Imane Kurdi Entertaining news from France this week. A girlish spat between two singers from two generations: the first 65-year-old France Gall, winner of the 1965 Eurovision song contest with “Poupée de cirri, poupée de son”, the second 30-year-old pop star Jenifer who had the good idea of releasing a “tribute” album to France Gall who is still alive and well. Released on June 3, “Ma Declaration” has caused quite an unholy stir. It is an album of covers, 12 songs once sung by France Gall and now reinterpreted by her younger rival. Jenifer has heavily promoted the album, going from TV show to TV show gushing her admiration for her elder. But did France Gall approve of the album? And here, Jenifer stops gushing and searches for the right words: Not exactly; she has never met France Gall, but she has tried to meet her. They had had contact through intermediaries to let her know she was making this album. They didn't have her approval as such, but legally they did not need it. I found this extraordinary. How is it possible that someone releases a whole album entirely of someone else's work and yet they don't need their approval? Apparently France Gall feels the same. In a scathing interview in the French daily Le Parisien she lets rip. Not only did she not approve the album, but she found out about it on the Internet. The whole thing was done behind her back, without her consent, and she's rather angry about it. Jenifer didn't even have the good manners to send her a copy of the album! And, she tells us, since Jenifer did not alter the songs, she was powerless to stop her singing them. As a singer, France Gall has no rights over the songs she made famous. If, however, someone should sample one of her songs and in so doing use her voice or her image, then they need her approval. The rights of a song go not to the performer, but to the songwriter. In France Gall's case most of her songs were written either by Serge Gainsbourg or by Michel Berger, and since she was married to Berger, as his widow she has the rights to his songs. But even so, she cannot stop someone from singing those songs. So long as they pay the royalties that are due, they are free to sing them. But if they alter a song, either by changing the words, or by using a different rhythm or tune, then the songwriter can intervene and stop the release of a song. Jenifer's album very carefully sticks to the original songs. Everything has been done to ensure that no copyright issues can arise, which is why Gall's approval was not needed. But Jenifer could have at least sent her a copy of the album before releasing it. Surely if you are releasing a “tribute” to someone you admire, you would do that. Apparently not, perhaps because Jenifer's people were aware that if Gall did not approve of the album, they would find themselves if not in a legal mess at least in a moral dilemma. It strikes me as morally wrong that someone who created a work should have no power over its interpretation. Surely if you write a song, a poem, a script or a book, it is up to you how this work you created is used? And then an email from my sister made me look at the question differently. The email contained a link to a YouTube video. In this video my four-year-old nephew sings “Brown Girl in the Ring” by Boney M. Can you imagine if we needed the permission of the writer of a song just to sing it? Granted this is just a child singing on YouTube and not a commercial venture, but there is some sense in the idea that songs when they are released become part of a public repertoire. The writer is protected by receiving royalties, but the song itself becomes something we all own; it is in a sense what music is for and that is what the law reflects. But what about books? I have just written a novel and I am preparing to send it to French publishers for consideration. Several friends told me I should copyright my manuscript before sending it to people to read. I found the idea somewhat ludicrous. Anyone who has tried to publish a first novel knows that it is impossible to get publishers to even read your work, let alone to decide to copy it! But out of curiosity I looked into copyright law. It turns out that as a novel is a piece of art, I own the copyright automatically, because I created it. However, an idea is not subject to the same copyright. So if for instance I send a summary or a pitch for my novel, that is considered an idea and as such is not protected by copyright: anyone who reads it is free to write their own version of the same story. In other words, it's not the idea but the way that it is expressed that makes it art and as such something which belongs to the person who created it. Or, to put it another way, anyone can tell a story, but it is how it is told that makes it meaningful. — Imane Kurdi is a Saudi writer on European affairs. She can be reached at [email protected]
