The SGAE celebrates its 125 years of history, a long story convulsed in recent years, where a mix of scandals, conflicts over new forms of cultural dissemination and management problems have occurred that put the historic entity in charge of collect the copyrights of the creators since 1899, when the comedian Sinesio Delgado and the composer Ruperto Chapí laid the first stone of the entity. Once these problems were overcome, which began during the presidency of Teddy Bautista (acquitted in 2021 of all the charges of which he was accused: misappropriation, disloyal administration, falsification of documents and illicit association), its current president, Antonio Onetti, leads a ship with 130,000 members that in 2022 brought in 350 million euros, equaling the numbers of 2007. Now it is preparing to celebrate the anniversary celebration events, which start this Monday with a concert at the Palau de la Música in Barcelona where the Orquestra Simfònica del Vallès will perform pieces by the founders of the entity.
How is the SGAE experiencing this anniversary?
Few institutions can celebrate a 125th anniversary, and we can celebrate that the entity has recovered normality, a transparent and stable operation.
After a few turbulent years there was a desire to celebrate…
The truth is that yes, in fact the 120th anniversary was not celebrated, we were at a very critical moment with a warning to withdraw our license from the Ministry of Culture, the CISAC [International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers] had expelled us as members fully fledged and we were on the brink of disappearance. But this was fixed, when I became president in April 2020 we recovered Cisac membership, the Ministry lifted the warning and little by little we normalized and stabilized the entity. We are once again considered part of the top ten management entities in the world, which is the place that the SGAE should always have. Not in vain is it one of the oldest in the world, one of the promoters of Cisac at the time.
Does the SGAE collect what it should?
In 2022, and this situation is being repeated in 2023, we are above 340 million euros. This figure includes some modalities such as streaming where much progress can be made, since the rates that these platforms have imposed are quite low for copyrights. The SGAE, like all management entities in the world, is fighting to increase these rates. We have rates similar to those of the management entities in Europe and America, but they seem low to us.
Do they all act together?
Of course, through Gesac [European management company] and Cisac itself we are trying to ensure that these platforms recognize the value that the works of our authors really have, and that the different legislations do so as well. There are many countries where copyrights are still not collected, or only certain modalities are collected. In the English-speaking world there is no defense of the right to remuneration for audiovisuals that we have in Europe, and that causes copyright not to be collected when they are exhibited in those countries. In a market as large as the United States, the authors of Spanish films practically do not charge royalties, which creates an anomaly. The same thing happens in huge markets like China, India or even Brazil, in some aspects, where the rights do not reach because the legislation does not contemplate it. We try to make the defense universal and little by little copyright protection has been growing in all countries.
Artificial intelligence is another of the great challenges.
All management entities have had to face new situations throughout their history, without going any further, the appearance of the gramophone, which represents the appearance of recorded music, was a possibility that was not contemplated by the legislation, as was the appearance from radio, television, cinema or platforms. At all times, the management entities have promoted legislation that protects copyright in these media, so that authors continue to receive fair remuneration proportional to the dissemination of their works. With the appearance of artificial intelligence as a generator of works, there is a lot of fabric to cut, because it is not born from nothing, to create works it has to be nourished by pre-existing works that are creations of human beings. At the same time, artificial intelligence is a tool for other authors, so limits must be set, establishing how the work of creators is remunerated when artificial intelligence uses them as a basis, even if only for training.
The New York Times has denounced ChatGPT because the program is fed its news. Are you considering doing something similar?
I have no evidence, we think more about specific interests of an author who feels that their interests have been harmed at an individual level. We are more interested in ensuring that there is legislation that allows authors to receive the remuneration that corresponds to them, so that no one takes free advantage of the creations of the songs. I prefer the pact to any complaint, in the end what happens is that there are new players on the playing field and we have to set rules for them. Artificial intelligence is not something that must be stopped or prohibited, what must be done is to put it on track and put it within the system of creation, to find its place so that it becomes another tool in the hands of authors and consumers, of beings. humans who enjoy creation.
Has society’s perception of copyright changed?
It has changed a lot, but it is necessary to teach the importance of copyright, since it allows creators to have a decent living with the effort of their work, and that allows them to work independently and generate critical awareness. Copyright is still part of human rights, but it is still difficult to understand some things. What seems normal to the owner of the rights to his work is sometimes not so easy to understand for the person who has to pay those rights. That’s why many people wonder why they have to pay royalties if they have already bought an album. You must do so because you have paid for your own consumption, but not to disclose it and make a public communication. All those kinds of things are complicated.
These debates gave the entity a very bad name when Teddy Bautista presided.
At that time Teddy Bautista became public enemy number one of Spanish society, which is absurd. A man who is a musician becomes public enemy number one, as if there were no other candidates, but it was like that because there was a lot of manipulation in this regard, there were many entities that through piracy obtained many benefits and what interested them was that there was not much social awareness regarding copyright. On the contrary, it was convenient for them that no one had any prejudice to downloading free movies or songs, because their business was to facilitate it. Now there is more access to all these creations thanks to the platforms, and piracy rates have dropped in a special way.
Among these beneficiaries of piracy, do you include large operators such as Telefónica, Orange or Vodafone?
Everyone who participated in the business of transmitting cultural works at that time benefited from the fact that the part that corresponded to copyright was excluded from that pie, exactly the same as if you did not pay VAT or electricity.
How does the figure of Teddy Bautista remain in the history of the SGAE?
He has been the highest representative for 25 years in which he did very important work to put this society at the highest levels. I have a lot of respect for him, which does not mean that there are those who think that in the last stage there were management errors, errors that may be debatable but that anyone who manages can make. That is not a crime, it is not for them to shoot him down like they did with Bautista.
He was eventually acquitted of all charges.
I always put my hand in the fire for him, because I did not understand that they attributed any crime to him. What happened to him was very unfair, I am very happy that he was finally acquitted and I regret that it took ten years to do so, and also that the news that he was public enemy number one of Spanish society was on the front page and the acquittal of all the charges he faced were news on the back page and in fine print.
You returned stability to the SGAE and handed over management to the technicians.
I am the first president who has not been an executive president, I always say that if they give me the Cola-Cola I will sink it in 15 days. I’m an author, I represent authors and society and I can do a lot of PR things. But the technical management of an entity that has invoiced 340 million euros in the last two years has to fall to technical specialists from each of the facets and departments that comprise it. The authors must set the objectives and ensure that they are carried out in the best way, but not interfere in the tasks that are the responsibility of these technicians.
Has the entity’s work changed throughout its history?
What has changed are the tools that we have had to use depending on the different rights that were being managed. We are not only talking about technological advances, when the society was created they were basically playwrights and zarzuela composers and lyricists. Later, other forms of creation were incorporated, such as choreographers, film scriptwriters and directors, television producers, etc., and each one has had to generate their own regulations and their own way of collecting rights. Collecting them in theaters is not the same as on digital platforms, which have also been born with little transparency at the audience level and it is very difficult to know exactly how many times a movie or series is watched, and what we know, furthermore, is because they say it.
