Film Federation of India bans Javed Akhtar

[Sachin=GOD]

Then they can and they should ask for it and those who are agreeing will pay it. Simple. JA is making an issue out of it for nothing.

JA is not making an issue out of it, rather he's trying to get this bill passed in Parliament otherwise the producers will agree now and then refuse to pay royalties later on but if the bill is passed in Parliament then they won't be able to do so.

[The Outsider]

Then they can and they should ask for it and those who are agreeing will pay it. Simple. JA is making an issue out of it for nothing.

As I've written above the vast majority of Bollywood is controlled by a handful of production houses and they can collude to have disproportionate contracts in the absence of regulation.

[Clarke]

Because the movie fraternity is a small' date=' closed loop with a handful of big, influential producers who can collude to have the contracts designed heavily in their favor in the absence of regulation.[/quote']

As I've written above the vast majority of Bollywood is controlled by a handful of production houses and they can collude to have disproportionate contracts in the absence of regulation.

Where does it stop ? Does the govt regulate what percentage of profits is shared by actors, writers, composers, editors, cinematographers, spot boys and whoever is associated with the movie ? The case of big boys running the show applies to many businesses. Govt has no business regulating compensation across the hierarchy.

[The Outsider]

Where does it stop ? Does the govt regulate what percentage of profits is shared by actors, writers, composers, editors, cinematographers, spot boys and whoever is associated with the movie ? The case of big boys running the show applies to many businesses. Govt has no business regulating compensation across the hierarchy.

Isn't that why there are labor laws in each country? Why have any labor laws at all if everything is going to be left to the 'free' market? And when there are some loopholes found in the laws, like in this case an obvious one where intellectual property rights are not being adequately compensated because of some reasons, isn't it time to modify the laws so that people are not able to exploit them?

[suma25]

Javed akhtar's Interview on the issue We are asking for equal division of performing rights’ Published: Saturday, Dec 25, 2010, 2:08 IST By Shabana Ansari | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA 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.

[Clarke]

Isn't that why there are labor laws in each country? Why have any labor laws at all if everything is going to be left to the 'free' market? And when there are some loopholes found in the laws' date=' like in this case an obvious one where intellectual property rights are not being adequately compensated because of some reasons, isn't it time to modify the laws so that people are not able to exploit them?[/quote'] Of course we need labor laws, but we have to draw a line so that they are not exceedingly intrusive. If we are to suggest that certain professions deserve more than others, it will only get messier. If avatar were a bollywood movie, would we then have laws to suggest that the special effects group or the art director has to have a percentage of the profits ? After all their contribution to the collections was indeed reasonable. The Writers Guild of America did actually stand up to the bigger studios and managed to find a consensus as far as i know. Let the parties fight/figure it out among themselves as far as the movie industry is concerned. Don't get me wrong here, i am not a hard core conservative that hates the govt. When it comes to essentials such as petroleum and onions, we need to govt to step in. Compensation for individual positions in the private sector, especially the movie industry is just not on.

[DomainK]

Isn't that why there are labor laws in each country? Why have any labor laws at all if everything is going to be left to the 'free' market? And when there are some loopholes found in the laws' date=' like in this case an obvious one where intellectual property rights are not being adequately compensated because of some reasons, isn't it time to modify the laws so that people are not able to exploit them?[/quote'] Then tell me how a free lance designer working on a campaign is different? Why should he not get a share in the profit? How about a copy writer? Is he any different from what JA is doing? Should he also get a share in the profit? Should we have law for that as well.

[The Outsider]

Of course we need labor laws, but we have to draw a line so that they are not exceedingly intrusive. If we are to suggest that certain professions deserve more than others, it will only get messier. If avatar were a bollywood movie, would we then have laws to suggest that the special effects group or the art director has to have a percentage of the profits ? After all their contribution to the collections was indeed reasonable.

Sure. If there were 100s of Avatars being made, whose success was based on special effects in a large part, and the big producers of the industry were deliberately colluding to deny royalties to the special effects group or the art director, what's wrong in enacting a law that denies such a thing?

The Writers Guild of America did actually stand up to the bigger studios and managed to find a consensus as far as i know. Let the parties fight/figure it out among themselves as far as the movie industry is concerned.

