Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Javed Akhtar ousted by the film industry? UPDATED with article by Javed Akhtar

The entire controversy around the amendment to the copyright law is needless — because the law is not creating or inventing any new right or royalty for music composers and songwriters in India. The provision already exists, accepted by producers and music companies by signing MoUs in the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS). Since 1969, the IPRS has been entrusted with the task of collecting royalties for artists. But, more often than not, this has remained only on paper. The new bill is meant to enforce it and secure for Indian composers and songwriters the royalties that their counterparts elsewhere in the world rightly enjoy.Across the world, authors and composers share the royalty with the publisher, whose task is to market the music. In India, till 1993, producers were members of the IPRS, as publishers. In 1993, music companies replaced the producers as publishers by signing an MoU with authors and composers that they will share the royalty on an equal basis. Meanwhile, music companies told the producers that they would give them money upfront provided the producer got the author and the composer to give up their rights unconditionally in perpetuity.
This is a good example of two-facedness. On the one hand, the music companies, as part of the IPRS, are committed to share the royalty with artists on an equal basis. On the other hand, in the comfort of their offices and in their dealings with filmmakers, they force the artists, through the producer, to relinquish all their rights in perpetuity. That is how music companies are running with the hare and hunting with the hounds here. They have to keep up this facade that they are sharing the royalties with author and composer on an equal basis; otherwise they will not get a penny from the rest of the world.Now let us see how the division of royalty is practised across the world. Suppose a song gets Rs 100 as royalty, out of this, Rs 50 goes to the producer or the music company for sound-recording rights. No composer or author can claim a penny of it. Now we are left with Rs 50. Out of this, Rs 25 again goes to the producer or the music company. Now from the rest, Rs 12.50 goes to composer and Rs 12.50 to songwriter. The producers are unwilling to let go of even that. They are shouting blue murder because the new bill says they cannot take away the 12.5 per cent from the author.Recently they have changed their tune. Now they are saying they would give royalty after they have recovered the money spent on recording and publicity. In other words, we write the song and compose it, and then the recording and publicity will also be at our expense. In this situation, one wonders what is the contribution of the producer, and on what grounds does he claim 75 per cent of royalty?Many people are not very clear about the source of these royalties. Actually, these royalties have nothing to do with the success or failure of a movie. For instance, the film Deewar was a hit; its songs not so much. On the other hand, the film Papa Kehte Hain, starring Jugal Hansraj, flopped, but its song Ghar se nikalte hi became a hit. Royalty comes from the success of the songs — as they are played on radio and television and get downloaded as ringtones.The filmmakers also argue that they cannot pay a newcomer as much as they do a veteran composer/songwriter. But royalty is not an amount that they pay; it is a percentage that they share. When royalty is given by a radio station or a television channel, whether the composer is a star or an unknown entity does not matter. When the royalty is the same at that end, why should it be different at another end? Also, what the producers conveniently forget to reveal is that when a song becomes popular, their 75 per cent royalty swells accordingly.In the West, songs are typically not part of films; they come as albums. The producers’ revenue comes from the songs being played, performed and downloaded. Here the songs are part of films. The producers have an additional source of income, from the films, apart from other usages of songs. Even then, they are cribbing when asked to share royalty. By the way, in the West, for songs in films such as The Sound of Music and My Fair Lady, the royalty for writer and composer comes from the cinema hall as well. Leave aside songs, even the background music of a film gets royalties.The producers and music companies have another argument: that the deal is between them and the author and the composer, why should the government interfere in that? But the government always interferes when two parties who enter into an agreement are not equally empowered. The government always interferes when there is injustice in the system. That is the reason government creates laws against dowry and child labour.Anyway, the whole conversation only has academic interest. In an unusual move, the standing committee of Parliament has passed the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2010 unanimously. There was not one dissenting note. Parliament is in one voice on the issue. It is just a matter of time now. Parliament will resume functioning in the next session, hopefully, and pass the bill. 
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/facing-the-music/732396/

The way Hollywood works is that an actor works as a partner in a film project incurring losses and earning a percentage of the share of profits. It's sensible, it's fair and it's a whole hearted indulgence in the creative process. Similar trend is now finding place in Bollywood, therefore when a certain Javed Akhtar stands up and lobbies in Parliament for the rights of writers and singers, eyebrows are raised.

No wonder then The Film Federation of India has "advised members of the film federation to not employ the services" of the iconic writer. The decision that was taken by its newly elected president, T.P. Agrawal, is based on the fact that it's really the producer who takes the maximum risk in the movie business. Therefore if a certain writer wishes to be eligible to be a part of the royalties then they must also be party to the risk involved.

Mukesh Bhatt in the capacity of a Vice President of The Film & Television Producers Guild Of India has issued no official statement on this but did express the fact that the decision was one taken emotionally and not rationally. He blamed the way in which the government has handled the whole copyright issue which has created the divide in the film industry.

