The much-discussed dispute between Nikos Karvelas and Anna Vissi appears to be taking a new turn, as, according to reports from the show “Proino,” the composer is reportedly taking legal action, filing for a preliminary injunction against the singer.
The request, according to the information reported, seeks to prohibit the performance of songs he has composed.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
If this legal process results in a court ruling that restricts the performance of these works, the consequences for Anna Vissi’s artistic career are expected to be particularly significant. This is because a large part of her repertoire, as well as her personal artistic journey, is directly linked to the works of Nikos Karvelas.
This development comes at a particularly critical time for the singer. Anna Vissi is preparing to return to the renovated “Athens Arena”—which is being organized by the Koustas couple—to present a new show. However, a significant portion of this show was expected to consist of songs written for her by Nikos Karvelas.
Therefore, in the event of a court-imposed restriction, Anna Vissi will have to significantly rework her program, most likely leaving out many of the well-known hits that have defined her career.
As reported on the show, Dionysis Thanassoulas stated that Nikos Karvelas appears determined to see this through to the end and that the injunctions are expected to be filed later today. If this happens, it will be a development that will essentially put the artistic relationship between the two sides—which spans several decades—on a new footing.
Beyond the personal dimension of the case, the financial aspect also appears to carry significant weight. According to what Giorgos Liagas revealed, a total amount estimated at approximately 1.5 million euros had been put on the table during the preceding discussions.
According to the same sources, included approximately 300,000 euros related to the songs, as well as the write-off of 500,000 euros, which had been given as a loan to Nikos Karvelas by Yiannis Koustas. At the same time, there was also mention of an additional claim of approximately 700,000 euros.
As clarified, these specific amounts were part of the negotiations and were not simply money that the shipowner would give to the composer.
Another key point of contention appears to have been the percentage that Nikos Karvelas received from the songs’ royalties. As mentioned on the show, this percentage is said to have been approximately 50%.
According to the information reported, the Koustas intended to limit this percentage to between 20% and 30%. This specific proposal reportedly further intensified the tension between the two sides.
The legal status of the songs is now also at the center of the issue. As reported on “Proino,” the legal advisor for “Autodiaminis” is said to have explained that, should injunctions be filed and granted in such a way as to prohibit the performance of specific works, Anna Vissi would not be able to interpret them.
In fact, according to what was reported on the show, a violation of such a court order could even lead to summary proceedings.
The once-iconic artistic duo now finds itself facing an unprecedented situation. The outcome of the legal proceedings is expected to determine not only the future of their professional relationship but also, potentially, the content of the show that Anna Vissi will present at the “Athens Arena.”
Meanwhile, the case continues to spark reactions, as Nikos Karvelas issued a new public statement today, Thursday, October 8.
During the show “Smile Again,” a new statement from the composer regarding Anna Vissi was broadcast, in which he once again addressed the situation that has arisen.
The statement
“Anna Vissi, apparently speaking on behalf of the production company, issued a public statement yesterday in response to my press release. This is all I have to say for now: The production company and Anna claim that I was aware of the concert at the OAKA and “proud” of what they were going to present. I was aware of the event itself—which had already been decided (without my knowledge)—just as all of Greece was. Proud? No. And I was not, nor am I, proud. Not only because of the final result, but also because of the tolerance I foolishly showed toward behaviors such as those of Anna and Ms. Mergmiga/Kousta, who, incidentally, barred me from having any role—creative or advisory—in this particular concert, apparently so that I wouldn’t “alter” the nature of the performance they themselves had already decided to present. In her statement, Anna Vissi clearly confirms that there was an agreement in all our collaborations regarding my compensation in addition to the royalties I receive through the Collective Management Organization.
