Swanand Kirkire says due royalties should be paid to creators of a content

In 2009, Javed (Akhtar) saab demanded that singers, lyricists and music composers be paid 50 per cent of the profits being raked in by music companies through various quarters (like live performances). On December 25 in the same year, the Union Cabinet approved legislation to amend the Copyright Act 1957, allowing creative artists to retain control over their piece of work and get royalties. Given the backdrop of the royalty issue in music, I am completely in agreement with the fraternity.
I think due royalties should be paid to creators of a content. But the biggest problem in our case is the fact that we are still new to the law and very few people have tried to understand it properly. Javed sir has been instrumental in making the amendment a reality and has studied it inside out. Every artist must be aware of their rights and what the amendment stands for.
What works against it is the fact that we have no solid authority or body to collect these royalties, although the government has assigned this job to the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS). IPRS has been inactive for several years and we need to reform the body in a way that it functions according to the law and start working towards collecting and distributing the royalty. The government and fraternity must come together to form a proper body, in order to ensure that the royalties are collected and distributed in a fair manner amongst those entitled for it (which includes the producers, music companies and the artists — composer, lyricist and singer) according to the law. But clearly it’s not happening and the company is walking away with the entire share.
The law states that the creators must get 50 per cent of the profits raked in by the music company through various quarters, and give it to the body, who will then distribute it amongst the composers, lyricists (who are entitled 25 per cent from the share given by the body) and singers. If I have created a song, I can’t even play or sing it. As a creator, I should have at least some right to it. It’s like telling people that more than the farmer who has worked on the fields, the lorry that transported the grains is more important. According to the amendment, no other person apart from the body can collect the royalty and only they have the right to distribute it in the right percentage to the creator or the successor.
The word ‘creator’ in the Act basically stands for the composer and the lyricist; a part of the royalty will also go to the singer. There are different kinds of revenues which come from various quarters. We are not asking the music company to give us royalty for creating a song or the music sales. But they are earning money from various other means, including live performances, concerts among others; we, on the other hand, don’t get a penny nor do we have the license of the song with us.

All this, despite the fact that it was our own creation. There is huge money involved and that’s why people are restless. When the money is made in large numbers, why are people creating such a fuss to give what is an artist’s right?

It’s difficult to suggest the right solution to solve this mess, but we all know for a fact that the law is made, which is the most important thing. When a law is passed, it will be ultimately implemented. When we know that this is a right hand drive country, we stick to the rules and maintain lane discipline accordingly. A few people might act smart and cut lanes, but majority of us follow the rules. The problem is that music companies assume that we don’t know the law, preempt the law and make illegal contracts that they beleive they can get away with.
Although the fraternity is in talking terms with the IPRS, if the body does not get its act together, the government will meddle, take control and things might get dirty. I sincerely pray that things get sorted out smoothly before that happens.

As told to Priya Adivarekar