The show must go on: Copyright strategies for enduring musical legacies

Freddie Mercury, the iconic frontman of Queen, is remembered not only for his remarkable vocal talent and songwriting but also for the enduring legal and commercial structures that have protected his works since his death in 1991. His estate demonstrates the significance of foresight in matters of intellectual property rights, copyright duration, royalty entitlements, and brand licensing. In India, where music is both culturally embedded and commercially significant, many legendary artists have faced—or posthumously continue to face—serious challenges in safeguarding their creative output.

This article explores the legal framework underpinning Mercury’s estate management and assesses the lessons it holds for Indian musicians and policymakers.

A critical aspect of Mercury’s legal preparedness was his estate plan, through which his lifelong friend Mary Austin inherited the majority of his assets. This ensured clarity of ownership and avoided protracted legal disputes. In contrast, Indian musical icons such as Kishore Kumar and RD Burman died intestate, resulting in contested claims over their intellectual property and tangible assets.

In the absence of a will or trust, the Indian Hindu Succession Act, 1956, or the relevant personal law governs inheritance. However, intestate succession can fragment ownership and create uncertainty over exploitation rights, especially for intellectual property. Structured estate planning, through wills and private trusts, can prevent creative works from falling into legal limbo, ensuring a smooth transition of both moral and economic rights.

Under the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, copyright in literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works subsists for seventy years after the author’s death. In India, Section 22 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides a sixty-year posthumous term. While these durations appear robust, their effectiveness depends on the strength of enforcement mechanisms.

Digital piracy presents a significant challenge. In the streaming era, works are consumed across multiple jurisdictions, and unauthorized reproduction is both rapid and widespread. Mercury’s works benefit from active rights management and aggressive enforcement in global markets. In India, despite legal provisions, enforcement remains inconsistent. This is particularly evident in the digital sphere, where technological capabilities for detection often outpace the regulatory response.

Freddie Mercury’s estate continues to generate substantial royalties from streaming, performance rights, and synchronization licences. The continued popularity of Queen’s catalogue, managed by experienced legal and financial advisors, exemplifies how posthumous income streams can be preserved and enhanced.

In India, artists frequently face difficulties in securing equitable royalties. The landmark decision in Agi Music v. Ilaiyaraaja (2019) 4 LW 418 affirmed that composers are entitled to digital royalties. However, practical enforcement remains limited. Weak bargaining positions, opaque revenue-sharing arrangements, and the absence of a well-structured collective rights management system comparable to the UK’s PRS or the US’s ASCAP exacerbate the problem.

Beyond traditional royalties, Mercury’s estate capitalizes on brand licensing opportunities. The 2018 biopic Bohemian Rhapsody grossed nearly USD 900 million worldwide, while the Queen brand generates revenue from merchandise, advertising collaborations, and experiential events.

By comparison, Indian estates seldom engage in strategic licensing, leaving significant commercial potential unrealized. Legal expertise in negotiating licensing agreements—whether for film adaptations, advertising use, or merchandise—could substantially enhance revenue streams and preserve cultural relevance.

Indian courts have, on occasion, issued landmark rulings safeguarding the rights of creators. In Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005) ILR 1 Delhi 236, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, survive even after the transfer of copyright.

In his interim order dated 29 May 1992, Hon’ble Justice Jaspal Singh (Retd.) invoked Shakespeare’s Othello to capture the essence of an artist’s reputation:

“Good name in man and woman, dear my Lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls;
Who steals my purse steals trash…
But he that filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.”

This literary reference underscored that the protection of an artist’s moral rights is inseparable from the preservation of their dignity and cultural contribution. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog’s final judgment further affirmed that such rights are integral to protecting artistic heritage from distortion or mutilation.

Similarly, in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Aditya Pandey (2017) 11 SCC 437, the Supreme Court held that playing music in public requires an appropriate IPRS licence, reinforcing the principle that artists must be compensated for the public use of their works.

The comparative analysis of Freddie Mercury’s estate and the Indian legal environment suggests several policy interventions. Public awareness campaigns could encourage artists to engage in estate planning early in their careers. Technological enforcement tools—particularly AI-driven monitoring—should be deployed to detect and address digital copyright infringement. Royalty distribution mechanisms should be reformed to ensure transparency and fairness, possibly through stronger statutory empowerment of bodies like the IPRS and PPL. Education and legal aid initiatives could equip artists with the knowledge to leverage licensing and branding opportunities effectively.

Freddie Mercury’s legacy is a testament to the enduring value of legal planning in the arts. His estate demonstrates that intellectual property, when managed strategically, can continue to generate economic returns and cultural impact long after an artist’s passing. In India, where music forms an integral part of the national identity, the protection and monetization of creative works require a proactive legal and policy framework.

The central lesson is clear: to secure the future of India’s musical heritage, artists and their estates must embrace a holistic approach—one that combines estate planning, strong copyright enforcement, fair royalty systems, and innovative brand exploitation. Without such measures, the risk remains that India’s own musical legends may fade into obscurity, both in law and in legacy.

About the author: Sidharth Borah is a Partner at Gurinder & Partners.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.