For using such copyrighted work, you need a licence, you need to give credit to the creator, and share remuneration. And when the intentions are clean, none of this can happen post facto. Dube clarified that she had credited Aziz, in an accompanying sheet available at the gallery, but admitted that no permission had been taken. Here, the moral rights of the creator come into play. Moral rights, also called the right of attribution, require that the name of the author must always be displayed with the work. The author has this right even if they choose to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym. These rights are inherent and cannot be sold or assigned, but can be acknowledged via permission and credit, and used as pre-determined terms. All this has to be ensured before the derivative work goes public. They can also be waived in whole or in part as per the protocol of exceptions. However, Aziz's work was not in the space of exceptions, although he has created a special exception for this particular poem—a political protest anywhere can have placards saying Sab yaad rakha jayega. Behind Dube's use of Aziz's poem is possibly the tradition of borrowing, including replications and repurposing elements from previous works or styles. According to art consultant and author Anupa Mehta, 'In postmodernist art, artists draw from eclectic sources. Sometimes these 'borrowings' are in part and used within an art work, as part of its conceptual axis. Usually, source is acknowledged. If the poet's poem is used in full without permission and sans royalty, it's clearly a breach'. Mehta suggested that the issue of copyright in the art world needs to be looked at on a case by case basis, creating space for a more nuanced reading. It begs several questions. 'Was it a creative collaboration? Were terms clarified prior? Artists often work with artisans, craftspeople, and younger artists. Should drawing upon another creative person's skills be considered a contribution to the artwork? For instance, artist Bharti Kher employs women to fill in bindis in her paintings. These women are paid a per diem, while Kher's works sell for high prices. Similarly, artist Binoy Varghese hires young artists to fill in paint on his canvases. Should those strokes be protected by copyright? 'It's not all as straightforward as it should be,' said Mehta. Art curator Alka Pande found the allegation of 'theft' against Dube too strong. 'Even the best writers are inspired by the work done before them. These are opaque, porous borders,' she said. Pande described Dube's work as part of a creative process where activism, propaganda, and politics coalesce. However, she added that due credit must be given and the collaborative process should be acknowledged. 'If there is a financial aspect to the work, then the financials should be clear with the collaborating parties.' That, precisely, is the problem in Aziz's case. Also read: In the Mood for Love in Delhi—artist reimagines Wong Kar-wai's film in his paintings 'Borrowing' work We know that post-colonial 'borrowings' of cultural and material expression were, in effect, a continued resistance to colonial and neo-colonial hegemony, and that resistance must be relentless. While the past undoubtedly continues to shape the present, dominant meta-narratives are being resisted, and the local prioritised. Aziz's work represents this evolving idea of decolonising. Dube may well have intended her work as part of that arc, but it has ended up reading as contrarian. Even if we use the relatively neutral term 'borrowing', the nature of such borrowings must be examined in today's context. In borrowing Aziz's poem, which calls for fighting injustice, we see how injustice itself can be perpetuated. In a twisted way, it echoes Homi K Bhabha's theory of mimicry, where the adoption of the coloniser's language simultaneously subverted colonial power and the self. Borrowings may show the mirror to the world, but today, ethical lines are more clearly drawn. Ethical protocols now distinguish borrowing from appropriation. In a neo-capitalist context, the sharp power imbalance between a hounded protest poet and an established artist selling work based on his angst-ridden poetry—without acknowledgement—can nullify even the best of intentions. The concept of borrowings, especially in this globalised, nationalist moment, must be revisited. The silver lining in this misadventure is that it opens space for reflection, self-criticism, and a deeper dive into copyright, plagiarism, and the exceptions that govern them. Also read: 24, Jor Bagh gets its last hurrah—the art space that became a metaphor for Delhi Copyright vs plagiarism When ideas are copied without attribution and no direct financial gain is sought, it qualifies as plagiarism. This often occurs in academia. Direct quotations from earlier work must be properly cited using established