Amir Khan Slams Javid Akhtar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEc7A_oXHjw

Why are they arguing about who makes it hit? Doesn't matter if 6 billion people heard it or 6 people. Copyright belongs to the creator or the people who commissioned the creation.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Why are they arguing about who makes it hit? Doesn't matter if 6 billion people heard it or 6 people. Copyright belongs to the creator or the people who commissioned the creation.

because lyricst, music composers and singers were asking for royalty on the songs , Amir and salman khan had same opinion that actor make a song popular not singer neither lyricist

Originally posted by: Arsalan_khan

because lyricst, music composers and singers were asking for royalty on the songs , Amir and salman khan had same opinion that actor make a song popular not singer neither lyricist

It doesn't matter who makes the song popular.

Copyright worldwide belongs to creator - music director, lyricist, and singer - or the person who commissioned the art (the producer/music company).

Actors have absolutely nothing to do with music copyright unless they are part of creation team or commissioning team.

Or if they bought the rights.

That's legal territory, not Amir Khan's fiefdom

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

It doesn't matter who makes the song popular.

Copyright worldwide belongs to creator - music director, lyricist, and singer - or the person who commissioned the art (the producer/music company).

Actors have absolutely nothing to do with music copyright unless they are part of creation team or commissioning team.

Or if they bought the rights.

That's legal territory, not Amir Khan's fiefdom

same words Sonu said , he went to Amir house after Amir comments created the controversy with Javid akhtar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muiWQI7tpTc

Sonu is again mixing up credit and copyright. They are 2 diff things. Copyright has to do with intellectual property law. Credit is subjective. As long as the people asking for royaties don't understand it has nothing to do with popularity, they won't have a good argument to make.

India is a part of Berne Convention which protects rights of creators of artistic works.

These are the 3 basic principles.

(1) Works originating in one of the Contracting Country must be given the same protection in each of the other Contracting countries as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals (principle of national treatment).

(2) Protection is not conditional upon compliance with any formality, rather it is automatic

(3) Protection is independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. If, however, a Contracting Country provides for a longer term of protection than the minimum prescribed by the Convention and the work ceases to be protected in the country of origin, protection may be denied once protection in the country of origin ceases.

Ie, copyright automatically belongs to creator. If actors want, they can ask for music royalties, but that should be up to the creative/commissioning team whether to grant those royalties in lieu of payment for services rendered (acting). Here the creators are behaving as though *they're* the one who are doing the requesting. No! They own the copyright (unless the contract specifies otherwise).

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Sonu is again mixing up credit and copyright. They are 2 diff things. Copyright has to do with intellectual property law. Credit is subjective. As long as the people asking for royaties don't understand it has nothing to do with popularity, they won't have a good argument to make.

India is a part of Berne Convention which protects rights of creators of artistic works.

These are the 3 basic principles.

(1) Works originating in one of the Contracting Country must be given the same protection in each of the other Contracting countries as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals (principle of national treatment).

(2) Protection is not conditional upon compliance with any formality, rather it is automatic

(3) Protection is independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. If, however, a Contracting Country provides for a longer term of protection than the minimum prescribed by the Convention and the work ceases to be protected in the country of origin, protection may be denied once protection in the country of origin ceases.

Ie, copyright automatically belongs to creator. If actors want, they can ask for music royalties, but that should be up to the creative/commissioning team whether to grant those royalties in lieu of payment for services rendered (acting). Here the creators are behaving as though *they're* the one who are doing the requesting. No! They own the copyright (unless the contract specifies otherwise).

i guess this is on a technical ground but in current practical scenario copyright for a song is not given to singer, music composer and lyricist they never gets it .... the law was passed for muscians to claim it but then music labels boycotted all those musician who were on front line and vocal about royalty stuff, Sonu was banned by music labels for about 4-5 years his songs were made to be dubbed by other singers , no music company were ready to sell a soundtrack which had sonu songs .... but having said that ....even salman khan statement is on record he said "An actor creates a populiarty for a hit song what money and what royalty does these singers, muscians are asking for"

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Sonu is again mixing up credit and copyright. They are 2 diff things. Copyright has to do with intellectual property law. Credit is subjective. As long as the people asking for royaties don't understand it has nothing to do with popularity, they won't have a good argument to make.

India is a part of Berne Convention which protects rights of creators of artistic works.

These are the 3 basic principles.

(1) Works originating in one of the Contracting Country must be given the same protection in each of the other Contracting countries as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals (principle of national treatment).

(2) Protection is not conditional upon compliance with any formality, rather it is automatic

(3) Protection is independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. If, however, a Contracting Country provides for a longer term of protection than the minimum prescribed by the Convention and the work ceases to be protected in the country of origin, protection may be denied once protection in the country of origin ceases.

Ie, copyright automatically belongs to creator. If actors want, they can ask for music royalties, but that should be up to the creative/commissioning team whether to grant those royalties in lieu of payment for services rendered (acting). Here the creators are behaving as though *they're* the one who are doing the requesting. No! They own the copyright (unless the contract specifies otherwise).

Sonu wants both credit and copyright. 😆

Originally posted by: Maroonporsche

Sonu wants both credit and copyright. 😆

That will be a problem 😆. India is so actor-centric.

Even Taylor Swift doesn’t own her works that’s why she is re-recording her older stuff . In India it would be pretty much impossible when even the music directors don’t get much let alone Sonu owning it.