LAST WORD

Remixes rule and how!!
Every discotheque, pub and club across the country is playing them, they rule the airwaves on radio, the videos that accompany them dominate the play lists of music television channels, they have gone mobile as every auto rickshaw, taxi and car blare them and of course, every kid with a keyboard is busy churning them out. Add to that the fact that the girls who appear in the videos for remixes are today getting more stage shows than singers are, and you get some sort of idea what a wave or fad is.Unfortunately everybody in the music biz is not grooving to the remix rhythm.

Remixes have caused a furore in the music industry with both composers and lyric writers and music companies being incensed at the way their music is being used without prior permission, due credit and requisite payment. The concern is serious.

There are two major issues. The first is commercial where the original copyright owners are not paid for the use of their compositions and lyrics (called works here). When this happens, it makes the remix illegal and therefore a pirated product. The extent of such piracy cannot be accurately estimated and there are several opinions ranging from 70 to 92 per cent.

The second is creative. The overemphasis on remixes is severely affecting the development of new composers and lyric writers. Singers of these remixed songs are not promoted, which means that new singing talent too is not being developed.

While the creative issue is one that will be sorted out over time, what we are examining here is the first one, i.e. the commercial concern. The real problem stems from the interpretation of Section 52(1)j of the Indian Copyright Act. This section of the Act states that a re-recording of a previously published work is not an infringement of copyright if prior permission of the original copyright owner of the composition and lyrics is taken and requisite payment as stipulated by the Copyright Board is made to the owner of the work.

While there are two different interpretations being made of this section of the Act, viz. whether prior permission is required or not, one critical part of the section is being overlooked as far as remixes are concerned. This is that only such adaptation of the original work is permissible as is necessary for the creation of the new recording.

Technically, this means that a remix as we know it today is not a straight re-recording of the original work but is an adaptation of it. What happens in most remixes is that there are additions, deletions and changes in the original composition and lyrics, which are made without getting clearance from the original owners of the work. There are portions of rap, English lyrics and instrumental passages that were not part of the original work.

This clearly does not fall under the purview of Section 52(1)j and is something that all people wanting to make remixes should be aware of.

So, does that mean that remixes cannot be done legitimately?
Certainly not.

The first thing potential remixers should do is to understand that the work they are creating is an adaptation of the original and has alterations that require clearance from the original copyright owner. It’s a norm that is followed religiously in various countries.

To give you an example. Saregama is currently in the process of releasing an album by a multi instrumental artiste called Raghav. His album contains a re-recording of a song called ‘A Thousand Years’ by the international artiste Sting. Though mainly instrumental, the song has been rearranged and contains one verse that has been sung in Hindi. Naturally the Hindi lyrics are a fresh creation, even though the composition has not been changed. Yet, Saregama has sent the newly recorded track for clearance to the original owners of ‘A Thousand Years’, in this case two separate music publishers in London. The name of the new track has had to be changed, as per the publishers’ requirement as it is certainly not the original work.

By doing this, the new work is legitimate, recognized and is being released with the approval of the original owner of the work. A similar system should be followed in India. There will undoubtedly be fears that the new work will be denied clearance but that fear is probably more of the unknown, since the process is a new one for this country. It is in the interest of the owners of the original work to allow re-recordings since this is a source of revenue for them. Greater sales of the new recording mean greater revenues for the owners of the original composition and lyrics. Commercial exploitation of musical and lyrical works is the foundation of the music publishing business.

The application to the original owner when making the remix should be for an adaptation of the work and not under Section 52(1)j. Ideally the new recording should be sent along with the application. The application should also seek the term for which usage of composition and lyrics is required. This could range from a year up to the term of copyright, which is currently 60 years.

Secondly, it is up to everyone involved in the exploitation of he new recording to ensure that due credit is given to the owners of the original work. Too often one finds that the credit as required by the Copyright Act is carried on the inlay cards of the cassettes and compact discs but in a size so small that it is almost illegible. In fact, this goes against the logic of remixing an old song as it is the popularity of the original which makes the new recording accepted. So a nice bold credit to the original authors and owners would probably work well for consumers as well as creators of the new and the original.

Last but not least, payments need to be made to the copyright owners of the original. This is not limited to just sending a cheque with the notice of intention for the number of copies the new recording is being launched with. Regular sales reporting should be made for the product, accompanied by payments for the same. Accounting has to be done in this fashion for as long as the new recording is being sold, which has to be commensurate with the period for which application of works usage was made.

Important also to remember is that permission from the original owner to re-record a work and sell the new recording does not automatically imply other usage of the work. For example, if one wants to make a video for the new recording, an application has to be made for synchronizing the work. To broadcast that synchronization, permission has to be obtained as well. And so on.

All works have a set of rights that come with them. Specific permission has to be sought to exploit those rights, so the appropriate and simple thing to do is to decide in advance what one wants to do with the new recording and apply for permission accordingly.

Doing this would save a lot of heartburn and put some system into the business of making remixes.
(Atul Cudamani is Vice President A & R Sa Re Ga Ma India Ltd.)


