The Bollywood Drama of Artist vs Label

Die-hard fans of Falguni Pathak’s Maine Payal hai Chhankai have taken to Twitter and put O Sajna, a remake by Neha Kakkar, on full-blast. YouTube’s recent removal of the dislike button seems to be a blessing in disguise for Neha Kakkar and T-Series. 

The remake, which garnered over 30 million views in a brief period of only 3 weeks, started receiving grief after the original version’s creator spoke out on various media platforms. While the Garba Queen is not opposed to remixes and remakes, “Tum usko faltu kyu bana dete ho?” is a question that pokes at a much deeper problem. A problem that pierces the domains of litigation, ethics and finance. A problem that Insider took a deep dive into for you to understand.

So who dances to the tune of blame? Are Neha and T-Series out of tune? Is “remix culture” the problem? Or is this just an elaborate marketing stunt for the original music video (which has over 360 million views to date)?

Copyright Shopping

For the sake of the ongoing discussion of remixes, the copyright chain has three major links. They are the original creator, the buyer of the rights, and the new performer.

The original creator is an artist responsible for the inception of the music. This group consists of the lyricists, the music composer, and the singer.

The original creators can copyright the following aspects of their creation:
- The lyrics, or the words used in the complete song,
- The tune, or the backing music that plays along with the lyrics, and,
- The arrangement, or the order in which the lyrics and tune are presented in a particular version of the song.

Trouble began when T-Series released the song O Sajna a few days before Navratri (or Falguni Pathak season). Nostalgia, being the powerful drug it is, led fans of the original song to crusade against the remix for tarnishing the original.

While I wouldn’t call the fans' sentiments misplaced in any capacity, the internet did internet things and went so far as to body-shaming the Remix Queen in a fit of collective rage.

Falguni went on multiple platforms to express her disdain for the remix. While not opposed to the phenomenon of remixes, the Garba Queen stated that the new performers should not “make it cheap” and “change the originality” of the song.

Pathak also said to Pinkvilla, "I wish I could, but the rights are not with me", stating her inability to take legal action against the parties involved in the remix.

The parties in question are, of course, T-Series, Neha Kakkar, and composer Kanishk Bagchi.

But why can’t Falguni take any legal action against the three mentioned above? Doesn’t she get copyright protection as the song's original performer? The simple answer is no.

You see, the right to avoid the recreation of any aspect of a song lies with the original artist if they are individuals or “Indie” (as the cool kids say it). So, how do music labels get their hands on these rights?

Music labels are not performers inherently, they buy rights from Indie artists who are looking for a payday for their hard work. This is a bit of a gamble for both the artist and the label, as the song can either be a hit or a flop. 

Creating a musical work naturally assigns the copyright to its artist, giving them the ability to earn from its publication, remakes and sales through royalty. Once the copyright is sold, these same rights are transferred to the new owner, who, in this case, are the music labels.

Falguni Pathak was no Indie artist when she performed Maine Payal hai Chhankayi, however. The original track was composed by Lalit Sen and sung by Falguni.

The aforementioned situation is one where music labels have singers associated with them to create musical pieces. The aforementioned rights are owned and held by the label in this scenario.

And this is why the rights are not with Falguni. You see, Pathak was associated with the Universal Music Group label when she performed the song. This meant that Falguni was not the song's creator but an employee of the label that owned the intellectual property in all the parts mentioned above.

This meant that Universal Music Group could have any number of singers sing the song, any musician play the arrangement, and they could also license or sell the rights to other labels. 

And license the rights they did to none other than T-Series. Remember, license, not sell, which means that Universal got paid by T-Series for the limited right to use parts of the song. In the case of O Sajna, this meant specific parts of the lyrics and the arrangement of the original song.

Now, owing to the company's private nature, it is unknown how much T-Series paid for these rights, but the label has a reputation for pulling a “Bruce Wayne” and shelling out exorbitant amounts of money to have its way.

This is not the first time that T-Series’ “spoilt brat” behaviour has floated to the public eye. The private music label has historically locked horns with prominent artists such as A.R. Rahman, Aadesh Shrivastava, Sonu Nigam, Sunidhi Chauhan and many more.

Thankfully more and more artists are going Indie as a new hero emerges on the horizon…

IPRS: An End to a Series of Tyranny

The IPRS is a copyrighting society in Mumbai responsible for collecting royalties from various music users. These users can range from public establishments like clubs and restaurants to individuals and entities like singers and music labels.

The IPRS comprises various members and has a dedicated board of directors to help with its administration. Some of the prominent members of the society are Vikram Mehra (Managing Director, Saregama), Bhushan Kumar (Chairman, T-Series) and the like.

Looking at the financials of the society for the period of 2020-21, it is evident that the revenues collected through licensing fees have gone up till 2020 before experiencing a plateau. The “Royalties to Members” number seems melodious as the balance sheet plays a tune of ₹190 crore under the liability. This is a significant fall from the last year’s sum of ₹226 crore. Seems the company is finally being able to pay off its dues.

Despite the monopolistic titans being placed on the board of the society's management, the rules established really favour Indie artists.

As you can see, without a label hogging their earnings, artists can get a much bigger share of earnings generated from a song. As opposed to when a publisher enters the picture, when

So, if going Indie is the way, why did artists ever associate with music labels in the first place? IPRS was formed way long ago in 1969 after all, surely they still would have followed a somewhat similar attitude towards artists.

This question, too, has a very simple answer. Publicity.

You see, music labels would spend humongous amounts of money on marketing their publications to ensure maximum replays. After all, Replays= Cha-ching!

With the passage of time, however, the internet has been instrumental to the music industry's growth. Add to it the fact that artists are getting more vocal on social media and against any oppression from big music corporations, and you have an arrangement with success.

Individual artists like Prateek Kuhad and Dino James, as well as groups like When Chai Met Toast and Seedhe Maut, found meteoric success through online streaming platforms and social media. They are still working as individuals to date without any association with a music label.

Closing Act

Personally, I am not a fan of either of the versions of the songs (especially the videos), but Pathak's qualms with the entire situation are not unfounded in this epic battle between the Garba Queen and the Remix Queen.

I honestly think Neha Kakkar is just a pawn in the whole monopolistic game that music labels play in Bollywood. After all, they are connected to certain influential people (does the name Sultaan Mirza ring a bell?)

The development of the Indie music scene contradicts Tanishk Bagchi’s claims of an infantilised audience that seeks only entertainment. “A” for effort on the cover-up, but try something better.