Amith/Gopal/Others Are there any OSTs for which ARR owns/shares a copyright?
Or is there any movie (probably post JA) for which ARR would be retaining the copyrights? On Jan 20, 2008 9:17 PM, Vithur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Amith, > > Kudos to your work, a very detailed research report, just like a Thesis > is presented here for our perusal, reading and reference. I never knew that > there were so much of intricacies involved in Copyrights, Patents related > to Music. > > Reading your report, I can understand with pain, that for ARR to perform > his own composition on stage, requires permission from Music companies. That > is disturbing. > > Under all these circumstances, Pls enlighten us as to how there are some > other Music Directors, who just like that lift tunes of ARR or for that > matter any other Music Director , and boast of composing music under their > own names. Is the Law not stringent enough to curb such illegal copying ?. > > and what does it mean by ARR wanting a share of the copyrights ??. Does it > mean that he wants to be free enough, to perform his music in places, where > he wants to use it, without seeking other permissions ?. or is it much more > than that ?? > > This is an excellent write up written in simple language so that any > layman in the grop can understand. > > Congrats to Amith. Pls let me have your inputs on Illegal Copying of > other Mds .. Thanks in anticipation > > On 1/20/08, 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! > > - > > > > > > > -- > regards, > Vithur > > A.R.RAHMAN - MY BREATH & LIFE FORCE > >
