A Bollywood battle erupted Tuesday on the Twitter social networking website, with filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt and the husband-wife duo of Javed Akhtar and Shabana Azmi crossing swords over profit-sharing in Hindi films.

Bollywood producer Mahesh Bhatt on one side, and lyricist Javed Akhtar and filmstar-wife Shabana Azmi on the other, are now involved in a spat over the rights of music directors and lyric writers to claim royalty for film songs.
All three are known for their forthright opinions on virtually everything, from films to terrorism, from the Gujarat riots to waterlogging in Mumbai. But this time Ms Azmi, Bhatt’s heroine in his much-acclaimed Arth, joined hands with lyricist-husband Javed Akhtar to target the filmmaker on revenue-sharing. The bone of contention is the provision for sharing profits between producers and other contributors to movies such as lyricists.
Bollywood appears divided on the question of revenue-sharing, with the current Indian Copyright Act 1957 lacking a provision for sharing of profits between producers and others like lyricists.
Bhatt, of course, does not agree. “A wrong perception has been built up giving an impression that composers do not make money from a hit song. The fact is that composers/singers make millions by performing hit songs by way of live shows,” Bhatt tweeted. For him, a film’s producers take the entire commercial risk.
“How can you ask for an equal share in profits when u don’t share the loss,” he asked.
This disturbed the star couple. Azmi tweeted back, saying “A share in profits is not a demand, but a royalty ... for when song is used as mobile ringtones or on radio or on TV. Producers make lyricists sign contracts that irrevocably waive all rights that might in future come to lyricists under the copyright act. UNJUST.”
Akhtar, who is also lobbying for a share of royalties for songwriters and music directors, joined his wife. He tweeted: “No one is asking for a penny from the film’s profits. We are asking for our rights and dignity. From all over the world, royalties are collected in the name of authors, composers and often don’t reach them. We are thankful that soon a law will save the authors, composers from contracts that are like bonded labour.” Akhtar said it was strange that Bhatt wanted to protect the rights of Zakir Naik (Muslim evangelist), but not of Pandit Ravi Shankar, A.R. Rahman, Sonu Nigam and Javed Akhtar.
Bhatt agreed to disagree. “The feudal mindset of producers has to change. But this idea of the starving artist is also exaggerated. But we can’t get far by merely demonising our producer brothers,” he responded.
He also tried to profess indifference. “If what you allege about me is true, it should not hurt me. And if it is not true, even then it should not hurt me.”
In a dig at the Akhtar-Azmi couple, known for the liberal and progressive views, Bhatt wrote: “Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds and understand things that clash with their own beliefs.”
Reacting to this, Akhtar wrote: “What a noble thought! If you want to continue, I am willing... If you want to let it pass, I am willing. Your choice.”
This is not the first time that the revenue-sharing model under the proposed amendments to the Indian Copyright Act 1957 has generated a controversy. In February this year, there was a similar spat between actor Aamir Khan and Javed Akhtar on the issue, forcing Aamir Khan to resign from a panel established by the human resources development ministry. He later withdrew his resignation.