February 1st, 2009
Gary Granada Cries Foul Against GMA Kapuso Foundation
Award-winning composer Gary Granada sent an e-mail to his friends last week saying:
They left me no choice.
with “Kung Paano Sinamantala ng GMA Kapuso Foundation ang Aking Komposisyon” in the subject line, and he’s really pissed. In an accompanying MP3, Granada discusses in detail how GMA supposedly salvaged a study he made for the foundation’s 3pid Handog Edukasyon jingle.
To sum up his points:
1) He submitted a study based on a given lyrics, but it was rejected and passed on to another composer.
2) There is 1 out of 134,217,728 chances that the current jingle could be that similar to his study.
3) GMA denies that Granada has claim to the copy, calling it a collective effort.
4) He insists that letting GMA Foundation and Procter & Gamble get away with it is like condoning stealing.
In the end, he says:
Kung hahayaan natin ito, what is now stopping anyone from commissioning artists in general to make studies only to reject them, make easily done modifications out of their hard work, and pass them off as entirely new creations altogether?
and now he’s asking for help and support from academicians, artists, and lawyers. So far, we saw Bayang Barrios, Noel Cabangon, Mel Villena, Conrado de Quiros, Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, and Armida Sigeon-Reyna in his recipient list. Pinoy bloggers have also picked up on the issue. We wonder what the Kapuso network has to say about this.
Download Gary Granada’s entire MP3 message HERE. Meanwhile, his supporters are encouraged to enjoy some videoke to keep their cool.
February 2nd, 2009 6:22 am
[...] Kung totoo nga ang naging paglabag ng GMA sa intelektwal na pag-aari ni Gary Granada, pinatunayan lang na bago ka maging pirata ay dapat may malaki kang barko. [...]
February 2nd, 2009 6:46 am
[...] recorded grievance against these media and corporate giants has snowballed from Plurk, Twitter, emails and even picking up from blog after blogs showing both sentiments and [...]
February 3rd, 2009 12:35 am
There is an easy way to revenge the network. Let us not patronize their artists….if you cant help it, then buy pirated ones and not original…
February 3rd, 2009 1:14 am
[...] Could the recent iGMA hacking incident be related to Gary Granada’s complaint VS GMA? [...]
February 3rd, 2009 1:26 am
Damn. Go Gary Granada!
February 3rd, 2009 1:59 am
Hi Gary! I feel your pain. But what can we do? Everybody is a pirate in the Philippines. Dee-bee-dee sir?
February 3rd, 2009 3:53 am
This comes as a big surprise as GMA has championed the Filipino composers through Metropop Song Festival for many years. I am more inclined to believe that one or few persons working for GMA do not understand what songwriting and, more importantly, Intellectual Property Rights Protection are all about.
An analysis of the original set of lyrics and the new set of lyrics with Gary’s revisions will show that there were 15 words removed and 3 words changed from the original set. Not just one revision, but 18 revisions.
Granting that the output of Gary Granada was rejected, the ethical way was to hand to the new songwriter the ORIGINAL set of lyrics without Gary’s suggestions, refinements, revisions, etc.
It is fundamental to the protection of intellectual property that credit should be given to whom credit is due. If the final version used the set of lyrics with Gary’s revisions, then it is not exactly correct for GMA to claim 100% ownership of the new set of lyrics.
In order for joint authorship to occur, “there must be an intention between the parties to be joint authors at the time the work was created”.
A musical composition is made up of lyrics and melody. When Gary Granada was asked to do a study (assuming just putting melody on a set of lyrics), the musical composition is still in the process of being created. A set of lyrics alone cannot constitute a musical composition and therefore cannot be in a state of being already “created” without an accompanying melody.
Not only was Gary asked to put melody on the lyrics, but his revisions to the lyrics were approved/accepted. Technically, that makes Gary a co-author of the lyrics that was used in the final version.
As far as the music is concerned, the similarity between Gary’s version and that of the final cannot be ignored. Even with some variation in speed, the musical phrasing and chord progression of the two versions are too close to each other. It is hard to believe that the final version was created without Gary’s version serving as a reference.
They in fact have a term for that in the advertising industry: “bali”, which means “twist” or “change it a bit”. This practice may be common but this does not make it ethical.
I trust that GMA will exercise corrective action over some of their employees’ errant acts that now has the potential to seriously mar their reputation.
