Copyrights and the arts. These are two interlinked subjects that seem to constantly be at the fore of conversations about the arts industry. Evermore so, when it comes to the Zimbabwean music industry. Only this time it is a move in their defense rather than their violation that is driving conversations.
The Zimbabwe Music Rights Association's (ZIMURA) recently introduced licensing fees for the performance of covers (A flat fee of $150 for every performance). This has sparked indignation in music circles, yet more than a few have welcomed the move. The question that arises is, is the move justified?
"Most of the people that are making noise against ZIMURA's $150 tariff are not the group that the organization seeks to protect." - Alexio "Goodchild" Gwenzi, Director of Information & Publicity for ZIMURA
While ZIMURA has stuck to it's guns on the issue artists and music organisations alike have had varying opinions:
"I am in full support of Zimura's licensing of copyright bands. It's unfair to devalue intellectual property, like music, which requires immense effort to compose, write, record, and market. When someone profits from stolen content, it's unjust to the creators," stated Victor Kunonga in support of the licensing fee.
On the opposite end of the isle Vusa Mkhaya reflected on international practices on the distribution of royalties from live performances and stated that ZIMURA's model was tantamount to a scam.
"We have performed in more than 50 countries and 200 plus cities around the world. No one has ever made us pay a fee to perform at a venue because we have one or two covers on our set. We actually get paid royalties for performing our own songs live onstage. What ZIMURA is trying to do asking artists to pay $150 flat fee if they have cover songs on their setlist is a scam." - Vusa Mkhaya
The Music Management Forum of Zimbabwe responded with condemnation of the tariff and described it as an obstacle to the normal functioning of the music and entertainment space. A sentiment echoed by the the Zimbabwe Musician's Union and has seen the two embark on an online protest against the tariff.
“We are deeply concerned by ZIMURA’s hefty tariff on cover bands, which is unreasonable and detrimental to musicians who do not publish their own works but rely on live performances. Internationally, cover bands are recognised as a legitimate profession and, in Zimbabwe, they play a vital role in entertainment, especially in smaller venues where established artists may not be able to perform," read the press statement from the Music Management Forum of Zimbabwe.
So is ZIMURA doing the right thing? The answer in part is yes but then the problem is how they are going about it. Cover bands earn as low as $300 (and as much as $700 according to ZIMURA) for some shows and so a tariff of $150 would be half the band's income. Even though cover performers such as Denilson can earn as much as $5,000 for a 10 minute performance, the tariff is exorbitant for the average act.
Additionally the small venues where most of thesebands ply their trade are restaurants and bars already required to have a ZIMURA copyright license, so is this not undue punishment on performers? The licensing fees also have to reflect audience size and revenue, otherwise they're simply being unfair.
Ignoring the above issue, we also come to the equitable distribution of these funds. The licenses are being paid for without a system to account for what exact music was played. Composers due benefit are unknown and a band could play music from an artist who is not a ZIMURA member, therefore meaning ZIMURA members will be benefiting from intellectual property that does not belong to any of them.
Not long ago ZIMURA was again on the receiving end of backlash after Levels from Chillspot stated that the he hadn't received a single payment from the organisation in 10 years of pursuing music (the period in question being from 2011 to 2021). This is arguably the biggest hitmaker during that period not earning any royalties into his pocket and that certainly signals a system that doesn't work.
Most collections by the organisation are in local currency and if not distributed in time because they are waiting to be approached, then that's as good as ZIMURA being the only beneficiary from the art (granted the organisation says they only take a 30% administration fee from their collections).
What the situation therefore calls for is consultation before policy decisions. The musicians are the ones who should lead, as much as the organisations representing them.
In 2020 the results of a survey by the National Arts Council of Zimbabwe said that 68% of musicians had not made any money from music streaming platforms in the past year. 17% had made less than $100, while only 2% had made more than $5,000. This is mainly due to piracy and a clear sign that artists deserve to earn more income from their work.
So an organisation like ZIMURA is very much needed and they should ensure they collect royalties when copyrighted work is performed. Yet this should be fair and equitable, both in collection and distribution.
Enjoyed reading this news report? Support Greedysouth by buying the team a cup of coffee. Your support assists in the production of such quality reports. Thank you.