The proposed Copyright Amendment Bill scheduled to be tabled in the Lok Sabha early next year seems to have caused a rift in the Indian film industry.
While music directors and lyricists are looking forward to a share in the profits after the bill is passed, producers on the other hand are irked at what they term as an ‘additional burden’ on their resources.
As both the sides clamour to put their respective points across, what emerges is a feeling of hurt and betrayal on each side. While producers agree that filmmaking is all about mutual understanding and team work, there seems to be some misunderstanding and misinformation about what the bill is all about.
Veteran film writer and lyricist Javed Akhtar, who has been in the forefront of seeking an amendment to the Copyright Act, explains to DNA what the bill entails and why there is no need for heartburn on either side.
Isn’t rare for a bill to be passed unanimously by the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee?
Yes it is. But in this case, the provisions for writers, lyricists and music composers to share the revenues earned on their work already exist in the copyright laws. The amendment that they are asking for will only implement what has not been followed so far in the film industry. If things go well, this codification of the existing provision will become a law passed by the Lok Sabha.
Producers have slapped a ban on you and are even threatening to go on a strike in protest against the bill. Are their objections and actions justified?
Everyone is entitled to their point of view. Unfortunately, in this context most people seem to be missing the point. This is mostly happening due to misinformation being circulated by vested interests.
Producers seem to be under the impression that they will stop being owners of the copyright if the bill is passed. However, this not what the bill entails. It will only curb the assigning of the performing rights and the royalties of the lyricists and composers to a third party.
Come to think of it, there should be no conflict between us and the producers since our creative and monetary interests are the same. If the producer does well, he will naturally pass on his goodwill and prosperity to the creative team.
Please explain the copyright laws in this context.
A copyright consists of several segmented rights including sound recording, publishing and performing rights. The sound recording rights remain exclusively with the producer.
This is fair since he has put money in the film and is the owner of the product. Then there are publishing rights and performing rights. So, out of the 100% that comes in as royalty, 50% goes the producer because he is the first owner of the recording rights.
From the other 50%, the publishing rights account for 25% and the performing rights for the remaining 25%.
What we are asking for is the equal division of the performing rights, between the lyricist and the composer. Through the sale of the performing rights the song reaches audiences either in the original form or otherwise, outside of the film for which it was originally written and composed.
How is the situation in Bollywood and regional Indian cinema different from that in the Western film industries?
In Hollywood and elsewhere, there is a different kind of structure as compared to our film industry. They have publishing institutions which take care of issues such as royalty generation and collection. In Indian cinema, the producer is the publisher.
So he is actually getting 75% of the profits. I believe that the producers should not have grouses against sharing 12.5% each with the composer and lyricist.
So are the producers the real villains?
Not really. The problem arises when the producer surrenders both the recording and publishing rights to the music companies. A big amount is offered to filmmakers by music companies. Often producers fail to realise that over time the music companies will earn profits several times over and the original creators or the filmmakers will get nothing.
This way, both the producers and the creative team are in the same boat in the long run, watching on as the music companies rake in the moolah.
What is worse is that lyricists and composers are made to sign agreements to waive off their rights after they have received their one-time fees from the producers.
Anyone who refuses to give in or seeks a better contract is either replaced or rejected for future projects. Naturally, most writers and composers are reluctant to lose out on opportunities and hence give in to unfair demands.
And is this where the new bill comes in the picture?
Yes. The government has now decided to make the performing rights non-assignable. Lyricists and music composers will no longer be asked to waive or give away the performing rights.
The rights can only be assigned to the writer or composer’s legal heirs or to a recognised organisation or body that will work towards collecting royalty on our behalf.
However, don’t you agree that there is a big difference between existing laws and their implementation in the country?
That may be true in some cases. Most rules are flouted because victims are not as powerful as their opponents and need legal protection. For instance, lyricists and composers had signed contracts with music companies and producers clearly defining their terms in the early 90s. However, nothing much came out of it and no one ever actually received any benefits.
Later the producers realised that there was a possibility of new and emerging media such as the internet and mobile phones.
Newer agreements and contracts were then made with music companies and words such as ‘any media emerging in the future’ were added to them.
Is there a possibility of an amicable solution to be reached between the producers and the lyricists and composers?
After they look at the proposed amendment at length, producers will understand that the implementation of the bill will benefit them too. These days, the producers seem to be worried that they will lose their copyright on the film’s music and songs to the creative team. What they need to understand is that this will not really happen.
What are the other misunderstandings over the whole copyright issue?
There is this theory being circulated that the amendment will mean equal distribution of money for everyone. They are thinking that newcomers and upcoming talent will get the same as established lyricists and composers.
One needs to understand that we are talking about percentages here and not about actual amount in rupees. The final amount would depend on a number of things including the film’s budget and the popularity, stature and talent of its creative team.
Comments