I urge GMA to be consistent in protecting Intellectual Property Rights as they have done in the past.
To my fellow composers, let us respect each other’s work and pursue our craft with excellence and integrity.
- Dodjie Simon
February 3rd, 2009 5:36 am
i made a transcript of gary’s podcast. let’s support him!
http://rllqph.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/gary-granada-with-podcast-transcript-vs-gma-kapuso/
February 3rd, 2009 5:44 am
[...] http://philippineentertainmentnews.com/2009/02/gary-granada-gma-kapuso-foundation/ [...]
February 4th, 2009 1:59 am
I heard your grievance on this one, and I think you have a strong case of claiming something back from GMA, since I can only consider the published version as a “revival”. However, it would definitely help if you could also publish the original raw lyrics (or words, as it still in it’s raw form). The reason is that both the song you presented are already structured, meaning if you will present it to me in that format to change it into something different from what you initially did, then I may have to structure or cut it just the same, as the sets or stanzas were cut in a generic fashion (in this case, X 3s). And if you’ll go through the content of the lyrics, you’ll find it very easy to structure it this way, because of what the lyrics are conveying.
To your point, I definitely agree that they based the final version from your original arrangement. This can be heard from the last part of the song going to Outro, after the voice-over. Even the melody is the same, that’s why I marked it as a revival, where it is only rightful for you to have the right of first refusal or collect royalties from. However, it may not be a strong case in court if any of the piece were not copyrighted with your name. Presenting audios in court is inadmissible.
The issue on the collective effort has been established because the words from this song were created by someone from their camp. It can be also said that it is a collective effort if some of these sessions were done using GMA’s resources, which also gives them the right as well.
Simply put, it’s like a programmer doing a program using company resources. By doing this, the company has the right for whatever program he creates because it was done using company resources, and him being employed by the company, makes it all company assets. This is governed by the contract that binds an employee to a company. Best example is the Operating System of your computer. There are hundreds, if not thousands of minds who created this program, but in the end user’s view, its only the brand of the OS that they know. You can’t even find the names of the programmers published along with it. That is how it is termed as collective. However, in any case, you should receive something back, like for example a consultation fee or a pay for your time and effort. Just like the salary being paid to a programmer. If this is not the case, then you should sue them for this.
I really don’t know the whole IPR piece because I am not a lawyer in the first place, but an IT guy who used to compose songs and play music back in the day. But I truly support you on your claim for this.
All the best!
February 4th, 2009 2:54 am
[...] Here’s a more comprehensive article on the issue. Rate this: 3.2 To receive updates from TheFilipinoWeb, please enter your email [...]
February 4th, 2009 5:41 am
nakakasama ng loob. paano ka gaganahan ng art kung minamaliit ng mga corporation ang hirap na pinagdadanasan mo para lang kumita sila nang malaki?
suportado ka namin gary!
February 6th, 2009 5:46 am
Statement of GMA.
Mr. Granada is fully aware that GMA (i.e., GMA Marketing) had commissioned a second composer to write the music for the GMA Kapuso Foundation jingle after his own composition was rejected.
Despite knowledge that GMA did not compose the music, Mr. Granada continues to make the claim that GMA used his musical structure to create the jingle or that GMA infringed his musical composition. If there is infringement at all, Mr. Granada must know that GMA cannot be the infringer, simply because GMA did not create the work.
Mr. Granada’s complaint of infringement is therefore misdirected. We believe that Mr. Granada is deliberately training his attacks on GMA because GMA is a convenient target for his purposes. We see evident malice here.
When the second composer submitted to us her composition, we heard a work different from Mr. Granada’s. Mr. Granada himself, in an earlier communication, never mentioned any similarity between the two compositions.
We refer to his email to his manager (a copy of which had been earlier forwarded to us by the manager prior to this controversy). In that email, Mr. Granada said of the composition selected by GMA as follows: “I have worked long enough in this industry to appreciate with no hesitation the works of other people over mine. I have not at all developed the habit of ‘lifting my own bench’ as it were. But this is the pits. Any decent producer should know that in this one, mediocrity ruled”. He also wrote: “They chose this composition???!!!”.
February 8th, 2009 2:28 am
anyone knows the identity of the other composer na pumalit kay GG after GMA rejected his study? or mga taga GMA na lang ang did the final jingle? answers/clarification/url links is appreciated. curious lang. salamat