Implicitly and unequivocally, she also confirms that she was fully aware of and approved the shameful, deliberately offensive, and demeaning alteration of my own, my family and guests, as well as the threat to bar me from entering the OAKA if I showed up to take my original seat. I will add nothing more than that this is not the Anna I knew, loved, and admired. It is a blatant lie that I asked for 1.5 million euros. I asked for the same fee I had received, based on my standing agreement with Anna, for the concerts at Kallimarmaro (in addition, of course, to whatever royalties I was entitled to receive from the Collective Management Organization). That and nothing else is the absolute truth. Their “position” (I’m deliberately avoiding a harsher term) was as follows: either you take half or you get nothing—and even that (half) is on the condition that I never speak negatively about Anna. I categorically refused, refusing—as I have stated in my press release—to renounce my freedom of speech and exchange it for money. The allegations that I supposedly threatened to “smear” and “destroy” Anna, both personally and professionally, are nonsense and lies. Why would I destroy Anna? For what reason, and with what motive or justification, would I defame her? Anna is, as I have said before, free to choose her own path, and I am free to continue following mine. As a creator, I follow the dictates of my creative process.
I have never compromised, never bowed my head, and never sold out. I therefore prefer financial suicide to moral murder. Ultimately, there is one bitter truth: Anna, through her behavior and the choices of her recent collaborators and friends, has consciously—and perhaps deliberately—placed herself outside the scope of any future artistic collaboration with us. However, the part of the announcement that truly crosses the line of what is tolerable is the section in which, through a completely chaotic and incomprehensible phrasing (where so-called “loans” and so-called “favors”), Anna speaks of a so-called “service” amounting to 500,000 euros that Mr. Kousta supposedly provided to me, and moreover because “I was in need.” I have never received any money from Mr. Kousta. As the saying goes, “capital has no homeland.” However, I now learn from Anna’s statement that Mr. Kousta’s capital, in particular, has at least a big heart. It seems that Mr. Koustas’s production company may feel uncomfortable when it has to pay a creator what they are owed, but instead, Mr. Koustas himself engages in “charity” to help (apparently as a “victim of injustice”). But since magnanimity and philanthropy apparently have their limits—from what I read in Anna’s announcement, it follows that Mr. Koustas didn’t exactly “take pity” on me: he supposedly “lent” me sums of money so that I would allow him to use them (interest-free, I hope, at least). The press release characterizes what I mention in my own press release as populism. I wonder what word could possibly describe the fabrication of such an extreme myth, through which these people go so far as to present themselves as “philanthropists.”
At this point, I will set aside both the Company and Anna Vissi and turn to the public: I fully understand that this whole discussion about fees seems provocative to people who are struggling to make ends meet. However, I would like to pose a question to those who sidestep the issue of principle raised here by focusing instead on the amount of money involved. Let them ask themselves the following and answer honestly: if their toil and labor were the primary raw material for the high profits of a third party who exploits it, would they be willing to renounce their rights? Beyond the issue of principles, anyone who knows me is aware that I have never been involved in managing or saving money. That is precisely why—as absurd as it may sound to outsiders—for as long as we were together, Anna actually had to support me financially. Just as I’ve supported her. However, I never viewed this mutual support—which I both gave and received—as generosity or magnanimity. I’ve always believed that mutual support is a given for two people who have been through so much together, as we have. At one time, there was no Vissi without Karvela—and vice versa. To wrap things up, whatever I owe her, she owes me just as much. A note specifically for Anna: the announcement makes no mention of the artistic aspect, which is the starting point and the core of my position. The entire announcement focuses solely on money. But that’s not the essence of it. The essence is the songs themselves, her own interpretation, and her interaction with the audience. If Anna believes that her interaction with the audience at the OAKA was the same as at all her other performances, she is mistaken. It is not a matter of venue selection. As I’ve said, it’s a clash between completely different intentions and visions. After what I’ve learned about “charity” and what I’ve endured as an insult, I’m entitled to add “mindset” to the list. And one last thing about “conflict.” The theory of war teaches us this: in war, it is not wise to dig in at a position cut off from resources. My friends, you may have abundant financial resources, but as for musical resources, I’m very much afraid you’ll have to start looking for them from scratch.”