BollyWood Hungama

37 comments:

  1. If the producers decide to not employ Javed Akhtar, they will be hard hit with a serious backlash. First they need to make their reasons public, I am sure nothing like this will happen without any debate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think producers have perception that Javed Saab is using his political influence to bulldoze through this copyright issue.

    I think some points are

    1. Movie songs have existence because of movies. Non-filmy songs are not that popular on their own.

    2. Most of the movies are losing proposition for producers.

    3. There are other technicians who might say they need some money for TV rights which is different avenue than theatrical avenue. One of the contention of music associated people is that songs have life on rintones,music channels, other movies use.

    I agree with
    1. Some movies run solely because of songs. I am sure people would give Munni some credit for Dabangg success.
    2. Songs copyright should rest with people who created it after initial run.

    In West the copyrights stay with producers of album?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think Javed saab talks about your points 1,2 and 3. Music makes money every time it is played - and its success is sometimes unlinked to movie success. He also describes how money is shared in the West.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Also, what the producers conveniently forget to reveal is that when a song becomes popular, their 75 per cent royalty swells accordingly.In the West, songs are typically not part of films; they come as albums."

    I will say opposite. In west the song popularity is due to its contributors mainly. Film people choose from variety of sources in West. In India Malaika Arora and Salman can also claim some pie in success of Munni.

    I agree that composers and lyricist and singers should get some royalty. I am just not sure about %. I think in Initial release of movie producers should take 75% and contributors 25%. After initial run those %s should be swapped (as the song popularity has nothing to do with movie).

    ReplyDelete
  5. But that can be different too - what if the song is hugely popular and movie not? Dilli 6 album comes to mind. The music has a lief of its own there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes..If a movie flops, it will go out of cinema hall quickly and the swapping example I gave above will happen quickly.

    If there is dabangg or 3 idiots kind of deal where the movies ran more than a month will favor producers and swapping will happend little latter as the movie is loved and probably adding to songs popularity.

    In case of Ashiqui kind of deal where a movie becomes hit just because of songs is little contentious and difficult to prove who helped whom and in what ratio profits should be shared from songs.

    ps - When I say initial run, it means a period of 2-6 weeks the time frame any movie runs in cinema hall.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I Dont think D6 music was a big success . in India Music sales after movie releases and becomes hit is much higher than before . There have been so many occassions when music didnt do well as Movie failed

    ReplyDelete
  8. But I think we cannot have this decided on a movie by movie or some not-defined scale. So it has to be the same for the initial shares, and in case music does really well then there should be some share from that over and above the initial share.

    ReplyDelete
  9. nah , Producers pay Music people to do things for them so why should they give royalty afterwards . producers , music company bring things out on their Risk . if they want Royalty start doing ur album and give it to producers if they demand it

    ReplyDelete
  10. But their risk is much greater if the writer or composer or singer does a crappy job, and still gets paid for it. Good work should be rewarded and art or creative talent cannot simply be bought.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Then just dont bow to producers . Release Your own Albums and let producers come ASking for Songs paying you royalty . Writers dont invest a penny and still want to take Royalty wah . its like no Risk situation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. People like Javed Akhtar are NOT bowing to producers. The same is true for the music industry in other countries. They get royalties for songs created exclusively for films. This kind of mentality is why creative talent is missing in India and people copy. No one wants to be a writer, there is simply no money in that, and so we get trash for content.

    ReplyDelete
  13. While at job many people develop/create patents (which are unique) but they are not paid any royalty except for some amount as token appreciation.

    ps - It can be argued that it is not an art but is you ask a software Engineer or Tea Tester, he/she would say that it is an art :)

    ps1 - But I still think that after initial run of the movie the revenue flow should be shared.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes - but those are employes. Make the music directors, lyricists, singers employees, give them regular wages, pension or retirement, and then you can own their creations!

    ReplyDelete
  15. pension is there for only Govt. institutions . Private no one gives .

    and the way system is Music director r employs too . will Music director share royalty with his orchestra ?

    ReplyDelete
  16. i have no problem if Music director want Royalty if they r ready to just make music themselves and release it .

    Overseas individual Albums r the ones which sell most , here its movie songs only . most of individual Albums have failed which says something .

    ReplyDelete
  17. Music directors are the creators with artistic content - not some table player who plays their notes. KB was talking of engineers who make patentable products - they all have retirement benefits - it may be pension, or some options to invest in retirement funds. That is the benefit of being an employee with a regular paycheck.

    Music outside movies does not sell - and films with no music do not sell either - so it works both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  18. no i am sure they dont have . Pension options r only available in govt institutions . Artisitc is diff for all . next some PRoject manager will demand royalty from us because he handled site on his own :D

    Investment in retirement scheme in India is a way to avoid tax and its done by everyone .

    no Music industry would stop if films stopped taking them . eventually they will have to come down .