	REMIXES AND COPYRIGHT ISSUES
	REMIXES AND COPYRIGHT ISSUES
	Remixes rule and how!! Every discotheque, pub and club across the country is playing them, they rule the airwaves on radio, the videos that accompany them dominate the play lists of music television channels, they have gone mobile as every auto rickshaw, taxi and car blare them and of course, every kid with a keyboard is busy churning them out. Add to that the fact that the girls who appear in the videos for remixes are today getting more stage shows than singers are, and you get some sort of idea what a wave or fad is.Unfortunately everybody in the music biz is not grooving to the remix rhythm. Remixes have caused a furore in the music industry with both composers and lyric writers and music companies being incensed at the way their music is being used without prior permission, due credit and requisite payment. The concern is serious. There are two major issues. The first is commercial where the original copyright owners are not paid for the use of their compositions and lyrics (called works here). When this happens, it makes the remix illegal and therefore a pirated product. The extent of such piracy cannot be accurately estimated and there are several opinions ranging from 70 to 92 per cent. The second is creative. The overemphasis on remixes is severely affecting the development of new composers and lyric writers. Singers of these remixed songs are not promoted, which means that new singing talent too is not being developed. While the creative issue is one that will be sorted out over time, what we are examining here is the first one, i.e. the commercial concern. The real problem stems from the interpretation of Section 52(1)j of the Indian Copyright Act. This section of the Act states that a re-recording of a previously published work is not an infringement of copyright if prior permission of the original copyright owner of the composition and lyrics is taken and requisite payment as stipulated by the Copyright Board is made to the owner of the work. While there are two different interpretations being made of this section of the Act, viz. whether prior permission is required or not, one critical part of the section is being overlooked as far as remixes are concerned. This is that only such adaptation of the original work is permissible as is necessary for the creation of the new recording. Technically, this means that a remix as we know it today is not a straight re-recording of the original work but is an adaptation of it. What happens in most remixes is that there are additions, deletions and changes in the original composition and lyrics, which are made without getting clearance from the original owners of the work. There are portions of rap, English lyrics and instrumental passages that were not part of the original work. This clearly does not fall under the purview of Section 52(1)j and is something that all people wanting to make remixes should be aware of. So, does that mean that remixes cannot be done legitimately? Certainly not. The first thing potential remixers should do is to understand that the work they are creating is an adaptation of the original and has alterations that require clearance from the original copyright owner. It’s a norm that is followed religiously in various countries. To give you an example. Saregama is currently in the process of releasing an album by a multi instrumental artiste called Raghav. His album contains a re-recording of a song called ‘A Thousand Years’ by the international artiste Sting. Though mainly instrumental, the song has been rearranged and contains one verse that has been sung in Hindi. Naturally the Hindi lyrics are a fresh creation, even though the composition has not been changed. Yet, Saregama has sent the newly recorded track for clearance to the original owners of ‘A Thousand Years’, in this case two separate music publishers in London. The name of the new track has had to be changed, as per the publishers’ requirement as it is certainly not the original work. By doing this, the new work is legitimate, recognized and is being released with the approval of the original owner of the work. A similar system should be followed in India. There will undoubtedly be fears that the new work will be denied clearance but that fear is probably more of the unknown, since the process is a new one for this country. It is in the interest of the owners of the original work to allow re-recordings since this is a source of revenue for them. Greater sales of the new recording mean greater revenues for the owners of the original composition and lyrics. Commercial exploitation of musical and lyrical works is the foundation of the music publishing business. The application to the original owner when making the remix should be for an adaptation of the work and not under Section 52(1)j. Ideally the new recording should be sent along with the application. The application should also seek the term for which usage of composition and lyrics is required. This could range from a year up to the term of copyright, which is currently 60 years. Secondly, it is up to everyone involved in the exploitation of he new recording to ensure that due credit is given to the owners of the original work. Too often one finds that the credit as required by the Copyright Act is carried on the inlay cards of the cassettes and compact discs but in a size so small that it is almost illegible. In fact, this goes against the logic of remixing an old song as it is the popularity of the original which makes the new recording accepted. So a nice bold credit to the original authors and owners would probably work well for consumers as well as creators of the new and the original. Last but not least, payments need to be made to the copyright owners of the original. This is not limited to just sending a cheque with the notice of intention for the number of copies the new recording is being launched with. Regular sales reporting should be made for the product, accompanied by payments for the same. Accounting has to be done in this fashion for as long as the new recording is being sold, which has to be commensurate with the period for which application of works usage was made. Important also to remember is that permission from the original owner to re-record a work and sell the new recording does not automatically imply other usage of the work. For example, if one wants to make a video for the new recording, an application has to be made for synchronizing the work. To broadcast that synchronization, permission has to be obtained as well. And so on. All works have a set of rights that come with them. Specific permission has to be sought to exploit those rights, so the appropriate and simple thing to do is to decide in advance what one wants to do with the new recording and apply for permission accordingly. Doing this would save a lot of heartburn and put some system into the business of making remixes. (Atul Cudamani is Vice President A & R Sa Re Ga Ma India Ltd.)