norms. Even paraphrased ideas require credit. An insufficient citation is also plagiarism. Notably, plagiarism can be identified not just by the original author but by a third party. Copyright, by contrast, protects original work—written, musical, dramatic, or visual. Once created, a work is protected by default, though formal registration offers added protection. Copyright grants creators exclusive rights to control how their work is used, copied, translated, distributed, adapted, incorporated into other works, or monetised. Some exceptions exist: fair use, Creative Commons, and copyleft. Fair use is a high-ethics space. It allows work to be used strictly for purposes like teaching, journalism, and public analysis. It's a balancing act between the author's rights and public interest—never a free-for-all. Creative Commons licenses allow authors to waive some rights (often monetary) in exchange for credit and acknowledgement. Wikimedia Commons is a well-known example. Copyleft is a more altruistic approach. It allows anyone to use, improve, or build on a work—so long as the derivative is shared on the same terms. This model is widely used in software. None of these exemptions apply in the case of Aziz and Dube. As things stand, Dube has apologised, withdrawn those works from all platforms of exhibition, distribution, and sale 'in the future and in perpetuity'. She has offered the artwork Intifada to the poet 'with full ownership rights as compensation and as a gesture of reconciliation'. All attempts at financial settlement have so far reached a dead end. In fact, a unilateral post facto financial offer can be a double whammy. Only the original author—or an authority the author designates—can agree to a post-facto settlement. In searching for resolution, intent matters. And two principles must anchor this process: that no solution can be one-sided, and that the final word belongs to the wronged party—unless ruled otherwise by a court. Arshiya Sethi is a two-time Fulbright Fellow, dance scholar, researcher and 'artivist', supporting management of arts institutions in creating inclusive and safe practices. Views are personal. (Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
Hindustan Times
23-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Hindustan Times
The Aziz-Dube saga: A sleight of copyright?
Artist Anita Dube recently found herself in the middle of a controversy after she used lines from activist and poet Aamir Aziz's poem, Sab Yaad Rakha Jayega, in her art without his permission. The Patna-born poet alleged that the lines were used without his 'knowledge, consent, credit, or compensation' by Dube and exhibited at the Vadehra Art Gallery in Delhi. The poem and the artwork both fall under the purview of copyright law in India, governed by the Copyright Act of 1957. A wide range of creative works are protected under this legislation, which does not extend to ideas, themes, or plots but only to the particular form in which those ideas are expressed. The author is typically the first owner of copyright. Independent contractors may retain ownership unless a contract specifies otherwise. When work is created under a contract of service (employee-employer relationship), the employer is generally the first owner. Copyright arises automatically upon creation of an original work, and registration provides evidentiary support in disputes. The Aziz–Dube matter highlights enduring ethical and legal questions about adapting the works of both living and deceased artists, in terms of consent, attribution, and commercialisation. In India, the general rule for original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works is that copyright protection endures for the author's lifetime plus 60 years. For other categories of work such as cinematographic films the period of protection is 60 years from the date of first publication. Indian copyright law grants copyright owners the exclusive right to create derivative works, which include adaptations, translations, and other modifications. Adaptation, a subset of derivative works, usually involves changing the format or medium of the essence of the original work is retained, but it is presented differently to reach new audiences or serve new purposes. Derivative works are also protected and copyright in the derivative work vests with the adapter to the extent of the new, original contributions — subject to the subsisting rights in the original work. The right to adapt a work is one of the exclusive rights conferred upon the copyright owner. In the absence of a licence from the from the copyright owner, the adapter may be exposed to legal consequences for copyright infringement. Unauthorised derivative works typically constitute infringement. However, the fair dealing doctrine allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission. There are specific exceptions for