Before the enactment of the Copyright Law in 2016,
everything that was not happening right in the arts sector in general, and music
industry in particular was being attributed to lack of such statutes.
A couple of years later, artists seem to still be at
the mercy of the perpetrators of arts related offences and sins. This is so even
in the presence of the law and those that are empowered by it, the Copyright
Society of Malawi (Cosoma).
They continue sleeping on the job and do little or
nothing to enforce it.
Cosoma officials would argue their case all they want
but they can only hear from me as someone who is echoing out the brutal and
naked sentiments of musicians and other artists in different disciplines.
I will quickly take you to the recent matter relating
to Collins Bandawe, the musician famed for his Tchekera Maluzi song. Apparently without his knowledge, two urban
artistes – Saint and Macelba – decided to do a remix of the track.
When asked by the media if they had the consent of
Bandawe, the duo said since Collins was nowhere to be traced they therefore sought
permission from Cosoma.
Assuming that Cosoma indeed gave them such a go
ahead, then if the body’s action is not fascinating enough, then tell me what
is. Because it is as good as going to the police to borrow a gun that one
intends to use for a heist.
Cosoma failed to use the very law that provide for
its existence.
Copyright Act section 66 in simpler terms guides on
how best this could be done. Among others one is supposed to find the original
owner of the works; inform them of their intention to redo their work and even
provide the address of the place at which they intend to make the recording.
It further describes the kind of work as follows:
“Sound recordings made… may be in the form of an adaptation of the musical work
previously recorded.”
Once this has been recorded the law guides that the original
owner is supposed to be given the copies that have been made 15 days before
publishing them and at least by 90 days royalties should start trickling down
the original owner.
In the case above, others can argue that section 36
of the Copyright Act provides for the permitted free use of the works. However,
on a number of conditions the duo did not qualify even under transient and
incidental copies.
It is therefore disheartening that the society
allowed all this to happen with careless abandon when they are supposed to be
in the forefront promoting and protecting creativity as their sole existence
suggests.
When one sits down and go through the Copyright Act
what comes out clearly is that this has just become government’s wish list.
There are issues to do with Copyright Fund on section
98 of Copyright Act for example.
The law expects the society to administer this fund
so that it can be used to enforce this law, promote and improve creativity and
artistic skills as well as promote and preserve works which depict a cultural
identity of Malawi. It further expects the society to, through the fund, pay
proceeds from the fines paid for infringement of the rights under this Act.
Artists claim that they have not heard anything from
Cosoma as regards this fund even when this very section expects it to conduct
civic education on the same.
The question could now be, what is keeping those
officials busy at Cosoma when they cannot make a sound decision on a seemingly
very simple and straight forward issue.
Are the artists safe under those that are running the
show at Cosoma? And what is the mother ministry doing?
No comments:
Post a Comment