Dissecting the Debashish vs Zohad dispute: Blatant miscommunication or a clear lack of accountability?

By now, you must have come across the latest social media clash that has blown up and taken over Facebook in Bangladesh. For the uninitiated, two nights ago, Bangladeshi artist Debashish Chakrabarty posted a status where he vented his frustration over the complete lack of professionalism from several entities based in Bangladesh. He claimed to have been stripped off his rightful payment even after successfully handing his clients over the agreed upon collaborative artworks and projects.

One specific accusation against musician Zohad Reza Chowdhury of the rock band Nemesis, and his and his band's subsequent responses have taken social media and music fans by storm. 

Zohad ardently defended his case, posting a series of screenshots of conversations between himself and Debashish, and stating that in fact it was the artist who breached professional ethics by "repurposing" the album art they collaborated on and as such, spoiling the exclusivity of a concept which the band and Zohad are claiming originality of. 

This article is about deconstructing an interesting case where two different fields of art stand at crossroads and the artists on both sides feel aggrieved. It also raises important questions about artists' rights and their understanding of intellectual property disputes. 

We have spoken at length with both Debashish and Zohad for unravelling what the entire fiasco is all about and we have also consulted with experts for clarification on legal and contractual technicalities.

The album art and the intellectual property in question

Zohad had initially reached out to Debashish in 2023 for collaborating on the album art of a forthcoming album which the band expects to release in the coming months. The project essentially symbolised an assertion of agency of certain degree by the oppressed class.

Debashish claims that he completed and delivered the artwork within a few days of their agreement, likely within a week. However, after months of no communication— which Zohad attributes to busy schedules, time zone differences (as Debashish is based in Michigan, USA), and the band's inability to secure funds—Zohad requested additional time to arrange and send the payment.

"When I asked for a couple of weeks after he reached out in the first week of March asking for his payment, he responded by saying 'no worries' and logically I thought he was cool with the window of time I requested," said Zohad.

Zohad says that he was quite taken aback when even after Debashish had seemingly complied with his request, the artist posted renditions of their agreed upon conceptual artwork.

"He took the character that I conceptualised—my idea, my intellectual property—and posted it on his profile. Where's the professionalism in that? When I reached out to ask about him sharing artwork that closely resembled our project, he didn't respond—he seenzoned my messages, ignored them. After that, I informed him that we would not be moving forward with his artwork. Since the character is already publicly available, we couldn't use it for our unreleased album," Zohad stated.

While Zohad is adamently claiming that his intellectual property takes point, Debashish feels that the claims are a gross overstatement.

"Zohad shared the idea of the soundtrack with me and later provided a sample soundtrack. Using the sound, mood, lyrics, and my prior understanding of the country's power dynamics, I began to develop a visual representation that aligned with the themes of the soundtrack. It was never a case of him describing the image in detail and me simply executing it. That would be an oversimplification and misrepresentation," said Debashish.

Debashish claims that he created a depiction of an oppressor, incorporating visual cues, alongside a crowd representing oppressed individuals and that Zohad and the band were satisfied with the oppressor's character but provided some specific input regarding the attire of the people, particularly regarding female attire. These discussions were conducted over phone calls and were professional in nature. 

"We went through several iterations, and the final piece was agreed upon. At no point was the process merely a transcription of his vision. From the onset, I was confirmed that I had complete artistic freedom," added Debashish.

We further discussed the allegations from Zohad that Debashish spoiled the exclusivity of the project by sharing renditions of the "commissioned artwork." 

To that Debashish responded by stating that he had been working on a series of drawings over the past five years. About six months after delivering the "commissioned" piece in November 2023, he created another artwork in March 2024 depicting another character representing the ruling class.

"While this character bore some visual similarities to the one in the 'commissioned' artwork, it was a completely different piece with a distinct perspective and context. The new artwork was part of my ongoing artistic series depicting the socio-political scenario of that time, concentrating on an aspiration of resistance and did not infringe upon the exclusivity of the original piece. It's important to note that artists often develop distinctive visual styles, recurring elements, and creative processes that naturally establish their artistic signature," said the artist.

However, Zohad feels the artist should have disclosed the fact that he had been working on "similar characters" for the past few years and rightfully feels the concept of the character in question was never the artist's to begin with. If you go through the artist's profile, you wouldn't find any such characters even remotely similar to the one Nemesis claims to have conceptualised. As things stand, Zohad feels it's quite convenient for the artist to make such claims.

Speaking with legal experts who chose to stay anonymous, they feel the artist could have notified the band before using similar renditions of the artwork. Moreover, the fact that there's not a lot of evidence of Debashish using said character in any of his earlier works, somewhat questions his defense.

However, in layman's terms, when it comes to intellectual property, up until the point due payment goes through, the artist does hold artistic and finacial copyright of his artwork. Many would argue he was indeed in no legal obligation to disclose his intentions of using the artwork since the payment hadn't gone through.