purposes such as criticism, review, reporting of current events, and private use including research. Fair dealing seeks to strike a balance between protecting intellectual property and facilitating access to knowledge. While some political expression may intersect with public interest, there are limits to this doctrine. Moral rights protect an author's personal and reputational interests in their work, distinct from their economic rights. These rights survive the assignment of economic rights and are often described as inalienable. A legal claim by an author against unauthorised modifications to their work must succeed in establishing that the treatment of the work has been prejudicial to their reputation. In her public statement, Dube acknowledged an 'ethical lapse' in not seeking Aziz's permission, although she had credited him. She also clarified that the artwork has since been withdrawn from sale. Aziz, for his part, objects to the manner in which his poem was used. Dube also invoked the spirit of the commons and 'copyleft', referencing frameworks the Creative Commons framework, which encourage the free sharing of copyrighted material provided all derivative versions are shared under the same terms. The incident has reignited a discourse on the commercial appropriation of politically resonant and marginalised voices in art. Using the work in a commercial context without consent may be seen as a modification that violates the integrity rights of the author irrespective of any assignment of economic rights. WH Auden, in Law, like Love, likens law to love that 'we seldom keep'— a fitting metaphor for the delicate balance between artistic inspiration and the safeguards that ensure a more equitable field for both emerging and established artists, as well as those who support and facilitate their work. Sana Javed is a lawyer focused on policy and contract advisory. The views expressed are personal
The Hindu
30-04-2025
- Entertainment
- The Hindu
What the Anita Dube controversy reveals about the Indian art world
Last week, poet Aamir Aziz accused Anita Dube, one of India's leading contemporary artists, of using his words without permission in four artworks exhibited at Vadehra Art Gallery in New Delhi. The phrase in question, Sab Yaad Rakha Jayega (Everything will be remembered), became a rallying cry during the 2019-2020 protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act legislation that excluded Muslims and challenged India's secular foundations. Aziz's poem captured the rage and hope of a generation. Dube's use of it — without credit or consent — raises larger questions about solidarity, ownership, and the widening gap between the art world and the political realities it often claims to engage with. Solidarity or extraction 'Let's be clear. If someone holds my poem in a placard at a protest, a rally, a people's uprising, I stand with them. But this is not that,' Aziz wrote in an Instagram post addressed to what he called the 'entitled section of the art world'. 'This is not solidarity... This is outright cultural extraction and plunder, stripping authors of autonomy while profiting off their voices.' In response, Dube admitted to an 'ethical lapse' — one that, legally, could amount to copyright infringement. In a Facebook post, she invoked the ethos of the commons and copyleft, mourning the 'lost old world where there were fellow traveller solidarities', when political art circulated freely as collective property in service of resistance. But this was not activism. This was a commercial gallery show, where works may cumulatively have been priced between ₹80 lakh and ₹1 crore, according to a dealer source. Dube's exhibition, Three Storey House, was conceived as a critique of authoritarianism, using protest poetry and symbolism to comment on India's current political climate. In intention, it aligned with Aziz's message. But as this controversy makes clear, solidarity is not built on shared ideas alone. It demands consent, collaboration, and mutual respect. As writer and activist Kavita Krishnan noted in response to Dube's post: 'Aamir is a young poet with no resources at all compared to yours. Surely you should have respected him enough to speak to him first, get his consent, and make sure he was credited… The issue isn't monetization, or market, or even copyright. It's a question of respect. His visibility comes with dire risks because he is a Muslim, without wealth or privilege. Two artists can collaborate — but with mutual respect.' The lost commons India's contemporary art scene emerged after the economic liberalisation of the 1990s with minimal public infrastructure. It was shaped by collective ambition: artists formed collectives, collectors opened museums, and initiatives like the India Art Fair began charting a global footprint. Despite its private foundations, the scene carried a strong spirit of