When the ACs were
interrogated about their grievances against the IPRS and the copyright
law of 1957, this is what they had to say:
Jagjit Singh”
Countries where the laws are effective like European countries, United
States where they safeguard the interests of their artists. In India
despite of having copyright laws, it is not implemented. The laws are
weak in our nation”
Sameer Anjan
“We don’t have rights which we deserve, 50% royalty is not paid to us by
IPRS, and music labels are exploiting our work, not giving us mechanical
rights. Since IPRS has stopped paying us royalty, we collect our royalty
from PRS”
Lalit Pandit
“None of the composers and authors is a part of the IPRS except the old
and inactive ones. We have no idea what happens at IPRS inspite of being
an organization for us. We are entitled only 2 and half percent of the
royalty and not 50% of performing royalty. Every case we
fight against the music companies and IPRS, I, Pritam, Aadesh Shrivastav,
Shankar- contribute 1lakh rupees every time from our hard earned money
whereas IPRS is fighting cases from the money which is ours.”
When the licensing bodies were asked why the ACs are unhappy and blame
them for the nonpayment of royalty, this is what they had to say:
Vipul Pradhan
“I don’t know why the licensing companies are being targeted. People
don’t understand our role. Our job at the IPRS and PPL as collecting
bodies is to collect money on behalf of the right owners. It is a
difficult job. We are here to create benefit from the right owners, the
right owners could be anyone- commercial entity, producer or authors and
composers. We as societies do not take sides of any individual or
companies. We are concerned with the monetizing of the rights of the
rightful owners. If there is any dispute in regard of the right, it
should be settled in the court of law and we as societies are not here
to decide who the right owners are.”
Rakesh Nigam
“50% performance royalty hasn’t been paid to the registered authors and
composers’ accordance to the MOU, due to the disputes with the board,
the board decided that only the authors and composers who sign the
letter stating that the music companies are the owners of the content,
only then royalty will be granted by IPRS to them. If the Authors and
Composers disagree with IPRS on the front of the governance and the
ownership, they can file a case against us. IPRS cannot take a stand on
who the owner is.”
Who according to you are the rightful owners of the content?
Atul Churamani ‘We
as labels have nothing to do with who sells us the content- we buy it
from the producer who owns the right and that’s why we deal with them
and not with authors and composers. It is an issue of ownership which
the authors and composers must deal with the producers.
Vipul Pradhan
“Some of the things the authors and composers are demanding already
exist in the law. The law says, when it is done on work on hire, in
absence of any contract, the producer would be deemed to be the
copyright owner. The same law states that if the authors and composers
want to retain their right, they can get in contractual understanding
with the producers and have their rights. Some of the leading artists
from our country have already started to retain their right which
essentially means the changed business models. Some of the new age
creators are willing to be a part of the development of the rights i.e
if the music does well they should be remunerated more and if it doesn’t
than share miseries with the producer and music companies. This business
model – lesser money charged as fees for generating the content & larger
portion reserved for revenue sharing with the rights owner (producer).
Once the producer has sold these rights to the music company, the now
owners (music companies) shall share the revenue of all sorts provided
it is mentioned in the contract. It is only about how you exercise your
rights.”
Your views on the IPRS letter?
Sameer Anjan
“IPRS
wants us to sign a letter of undertaking which states that the labels
are the owners of the content and not us, only thereafter they shall pay
us the royalty. But already the labels and IPRS have been stating we are
not the owners then why do they require us to sign the same”
Lalit Pandit
“IPRS is asking us to sign the letter accepting the music companies as
the owners of the content and not us. This proves that the IPRS and
music companies feel that we are the owners of the content. If we do not
sign it they will not pay us royalty”
Rakesh Nigam
“50% performance royalty hasn’t been paid to the registered authors and
composers’ accordance to the MOU, due to the disputes with the board,
the board decided that only the authors and composers who sign a letter
stating that the music companies are the owners of the content, only
then royalty will be granted by IPRS to them.”
Where do you feel you have been misjudged by the AC fraternity?
Atul Churamani
“We being a part of the IPRS have been fighting so many cases over the
years to bring in more money so the authors and composers get their due.
We are ready to give the authors and composers voluntarily money for
their welfare unlike other non IPRS labels that not even are ready to
contribute that much. Why can’t the authors and composers see that? We
are fighting these cases so that we are able to bring the best to the
authors and composers, built them and take them to a global audience so
that we do not need have to await a Danny Boyle to come and place an A.