    ReplyDelete
  19. And one has to realise that songs r written acc to script demands and with director input so its not only Lyrics , Music directors job .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Music is written for script, and sometimes it is fit into script - Ajab si was added to film after it was completed.

    If there was no music Hindi films would languish - and make a fraction of the money they make.

    Employees put money into retirement and employers usually match it or a fraction of it, that is how it works.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nope very few films depend on music this days . that music is must is wrong thinking . it will take 3 months for the idea to change .

    ACtually it will be better for hindi films to go without song . as such it is used as toilet break only this days

    ReplyDelete
  22. Name 3 films that made it big without music.

    ReplyDelete
  23. it will . very few films come without music this days but have u seen the CD sales ? it just shows why people go to toilet when songs start .

    if they do too much Natak , it will be bad for them only but may be good for our Industry . Songs just hamper flow of film this days

    ReplyDelete
  24. But you have no names yet! And yes Piracy has brought down CD sales, but iTunes sales are up, and the revenue from when songs play in radio, shows, are used ofr other purposes - that is up too.

    ReplyDelete
  25. itunes sales for India ? really . ask music companies pls . selling price for music of films is going down . sik was sold for 12 crores . today not even big films get 5.

    as for that not one because every big film has had songs , but if this Natak continues it wont be long if we have films without songs . i would love to break this stupid thinking of music helping films . if that was case Emraan would have all films as blockbusters.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Give me one name of a film without music that made it big - then we can talk. Jab tak yeh nahin hota importance of music is hard to deny.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Which film has worked on basis of music ? give me list pls

    ReplyDelete
  28. Asking which film has not when most films has songs because it has become routine will not give u proper idea how music is working in todays films . Music sales work after films , films which dont do well their music goes down shows what is more imp.

    Also if music was so imp individual albums would work . Price for music is going down and down this days .

    ReplyDelete
  29. Fact is that there have been some lipsync song-less films but even they are compelled to have music in the background. So we have NO films that are without songs. Until someone can make those and show they are successful, it is clear that producers think music is important for their films, or their cheap money grubbing souls would simply stop spending money on that. They have done away with original writing and simply copy entire scenes/plots from foreign films. Next logical step is to do away with music - so who is brave enough to try that?

    The release of music clips in trailers, release of music itself can allow a film to gather momentum in its publicity drive. Look at Peepli Live music release! Otherwise they will show dialog promos and then the entire film and its hollowness will be exposed completely.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Arre aap logon mei to lambi guftagu ho gayi hai..

    Music is important to any average audience. Many people go just to see songs in movies picturized on favorite stars. I am sure many flocked to cinema halls just to see Munni, Shiela or Kajrare. But having said that it is also important that these songs have very less value without stars and story. I think music people are paid appropriately based on supply demand for them in movie industry. But other avenues like ringtones, TV music channels, other movie use is never in contract when music is composed. So when any song is used in audio or visual form apart from movies, I think some share should go to creator(s). It could be thought as if you want to use one(multiple) particular song for movie renumeration is X, if you want to use it in ringtone then renumeration is X+Y and so on. I think AgentSmith would say that X+Y is same as initial payment any music contributor receives. I think music creators are saying give us X but Y needs to be variable. So to incorporate both arguments, I think music people salaries should go down little and they should get some part of external revenue streams (risk is Y could be very small or zero if they don't perform well).

    ReplyDelete
  31. I read somewhere that for Kajrare Alisha Chinai got under Rs 15k. Is that fair? That song made Bunty Aur Babli. Now it is used as Title song in Brazilian Soap Opera - does she see a penny of that money?

    ReplyDelete
  32. And now this:

    LINK

    Last week the BPI released their overview of 2010 sales volumes in the UK. As always, their press release was filled with claims that piracy is ruining their industry and most mainstream media was quick to republish this propaganda. However, we can use the very same data to show that more music is being sold than ever before, and argue that piracy is likely to have had very little impact.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Khanabadosh i doubt in todays Age , people just go to see a song . yes it can hype film somewhat but if Song was only imp think Tees Maar khan would have never dropped . When u can see Entire song on tv 24 hrs why would you go to theatre to see it .

    ReplyDelete
  34. "When u can see Entire song on tv 24 hrs why would you go to theatre to see it . "
    most people don't think like that. Songs and promos are most important part in hyping any movie.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "I read somewhere that for Kajrare Alisha Chinai got under Rs 15k. Is that fair? "

    But then you have supply and demand thing. Many people do Yashraj movies for less because they will earn somewhere else. Song itself was just decently liked until they started showing the promo with Aish and it gained momentum after that.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Khanabadosh , songs do help to hype movie but they are added attraction , if film is not good Song cannot save it . however a good Film can elevate a mediocre soundtrack and its sales

    ReplyDelete
  37. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/music/news-and-interviews/Alisha-Chinai-got-Rs-15000-for-Kajra-Re/articleshow/7075358.cms

    ReplyDelete