There you go... from the lawer himself!! :D thanks Amith!! :D
BTW, with my limited knowledge on this subject, I had written about it in my blog, more than a year ago http://arrahmaniac.blogspot.com/2006/10/arrahmans-protest.html Any comments on this, amith? Aravind Amith Chandhran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, Recently someone asked about the copyright issues in the group. I am trying to explain it below. I was surprised to hear for the first time when AR said he wanted shares in the copyrights. This man understands the concepts of copyrights and publishing rights! And now he is trying to change the general practices not selfishly but for the benefit of all the musicians! What to say! If we feel it's for a good cause, we should support him! Well, I2FS Karthik would know much more than me, since he has done a lot of research on this! :-) I feel it's a complex system for an ordinary music lover, and thus I have not touched many parts like the duration, infringement, remedies or other aspects of copyrights. I'm also not touching the royalties issue, as I feel technically it is a different issue. In the present context, I have tried to explain the issues in simple words and in short. I'm also adding some information which is not much relevant to understand AR's stand on it, only for fans' perusal. If you find this information helpful, kindly write to me, so as to encourage me to study it in more details and develop my thoughts on the same, and if you feel there are any inaccuracies and errors, please write to me so as to make me study the subject in more details, and correct and develop my thoughts on the same. :-) I referred: - Copyright Act 1957, (Bare Act, India) And this is my interpretation, based on the info available in the public domain. Of course, there would be many things which are not known to us, and knowing that might change the interpretation completely. Please give me your valuable feedback. If you have any queries, different interpretations, different perspectives, please write to me personally. Thanks. - Copyright: The term 'Copyright' implies the right of individual creators in their creation. These creators are generally categorized into 4, like artists, poets, authors, and musicians. Copyright is one of the recognized and sanctioned branches of intellectual property laws. Copyright recognizes the exclusive right of a creator to gain the commercial advantage out of his own creation. Copyright is a monopoly right. Object: Copyright is essential to encourage the artists and composers to invest their creative inputs in the original works. They would be able to work more freely if they are assured that their creations would be protected by the law and accordingly no one else would be able to reproduce (for publishing and selling to public) their creations for a specific period during which the respective creator would have the exclusive rights. Statute and its enforceability: In India, the law of copyrights is governed by the Copyright Act, 1957. And since India is a signatory to two international copyright conventions (Berne convention and the Universal Copyright Convention); by virtue of the provisions contained in these two multilateral conventions; the works of Indian nationals are entitled to the copyright protection in all the countries which are signatories to these two conventions. Deals with: Copyright deals with works like: Literary, Dramatic, Musical, Artistic, Cinematographic films, and Sound recordings. In the given context, we have concern with Musical Works (Lets include Sound Recordings in that, for our own convenience.) Musical Works and Sound Recordings: A musical work means any combination of melody and harmony or either of them, printed, reduced to writing or otherwise graphically produced or reproduced. It would be interesting to know that musical works are considered as exceptional work. In the most of the abovementioned creations, the creations are said to exist, only when they have been put down on the paper. (i.e. paintings etc.) But the musical works are mere arrangements of the sounds, voices and instruments, in a particular order. Thus musical work stands apart than the other works. Copyright is recognized only in the original musical work. And for this recognition, a musical work is interpreted as a work which consists of music, and includes any graphical rotation of such work, but does not include any words or any action, intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music. Limitations: The limitation to copyright law is that, it only protects the expressions of ideas and not the original ideas themselves. For ex: The song 'Chinna Chinna Aasai' can be protected under copyrights, but the idea or theme of the song cannot be copyrighted. Also, the song as a whole cannot be copyrighted. The words of the song create copyright in the author, and the music of the song is the copyright of the composer, but the song itself has no copyright. Such copyright is not recognized by the law. So in case of 'Chinna Chinna Aasai', the song cannot be copyrighted as a whole. The words create copyright in the lyricist Vairamuthu, and the music, musical arrangement etc. creates copyright in AR. Whereas, in a song like 'Pray For Me Brother', AR would own the copyrights, since here, the song is written and the music is composed by the same person, i.e. AR. Another limitation of the copyright law is that it also provides that an 'Adaptation' of the musical work can also be protected under copyrights. Adaptation in relation to a musical work means any arrangement or transcription of the work. A copyright manages to survive in such arranged music by adding accompaniments, new harmonies, new rhythm and the like and transcribing it for different musical forces. In common parlance, it is just the modification of the musical work by accompanying orchestra. It is this provision of the law, which provides the leeway to musical composers to come out with their pirated and remix versions of old musical works! For ex: There are 7 copies of 'Mukkala Muqabala'. In the technical interpretation they would call it an adaptation! Also, there are number of remix versions which sometimes sell more than the original versions! Practicality in India: There is a huge difference between the theory and the practicality. The law recognizes the composer as the first owner of the copyright in the musical work. But there is general practice of producers