Daughter drags Manna Dey Sangeet Academy to court

KOLKATA: Paying homage to our icons is an art that Bengal has perfected with a degree of unpredictability. In some cases, Bengal never tires of being on a perpetual nostalgia-trip. But there has also been umpteen number of instances where legends have been forgotten in a hurry. Seen in this context, a stalwart like Manna Dey seems to be a curious case.
On his 97th birth anniversary today, Kolkata is hosting four concerts in the memory of the icon.One of these concerts, however, has already got mired in controversy what with Dey’s daughter having dragged the organizer to court on Saturday. As a result, the CD release has been kept on hold though the programme will go on.
Two days ago, Bangalore-based Shumita Deb, Manna Dey’s heir, had sought legal recourse and filed for injunction against release of Manna Dey’s songs in the form of three audio CDs (including one named ‘Mon Chuye Jaye’). The three CD songs have been sung by five young artistes - Amitabh Chand, Piyali Ghosal, Shankar Mandal, Shilpa Pal and Shreyan Bhattacharya. The CDs were supposed to get released as a joint effort of Manna Dey Sangeet Academy (represented by president/secretary Goutam Roy) and Saregama India Private Limited. All preparations were taken to launch them at an event titled ‘Mukut Ta To Porei Ache Rajai Sudhu Nei’ at Uttam Mancha on Sunday evening.
Problem began on Saturday evening. Speaking from Bangalore, Sunayana Basu Mallik, founder and partner of Common Law Chambers, said, “My client, Shumita Deb, is contending that the Manna Dey Sangeet Academy has no copyright or authority to reprint, release, translate or modify any of Dey’s works and songs. Saregama might have recording rights or absolute rights on several songs but certainly not on all the 3,500 songs sung by the legendary singer.”
According to Basu Mallik, at 5pm on Saturday they received the injunction from the Bangalore city civil court not to release the three CDs sung by the above artistes. “Copyright of the deceased artist who expired on 2013 still continues and will continue for a period of 60 years. The songs are certainly not in public domain. Further there are specific legal requirements to come out with cover versions of songs under Copyright Act, 1957 which clearly states that the permission from the rightful copyright holder must be obtained. The songs are being released without following the applicable law and depriving the rightful legal heir her right to legitimately protect the copyrights of her late father,” Basu Mallik said.
She furthered referred to the fact that in India, there are copyrights and author’s special rights (moral rights) which survive even if the entire copyright is assigned. “This gives the author the right to be acknowledged and rights against mutilation, distortion or any action which will prejudice and dishonour the reputation of the author. We have invoked both the rights and filed the plaint. The author’s rights are referred as moral rights and originated in Europe and also ratified at the Berne Convention,” Basu Mallik added.
On Sunday afternoon, Roy confirmed that he has cancelled the audio release programme. “In order to respect the Court, we aren’t releasing the CDs. But we are going ahead with the programme. But we will fight this attempt to harass us. This isn’t the first time they tried to disturb us just before a programme in memory of Manna-da,” Roy said.
He pointed at his long association with the legend. “Never for once did I try to take any advantage because of this. I haven’t even published a single photograph of mine with him to suggest our intimacy. I just want to help in keeping his legacy alive. That’s why I organise such programmes,” Roy said.
Speaking to TOI, Deb said, “17 programmes are being held in Daddy’s memory across India today. We haven’t raised any objection as far as the 16 others are concerned. We have encouraged all the others. This CD release was being done illegally. We had sent feelers to them a few days ago but they didn’t respond. So, we were forced to move Court.”
Elaborating further, she pointed at an incident in 2012. “Back then, Saregama had approached Daddy for permission to record his songs with upcoming singers. The suggestion was that every song would be recorded under his supervision. The choice of singers would be according to what Daddy approved. This didn’t happen because Daddy didn’t approve the idea. Now, when I see a similar attempt being made, I decided to do exactly what Daddy would have done had he been here today. This has nothing to do with me. Daddy had opposed this idea before. I am only following it,” Deb said.
She insisted that Roy wasn’t even close to her father before he passed away. “I have proof to suggest that for one-and-a-half-years, Daddy refused to speak to him over the phone. This was just before his death. That was the time he was asked to shut down the Academy because we had gathered from various sources that it was becoming an extension of his personal business rather than promotion of talents. Instead of being a warehouse of budding talents, it didn’t manage to produce a single singer of repute,” Deb added.
Roy, however, gave a new twist to the narrative. “We have all the proof with us to show that we are doing no wrong. Basically, I am in the possession of some rare archival material. Dey’s son-in-law, Jnanranjan Deb, wanted access to that. Initially, we shared cordial relations. But once they got to know that I wouldn’t part with the archival material, their tone changed. That was in August last year. They tried to create legal problems when we were organising a concert on September 5 last year at Kalamandir. But, we managed to host that concert too,” Roy said.
Jnanranjan, however, dismissed all these charges saying, “We are only keen on stopping any illegal activity in the name of my father-in-law. He has even been collecting money in my father-in-law’s name for building his statue. My father-in-law was very angry when he had heard about this.”
As for the allegation regarding commercial gain, Roy said, “We don’t gain anything commercially by organising these concerts in his memory. We haven’t even issued any tickets for Sunday’s concert. These legal issues are only being created to harass us. Both Saregama and I will fight this case in court. Saregama is the legal copyright holder. The company has checked all the details before agreeing to come up with the album. If anyone has complaints against the functioning of the Academy, they should file a case against me. I have all documents on me and will fight it out legally.”