Who Owns Junkanoo? On Charging Admission for the Press

by Larry Smith

The absurd controversy over the recent attempt to charge the press a fee to cover Junkanoo makes one wonder whether our officials have taken leave of their senses.

Although the argument about protection of intellectual property rights of Junkanooers was not advanced until after the proposal had been withdrawn, we should remember that these groups are subsidised at huge cost by the private sector (both monetarily and in terms of lost productivity). And massive public resources are deployed to organise and facilitate the display their art. One has to question whether art exists if no-one sees it?

According to Cultural Director Nicolette Bethel, ""What the media are actually covering, and what the government is a steward of, is something that is a public parade, but (also) an artistic endeavour and people own the rights to the creations that they put on, and we have not yet worked out the formula for those artists to get paid."

In a radio talk show interview after the controversy erupted, Ms Bethel (whose late father, Dr Clement Bethel, wrote the definitive account of this cultural tradition) argued that Junkanoo is not a public event: "If it were such a thing, really and truly, the public would not have to pay to sit on bleachers. Access to the route is not a given. Access to the route is not something that people should be counting on."

Well excuse me, but I thought Junkanoo was a spontaneous celebration of ordinary people. In fact, in her introduction to her father's book, "Festival of the Bahamas", she complained that "more and more Junkanoo is becoming a commodity to be mass-produced and sold to audiences."

And the only reason that access to the route has been restricted, with tickets sold for seating, is because the sheer number of spectators and participants these days simply overwhelms the capacity of little ole Nassau to accommodate them.

But the royalty issue aside, how can such a major policy change to coverage of a national public event be implemented without consultation or thought when the results were entirely predictable - unless the idea was to generate a controversy in order to raise the issue publicly?

Intellectual property did not feature in the ministry's explanation for the move as far as I am aware. They initially said the fee was to control the proliferation of press and freelance photographers swarming over the parade route, and to cover processing costs (such as the cost of vests).

As Ms Bethel pointed out: "We do not know what we’re talking about. We don’t calculate all the things that go into it, and there’s a lot of protests about charges for Junkanoo. There were protests about the cost of tickets, there are protests about the cost of vests for access to the street.

"We don’t talk about what art is worth in this country, and there is something artistic going on, and we have to recognize that that is worth something out of our pockets."

These are entirely valid points, but to address them does not require the imposition of prohibitive fees on the working press. A nominal processing fee to cover legitimate expenses would not be objectionable in my view. And controlling the number of photographers who are accredited is a simple matter of setting and enforcing impartial criteria and limits - something that Bahamian officials find almost impossible to do.

In a free society, the press has a right to report on all public and private matters subject only to the constraints of the law, and it is ridiculous to try to charge them for coverage. If photographers subsequently make money from the sale of their Junkanoo pictures then perhaps they should be charged a royalty fee, after appropriate consultation (and good luck with that - although photographers like to protect their own rights, I doubt if they would be willing to pay others). But that is another issue.

And it begs the question of why non-press affiliated "photographers" are allowed to cover the parades anyway? It is standard practice to limit special access to public events to accredited working press and officials only. Perhaps the ministry could enlighten us with their written policy on the the matter.

Comments

[Erik Russell]

Leading up to the national elections of May 2007 I contacted the BIS office and the Office of the Prime Minister in Freeport asking about the process for accreditation -- fees and forms. The first two people I spoke to had no idea what I was talking about. The third person laughed, saying "We don't have anything like that. Just show up." When I asked how we would identify ourselves I was told to make up our own I.D. badges. (Then *I* laughed -- realising that ANY one could do that.)

Subsequently, on election day, I and and my crews were asked to leave open public areas, questioned about who we worked for, and told to turn off our video equipment. And how could we respond to such demands since we had no "real" authority to carry out our work?

Establishing a national list of accredited media companies and individuals is not a complicated matter. Having a basic processing fee for such accreditation is not unexpected. Expecting the media to pay a fee to cover all the ancillary costs associated with specific events is outrageous.

I wonder: how would the Junkanooers, politicians, celebrities and corporations feel if photographers, camera operators and reporters DIDN'T take their pictures or write their stories?

~ejr~

[drew Roberts]

And does the Junkanoo Crew pay for the performance of the music they use?

Interested...

al lthe best,

drew