R Rehman on the global map. We want the authors and composers to
understand us. Why can’t they see how much we as labels and IPRS fight
numerous cases for their benefit against piracy and licenses to bring
more royalty?”
Vipul Pradhan
“Authors and composers who are the creators have transferrable rights
from which the revenue is generated. They can either retain or assign
it. The music labels currently buy the rights from the production
company/producers who are deemed to be owners of the copyright, if any
change results in change of ownership to the creators, the music company
will buy/license it from the new owners (creators) - the role of the
music company is to buy and sell. The current business model does not
generate a lot of revenues for the label so it is the matter of
adjustment to decide whether to pay it to the producer of or the authors
and composers. It won’t make much difference to the music companies as
they have to pay one of them. It will make a difference to the producer;
if the right is not deemed with the producer then the valuation of the
right which they eventually sell to the music company will go down.”
Rakesh Nigam
“I as the CEO of IPRS have no role to play but to follow instructions
laid by the board committee. Authors and composers are asking me to pay
them royalty neglecting the letter, which is not possible for me.”
Where does a singer fit into all of this?
Atul Churamani
“As far as the singer is concerned the law does not provide them
royalty. When a singer makes a live performance we as music companies do
not go to them and ask for our share from the performance fee as we have
spent so much money to promote them as an artist and the song your
singing at the performance and minting money”
Vipul Pradhan
“As per the current copyright law singers do not have any remunerative
right. They are entitled only for their onetime fee and the rights rest
with the producer. ”
How does the producer fit into the scheme of things?
Sameer Anjan
“There
have been many contracts when the ownership belongs to us but the
producer has gone and sold it to the labels. When we ask the labels for
our royalty on its ownership, they direct us to the producer saying it’s
not their fault and request us to sort it out with the producer.
Producer denies the ownership of the rights anymore. If the labels did
not have come in between, the problem would have never created. Labels
have done wrong to us. Earlier the films which we made, 90% of them
didn’t have any contracts. In absence of the producer the labels claim
ownership on our content.”
Lalit Pandit “The
producers are also helpless because the labels ask them to get
agreements of surrendering rights from our end. Even if we sign
agreements with the producers we still are the owners of our content as
we are its parents.
Atul Churamani
“Authors and composers who are the creators have transferrable rights
from which the revenue is generated. They can either retain or assign
it. The music labels if not buy it from the production company might buy
it from the creators itself. Any new models will not change anything at
the end of the music company, they will buy it from the producer or from
the authors and composers- the role of the music company is to buy and
sell either. The current business model does not generate a lot of
revenues for the label so it is the matter of adjustment to decide
whether to pay it to the producer of or the authors and composers. It
won’t make much difference to the music companies as they have to pay
one of them. It will make a difference to the producer; if the right is
not deemed with the producer then the valuation of the right which they
eventually sell to the music company will go down.”
Is the mechanical royalty what has led to this scenario?
Atul Chauramnai “Yes
the mechanical rights have a big role to play in their royalty demand. “
Lalit Pandit
“We want all the rights that a composer and author get in the western
countries. Mechanical makes a huge chunk of the royalty following in
from our own creations. “
Rakesh Nigam
“Authors and composers now not
only want the performing rights royalty but also the mechanical rights
royalty.”
Sameer Anjan
“We
want all the rights that authors and composers get worldwide. Labels are
minting money from the mechanical rights without parting any money to
us. Earlier we never asked for mechanical rights due to no digital
market but it exists now and we want our share.”
Biggest film music owner like T- series, Yash Raj & Eros are not a part
of the IPRS. Are they also deemed to pay royalties to authors and
composers?
Rakesh Nigam “If the authors and composers
have a principle to seek royalty from the IPRS, those principles should
be applied on the other non IPRS music companies like T- Series, Yash
Raj, and Eros etc.
Atul Chauramani
“We being the members at IPRS are ready to give the authors and
composers voluntarily money for their welfare unlike other non IPRS
labels not even ready to contribute that much. Why can’t the authors and
composers see that? “
Lalit Pandit
“Non IPRS music companies refrain from paying royalty to us.”
Sameer Anjan
“We have asked T-series, Eros, Yash Raj also for royalty but they have
refused.”
Vipul Pradhan “The music companies at the
IMI with a historical agreement being the owners of the right have
decided to contribute to the welfare of the authors and composers. This
contribution is the voluntary scheme by IMI which is not by law. If
other companies are not dispersing this money, they have the right to do
that. It is a welfare scheme and not what the law prescribes.”