I would say that's great. However, from what I've read on the issue in India, and I might be wrong, is that the producers have flatly denied entertaining the idea of a shared revenue system.

[Sachin=GOD]

Sure. If there were 100s of Avatars being made, whose success was based on special effects in a large part, and the big producers of the industry were deliberately colluding to deny royalties to the special effects group or the art director, what's wrong in enacting a law that denies such a thing? I would say that's great. However, from what I've read on the issue in India, and I might be wrong, is that the producers have flatly denied entertaining the idea of a shared revenue system.

you're right. They've refused it because according to them , today its the lyricists, composers etc, tomorrow it will be the cinematographers, special effect guys, music directors and other associated with the films that will ask for share in profits.

[The Outsider]

Then tell me how a free lance designer working on a campaign is different? Why should he not get a share in the profit? How about a copy writer? Is he any different from what JA is doing? Should he also get a share in the profit? Should we have law for that as well.

I don't have much knowledge about how the advertising and media agencies work, but aren't campaign contracts sold at a predetermined price? It's not as if some advertisement is hugely successful and people start buying CDs for it running into millions of dollars. Moreover, employees of advertising agencies involved in these successful campaigns get bonuses at the end of the year. Once a lyricist hands over his composition to the producer for whatever money, it's the end of financial exchanges between the parties involved. Also, there are freelance copywriters who actually demand and get a bonus based on the success of a campaign. There is no active collusion amongst the top media houses to deny this, like there is in case of the movie industry.

[achilles]

JA is asking for something which should be his right. Tomorrow, if Domaink and Outy write a song, investing the time and money that they do, they would not like to be paid peanuts while the producer walks away with the amount which they as writers have a share over. Protesting and banning him is really naive. It only makes him look right and strong. And no one likes the bully. The producers are bullies, who use their muscle to suit their needs. They've always had this coming. The best way forward for both parties would be discussing this behind closed-doors before it gets murky.

[Sachin=GOD]

Amid RS uproar, Sibal moves Copyright bill NEW DELHI: After being disallowed by the Opposition last week, Union HRD minister Kapil Sibal on Tuesday moved a Bill in the Rajya Sabha to amend the Copyright Act. The Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, seeks to amend the Copyright Act, 1957, to fine tune it with relevant international treaties and to introduce a system of statutory licencing to protect the owners of literary or musical works. Sibal moved the bill for "consideration and passing" amid uproar by the Opposition in the Upper House over a different issue. The Opposition members were demanding home minister P Chidambaram's resignation alleging that he had helped a Delhi-based hotelier, who was his former client. But, Sibal could manage to move the bill. The Opposition parties, including BJP, AIADMK and TDP, had prevented him from moving the bill last week, alleging that there was a "conflict of interest". The members had said that the minister cannot move the bill since his lawyer son represented a music company. "According to Rule 294 of Parliament's Ethics Committee, a member having direct or indirect interest in a matter cannot move a bill... He has conflict of interest," JD (U) member Shivanand Tiwari had said while preventing Sibal from moving it. After Question Hour, Sibal could be seen talking to Tiwari. Sibal also spoke to BJD's Pyari Mohan Mohapatra, seeking his support. Later, nominated member Javed Akhtar could be seen interacting with Tiwari and commerce minister Anand Sharma went over to S S Ahluwalia (BJP) to build consensus over the bill. As the deputy chairperson announced tabling of the bill, BJP members could be heard demanding action against Chidambaram and CPM members trooped into the well of the House on the Mullaperiyar dam issue. The House was adjourned. link

[Stuge]

whatever the friction between the parties is there ,but the ban doesn't sound right in my opinion .

[triam]

Outsider, What about software developers, the designers of ipod dont get a % of the profit, neither do the creators of firefox or internet explorer. If you are a big enough artist negotiate your contract for a %, I dont believe there should be any laws for that, Rajnikanth gets a % of his gross revenue but takes a lower salary (comparatively to him) from the producers. But Rajnikanth can pull it off not anyone can pull that kind of contract. Or nowadays albums are famous enough, just do albums and dont do movies that way you can have the whole profit if you are confident in your own skill. Why does there need to be a law for this? and the govt getting involved in this?