Just miscommunication?

What frustrates and disappoints Zohad the most is that these allegations and public call-outs came completely out of the blue. He and his band have a solid reputation in the music industry and have never been accused of withholding payments or exploiting artists. He believes the matter could have been resolved privately, especially since most of their communication took place through Instagram DMs.

"When the last thing Debashish said was 'ok,' how was I supposed to read between the lines and figure out his feelings or that he might be expecting payment? He didn't need to go public—he could have just messaged me directly. Why is he suddenly calling out after staying silent for a year? That's not professional," Zohad stated.

Zohad admits that there could have—and likely should have—been better communication, especially during the months of silence. He acknowledges that the band should have kept Debashish updated. However, that didn't happen.

Regarding the payment, Zohad is hesitant to call it a "compensation fee." Instead, he is open to paying a remuneration, acknowledging that Debashish invested time and effort, as long as they mutually agree on a fair amount. However, he also wants the artist to consider the band's perspective—bringing the conversation back to his claim that their concept was "stolen."

"Why would I clear the payment if our art was stolen? The payment could have been processed by 20 March, within the timeframe I had requested and he seemingly agreed to. But since he used our concept before that window, doesn't he feel the need to apologise?" Zohad questioned.

On the other hand, Debashish believes this issue goes beyond mere miscommunication. It is apparent that he demonstrated patience but despite repeatedly requesting payment, he said he was ignored for months by a fellow professional and artist, which he sees as a clear lack of accountability and responsibility. He also clarifies that his post was never meant to single out an individual.

"My written statement wasn't specifically about Mr Zohad or the band. Speaking out wasn't aimed at any particular individual or group. It was part of my broader engagement with various issues, particularly those connected to the collective struggle of the people. In this specific instance, it was about artistic labour," Debashish said.

That being said, the question remains—why did Debashish place so much trust in his client despite receiving no clear assurances of payment? Given the uncertainty, could he have approached the situation differently rather than taking it public?

"Unfortunately, it's true that I made some cardinal errors. I was naïve to not request an advance or secure full payment before delivering the final piece and I'm not proud of these actions of mine. I wouldn't advise anyone else to make the same error. I was genuinely excited about the nature of the project and the context of the time. I had good faith in the process and a vague belief in the social contract," said Debashish.

However, it's also important to ask why a reputed band was unable to make the rightful payment. This raises a larger issue—the structural weaknesses of Bangladesh's music industry, or rather, its lack of proper infrastructure.

"It needs to be understood that our system lacks a streamlined process for securing funds and sponsorships in a seamless and timely manner. Beyond that, as an artiste myself, I understand the struggle—we're in the same boat. Why would I ever want to cheat a fellow artist or deny them their rightful payment?" Zohad stated.

Where the public opinion stands

If you've been keeping up with the dispute and reading the numerous posts from fans and enthusiasts sharing their opinions, a quick glance at the comments section makes it clear that Zohad and the band are facing the brunt of the public backlash.

This backlash largely stems from the tone and nature of the responses Zohad and the band provided to Debashish's post. Their replies showed little to no accountability or acknowledgment of the payment issue and came across as more of an attack on Debashish while being defensively authoritative.

However, what this situation does highlight is the state of business practices and artistic labour in a dysfunctional system like Bangladesh's. It's evident that beneath the lack of payment and the musicians' responses lies an undertone of entitlement, which is deeply problematic.

Zohad acknowledges the public sentiment surrounding the issue, though he understands he cannot influence every individual's opinion. He feels he has shared his side of the story and explained why he is feeling aggrieved, even if it's through this article rather than his social media posts.  

He admits that these accusations have left a stain on a career spanning over two decades, during which he has maintained a clean and reputable image. 

 "I guess it's a lesson, and sometimes it's important to experience something like this once in a while. But people need to understand that there was never any intention of delaying or withholding payment. That said, we could have communicated better," Zohad stated.  

Naturally, there was a hint of defensiveness in Zohad's and Nemesis' responses, which made them seem evasive. Addressing this, Zohad countered by pointing out that Debashish's post was not written from an amicable perspective either.

Since Debashish was the first to go public with his accusations, it's natural that fans and followers ended up pointing fingers towards the band and the musician. Their subsequent responses didn't help their case either. Ultimately, the moment Debashish chose to address the issue publicly rather than handling it privately, there was always a chance that public opinion would lean in his favour. It is rather unfortunate than in this scenario one party is being villified to a great extent and that their aggrievement is hardly being entertained; more so because they have always maintained a very clean professional image.

At the time of writing, Nemesis have already contacted Debashish through the band's guitarist Ifaz Abrar Reza. Debashish has received it and is open to resolving the issue amicably.

"Of course, I am willing to solve this amicably but I am afraid that their internet response to my statement did not begin with an amicable stance," said the artist.

Similarly, Zohad is waiting for a response from the artist and is also inclinced towards resolving the situation without any malice.