collaboration. Anita Dube was both a product — and a pioneer — of that spirit. As a former critic and member of the Marxist-influenced Indian Radical Painters and Sculptors Association in Baroda, and later as a co-founder of the KHOJ International Artists' Association in 1997, she helped imagine a 'co-operative, non-hierarchical' space for experimentation. In 2018, she became the first woman to curate the Kochi-Muziris Biennale, an artist-led platform that began as a rejection of art's growing commercialisation. But today, that ethos feels increasingly hollow. Rather than uniting across caste, class, religious, and institutional lines to resist authoritarianism, the Indian art world often operates in silos. One world caters to elite collectors, galleries, and biennials. The other, often made up of artists outside the formal art world, speaks, precariously, to the street. Their paths, increasingly, do not cross. Responsibility amid rising markets A counterpoint comes from artist Sameer Kulavoor, who also engaged with Aziz's poetry. His timelapse video Malbe Ka Dher (which depicted the basic shape of a home morphing from one uncomfortable form to another, questioning the sense of comfort and permanence associated with the space) borrowed its title from one of Aziz's poems. 'I came across the poem on Instagram and it strangely aligned with the animation I had just finished making. So, I dropped Aamir a message on Instagram to ask for permission... and he was genuinely pleased,' Kulavoor says. 'If we come from different worlds, the artwork and its sharing should be a way of making the two worlds meet — of growing audiences together.' India's art market is reportedly valued at around $300 million, driven by rising domestic demand, global interest, booming auctions, and deep-pocketed patrons. But it expands in a fractured landscape — shaped by accelerated globalisation, political anxiety, social media optics, and disruptions from technologies such as AI. This moment brings opportunity, but it also demands responsibility. As artists, curators, galleries, and institutions scale up in ambition, they must not forget to scale their ethics. In the race to market, they must remain grounded in the values they claim to uphold, and in the voices they carry forward. Sab yaad rakha jayega. The real challenge is not memory, but accountability. The culture writer and editor specialises in reporting on art, design and architecture.
The Hindu
29-04-2025
- Entertainment
- The Hindu
Aamir Aziz-Anita Dube controversy: What does the copyright law say?
In a controversy that seems to have divided the art world in India, Mumbai-based poet-activist Aamir Aziz has accused well known artist Anita Dube of using his poem without his consent, and profiting from it without giving him credit or compensation. The poem in question is 'Sab Yaad Rakha Jayega', which became an anthem of the anti-CAA protests and later a global phenomenon after English rock musician Roger Waters read it out at an event in London. While Dube has admitted to an 'ethical lapse' and reportedly offered some remuneration to Aziz, the dispute has acquired a legal dimension, with Aziz sending her a legal notice. What does the copyright law say in a case like this – where an artist may feel she has the right to 'fair use' of a text, but another artist feels that his copyright has been violated? Guest: Shantanu Sood, a lawyer who specialises in intellectual property-related issues. Host: G. Sampath, Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu Recorded by Aniket Singh Chauhan Edited by Shivaraj S Produced by Jude Francis Weston Listen to more In Focus podcasts:
Time of India
26-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Inspiration or imitation? Copyright battles rage in the copy-paste age
Inspiration or imitation? Copyright battles rage in the copy-paste age Mohua DasSneha Bhura TNN Apr 26, 2025, 18:25 IST IST The Aamir Aziz-Anita Dube controversy isn't a one-off. Creative work is easily 'borrowed' in this digital age but few have the stomach for long courtroom battles Earlier this month, a Delhi gallery quietly exhibited a painting by artist Anita Dube featuring lines from poet-activist Aamir Aziz's protest poem 'Sab Yaad Rakha Jayega'. The words rang loud, but the poet's name didn't. These weren't anonymous verses floating through the internet. Aziz's poem has been performed widely since 2019, and even read aloud by Pink Floyd's Roger Waters at a global protest. According to Aziz, the lines were used without his 'knowledge, consent, credit or compensation'. After a public backlash, Dube issued a statement acknowledging the 'ethical lapse'. But she's hardly the only one. In India's creative circles, copyright slip-ups are par for the course. Sometimes deliberately and sometimes without knowing, 'borrowers' cross the line, and creators aren't sure how to draw one. IP IGNORANCE