paying the compensatory amounts to the musicians. This way the producers 'acquire' copyrights from the musicians. And once such amounts are paid to them, the producers either register the copyrights in their own names, or they sell / share the copyrights to / with the music companies for hefty considerations. These music companies make significant profits by the sell (and sometimes may also suffer substantial losses). Here it diverts from its object. For ex: AR composes for 'Kisna'. Technically it is the work composed in the course of employment under a contract of service and nothing more than that. Once AR gets paid for his work, he is released and the work is assigned to Mukta Arts (producers). Now Mukta Arts may register the copyrights in their name, or may sell them to Sony Music for some considerable amount, or even share them with Sony Music. Once this process is complete, then AR loses the rights in his own creations. Since he loses the rights in their own creation, he has to face some problems. What problems? Lets see what the copyright permits, with some examples. What a copyright permits: In the case of a musical work, the copyright grants the copyright owner to do and authorize the doing of any of the following acts :- 1. To reproduce the musical work in any material form; Ex: A music company can reproduce the musical work in the form of cassettes, CDs, DVDs, MP3 CDs, tapes, LPs, and so on. 2. To publish the musical work; Ex: A music company can publish such reproduced musical work in the form of cassettes, CDs, DVDs, MP3 CDs, tapes, LPs etc in the market. The profit is entirely theirs, since the copyright is a monopoly right. 3. To perform the musical work in public; Ex: Music companies own the copyrights. So if you, / any group, / band, / an orchestra, / AR / or say anyone who wants to perform the copyrighted musical work in the public, will have to go to the music companies requesting the company to permit him to perform the musical work in the public. This becomes more tedious when AR wants to perform a song like 'Arabic Kadaloram', where the copyrights of musical work are with 3 companies! (Tamil copyrights with Pyramid, Telugu copyrights with Melody Makers, and Hindi copyrights with Polygram MIL!) Copyright owners / music companies may (or may not) charge heavy amounts for such permissions. 4. To produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the musical work; Ex: The copyrights are with the music companies. In this case if a composer wants to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the musical work, re-interpretation of such work, or a different version of such work, he will have to go back to the music company requesting them to permit him to do so. Copyright owners / music companies may (or may not) charge heavy amounts for such permissions. 5. To communicate the work by radio-diffusion or to communicate to the public by a loud-speaker or any other similar instrument the radio-diffusion of the musical work; Ex: If a composer wants to communicate to the public his work through FM channels, TV channels, and online streaming websites, he has to go back to the company requesting them to permit him to do so. Copyright owners / music companies may (or may not) charge heavy amounts for such permissions. 6. To make any adaptation of the musical work Ex: If a composer wants to make an adaptation of the musical work by way of adding different instruments, or by changing the singing styles, he has to go to the copyright owner for that. Remember: 'Dekho Na' song from 'Swades'. It was an adaptation of 'Baba Kichu Kichu Thaan' song. Ashutosh Gowariker had requested Rajinikanth for permitting them to use it (That implies Rajinikanth owns the copyrights of 'Baba' songs!) Copyright owners / music companies may (or may not) charge heavy amounts for such permissions. 7. To translate the musical work or to make adaptation of such musical work; Ex: Andrew Lloyd Webber wants to translate AR's 'Shakalaka Baby' and 'Oo Lala La' in English, and wants to make an adaptation of the musical work for his stage musical 'Bombay Dreams'. He will have to get permission from the respective music companies who own the copyrights of the m,entioned songs. These copyright owners / music companies may (or may not) charge heavy amounts for such permissions. There may be some more benefits to the music companies than the ones mentioned here. Ex: if Bharat Bala wants to use Ishwar Allah from 1947 Earth in his documentary on Mahatma Gandhi, he has to request to T Series because it's the company who owns the copyrights for 1947 Earth. In short it's a business. Music means a lot to us and to AR. But for the music companies and the producers, it is a medium of earning. Each time you approach them for permission, they are happy since it's an opportunity for them to earn. :-) Solution: The AR way: Copyright is not a single right, but it's a bundle of rights. It covers statutory rights, negative rights, multiple rights, economic rights, and moral rights. As said earlier, it's a monopoly right, but the law allows copyrights to be shared, or to be delegated or to be assigned. There may also be a joint ownership in the copyrights. For ex: A copyright for an OST comprising of 10 tracks can be shared. 50% of the copyrights will vest in the music company, say 25% of the copyrights will vest in the composer, and rest of the 25% will vest in the lyricists, singers etc. In my opinion, AR wants just a share in the copyrights. He has said so in several interviews. For Ex: He wanted share in the copyrights of 'Om Shanti Om', so that he will not have to go to the music companies in order to ask for the permissions whenever he wanted to perform the songs live. Acquiring permissions is time consuming. Also, the companies must be keeping an eye on the profit, and must be charging a lot for such permissions. If a share is granted to him by the music companies, he will be free to alter / modify / experiment with his own creations even after they release! In reality, the music companies make you dance if you want such permissions. I have gone through this experience myself, and I know how they behave in such situations. Anyway, when someone like AR wants to change this system, how can I count myself! :-) I have certain opinions on the whole, but I am afraid to put them here for some reasons! ;-) Enjoy JA! Thanks! - http://arrahmaniac.blogspot.com --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