What will the new amendment bring to you?
Sameer Anjan
“The new amendment law will be in our favor now. Even the press note on
the government website states the labels doing wrong to us”.
Lalit Pandit
“Hope the new amendment is in our favor and the government understands
our sad state”
Atul Churamani
“Authors and composers want the mechanical rights also for instance from
the sale of ringtones. They are already bestowed with royalty for
performance but now they want a cut from the mechanical rights, they
can’t get everything. We need to wait and watch what the new amendment
is and how much mechanical share is provided to the authors and
composers. Worldwide it is 8-10% but as the authors and composers had
earlier demanded 50% of mechanical rights too which does not exists
worldwide, we need to see if it I granted or not and if not that
percentage then how much will it be.”
Vipul Pradhan
“I think it’s very premature to comment on the amendment. Authors and
composers who are the creators have transferrable rights from which the
revenue is generated. They can either retain or assign it. The music
labels if not buy it from the production company might buy it from the
creators itself. Any new models will not change anything at the end of
the music company, they will buy it from the producer or from the
authors and composers- the role of the music company is to buy and sell
either. The current business model does not generate a lot of revenues
for the label so it is the matter of adjustment to decide whether to pay
it to the producer of or the authors and composers. It won’t make much
difference to the music companies as they have to pay one of them. It
will make a difference to the producer; if the right is not deemed with
the producer then the valuation of the right which they eventually sell
to the music company will go down.”
Rakesh Nigam “It is premature to comment
what the amendment shall be but there is a feel that the government
wants to safeguard the rights of the authors and composers. All
stakeholders should sit together and solve their differences rather than
building on differences. Only the user will benefit from such a
situation by delaying or reducing the payments.”
Where do the licensing bodies stand after the amendment?
Vipul Pradhan “The amendment does not affect
the licensing bodies like PPL. We shall still continue to license and
monetize the content for the owners. We might see change in the owners
of content or share of revenue. ”
Rakesh Nigam “Even if the press note on the
government website is harsh on the music labels, IPRS as a society will
benefit and strengthen. There should be clarity in the flow of rights.”
Last Comments-
Vipul Pradhan-
“I hope the amendment follows what happens in other countries and not
create a new bench which does not exist elsewhere. This means the
performing rights are retained by the authors and composers, the upfront
amount paid to them in turn will be substantially lower than what is
paid now. This is the right business model, how it eventually develops
depends on the market forces.”
Rakesh Nigam “IPRS must not be compared
with other international bodies. It is unfair to claim IPRS of not
functioning properly. Ground realities like business models, law, music
industry etc are very different in India as compared to other
countries.”
Atul Chauramani
“Why can’t the authors and composers see how much we as labels and IPRS
fight numerous cases for their benefit against piracy and licenses to
bring more royalty?”
Lalit Pandit
“We are treated as bonded labors. Music companies are asking us to
surrender all our rights only then shall sign us for the work or else
will take another composer. We are forced to sign the agreements. The
music companies are the ones who are to be blamed for situation today.
We do not get any royalty from our work; we want our share from
everything they make from our money.”
Sameer Anjan
“It is a game created by labels, it is a crime and they have even taken
our moral rights away (credits). Every person associated to the film
gets their due- only the music creators suffer.”
We started this discussion with an observation of how different our
system is within the music business, but the amendment spearheads an
inevitable change. Would it alter the working dynamics of music creation
and monetization? As licensing bodies the job of IPRS will still remain
the same which is to act on behalf of the owners of the content and
distribute royalties to them.
Will the authors and composers sign the letter that IPRS has put forth
to them?
Will the amendment protect works of the past or would it safeguard only
new content? Will the Indian music industry start resembling the west?
How would this affect music within the film industry? Will we see more
structured representation of mechanical rights? Will the music labels
and authors & composers settle their disputes amicably? How would the
role of a producer evolve with the restructured environment? Will the
singers get a share of the pie?
We are silent spectators till all of this unfurls, but we could only be
hopeful that it brings more clarity to the system and everyone has a
neutral ground to rely and play upon. The fact which cannot be ignored
is each one of them is incomplete without each other. The chain even
with one missing link will disrupt the music ecosystem. We hope that
whatever changes the government has set forth to bring about would
contribute positively to rights management.
We need to know what’s on your mind. We would be
delighted with any kind of feedback that could take this thread forward.
Like always we say at IMT,
“Our readers
always know the best!”
-RIA SHAH
