Faye D'Souza
Copyright, Cancel Culture and Celebrity: Inside Entertainment Law | Priyanka Khimani
Khimani, who has represented Divine, AP Dhillon, Karan Aujla and Jasleen Royal from before they were famous, explains that India has no Entertainment Act - the job spans copyright, defamation, narcotics cases, MeToo allegations and equity deals, in an industry still so relationship-driven that 'lawyering up' can offend. Her sharp claims: there is no such thing as a 'standard contract' ('company policy' falls away the moment they really want you); paid agencies now run targeted trolling campaigns to take down competitors; and FIRs filed against streamers' content heads have made executives personally scared, which is why entertainment feels so risk-averse. On MeToo she is blunt - 'I don't think so' it changed much; most called-out men are back, some behind proxy-held companies - though POSH committees now exist and younger women know their rights. On money: for a hit film song the record label earns the most because producers sell copyright 'lock, stock and barrel', but the 2012 amendment gives composers and lyricists an inalienable royalty share, and the top reason artists miss royalties is simply not registering with collection societies. She also advises anyone being pushed to 'resign' in AI-era layoffs: read the employment contract you signed on day one, because termination pay is usually all you get - Indian courts don't award costs and litigation can take 20 years.
Why it mattersRare practical literacy: how music money actually splits (label > composer/lyricist > performers via societies), why 'register your works' is the cheapest career insurance an artist can buy, and a lawyer's-eye view of cancel culture as a paid service. Her advice to young professionals in any field - chase excellence, not rewards; depth is the only moat left in the AI era - lands beyond entertainment.
Read at source