Page 266 - Weiss, Jernej, ur./ed. 2026 Skladateljska društva nekoč in danes.../Composers’ Societies Past and Present...

Skladateljska društva nekoč in danes | Composers’ Societies Past and Present
mutual agreement on these awards, because we had strictly professional
points of view. Now, although we are allowed to give proposals, our sugges-
tions can be easily ignored. As such, awards are often given to people whom
the professional associations would never approve of!
Hungarian composers – not only in the serious music field but also
in entertainment and pop music – suffered a serious wound in 2012 when
the copyright law was rapidly changed. We had only a weekend to give our
opinions, and although even the most prominent composers from those
the government favoured were against the proposal, two-thirds of MPs vot-
ed to pass the law. Until that time Artisjus, the Hungarian CMO, could use
the ten percent of the live performance and broadcasting royalties that it
collected for cultural and social purposes, like most of the continental Eu-
ropean copyright societies do. In 2012, the new law permitted Artisjus to
use 30 percent of this 10 percent for social purposes, while the remaining
70 percent had to be given to the National Cultural Fund. Under this new
system, composers had to apply for financial support for works they would
compose in the following year. In principle this is not a problem, but, as I
often say, anyone who supported this does not know the reality of a com-
poser’s life and work. I do not need to explain to you that composers’ plans
often change, and that one does not finish a piece in the planned year but
then has the opportunity to write another work which it was obviously not
possible to apply for funding for in the previous year… The main difference
between the old and new systems is that with the earlier method of using
the Artisjus deduction for cultural purposes funding decisions were made
based on the previous year! Projects – concerts, recordings, editions – can
also be supported by the National Cultural Fund, but we think that deci-
sions about the use of “our own” money should be left in the authors’ hands.
With regard to the National Cultural Fund, this was originally a won-
derful institution, established in 1993, which provided significant patron-
age for all kinds of art – from literature to theatre, fine arts to architecture,
as well for public collections, and both serious and light music. It was first
financed from contributions that needed to be paid when holding certain
activities, and later by the state lottery. The Cultural Fund is now being re-
organised, and although we have been promised that it will essentially con-
tinue in the same way, we will have to wait and see what actually happens.
For the time being, the system of support for composers – as derived from
Artisjus – works well, but the projects that are being subsidised are in a
deeper crisis year by year.

266