Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Clare Torry Suing Pink Floyd?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedClare Torry Suing Pink Floyd?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Clare Torry Suing Pink Floyd?
    Posted: August 19 2004 at 20:33
Does Clapton get paid for "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2004 at 16:40

Rock God said:

Quote ITS A BLIMMING SHAME IT'S COME TO THIS BUT IF SHE HASENT BEEN PAID WELL ITS ONLY FAIR SHE GETS IT REALLY!.  

1.- She signed a contract (oral or written) for a determined payment.

2.- She accepted the payment and spent it.

3.- She was not a member of the band, she was hired staff as any crew member.

4.- According to British law, the right to claim property expires after 12 years.

Lex Lex Dura Lex Sed Lex.

Read the lyrics of Breath from the same album:

You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today.
And then one day you find ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun.

Sorry Claire, 30 years are behind you and you missed your starting gun 18 years ago (if the gun was ever loaded).

Iván



Edited by ivan_2068
Back to Top
Easy Livin View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2004 at 15:42
Originally posted by ROCK GOD ROCK GOD wrote:

WELL I THINK SHE PRATICALLY OWES 40% OF THE PERFORMANCE SHE PERFORMED ON THE ALBUM SO I THINK SHE SHOULD GET HER SHARE OF THE CAKE. I HOPE SHE DOSNT BANKRUPT PINK FLOYD BY THIS LAWSUIT SO I HOPE SHE GET HER BIT AND PINK FLOYD AND CLAIRE CAN LEAVE IT JUST THERE.

ITS A BLIMMING SHAME IT'S COME TO THIS BUT IF SHE HASENT BEEN PAID WELL ITS ONLY FAIR SHE GETS IT REALLY!.  

Is that you Claire?WinkLOL

 

Back to Top
ROCK GOD View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: May 20 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 41
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2004 at 15:35

WELL I THINK SHE PRATICALLY OWES 40% OF THE PERFORMANCE SHE PERFORMED ON THE ALBUM SO I THINK SHE SHOULD GET HER SHARE OF THE CAKE. I HOPE SHE DOSNT BANKRUPT PINK FLOYD BY THIS LAWSUIT SO I HOPE SHE GET HER BIT AND PINK FLOYD AND CLAIRE CAN LEAVE IT JUST THERE.

ITS A BLIMMING SHAME IT'S COME TO THIS BUT IF SHE HASENT BEEN PAID WELL ITS ONLY FAIR SHE GETS IT REALLY!.  

Back to Top
emdiar View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 05 2004
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 890
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2004 at 06:10

This (the "12 yrs" thing) is absolutely true and well known in Britain. It was the reason why Thatcher sent her bullyboy police-state henchmen in to destroy the 11th free festival at Stonehenge, 1985,  causing violent civil unrest, ( Battle of the Beanfield). Had it gone ahead unchallenged for two more summers, She would have lost the right to do so in subsequent years and the best nonprofit, no ticket required, free festival the world has ever known would still be eclipsing (the very commercial and costly) Glastonbury fest to this day.

It was also the method used by my father-in-law to acquire an extra 6" width to his back garden, free of charge. Just move your fence and if no-one notices in 12 years you're laughin'.

 



Edited by emdiar
Perception is truth, ergo opinion is fact.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 15 2004 at 01:36

Being a lawyer I knew something smelled bad in this claim. So I checked some British law to see if the laws are similar to Peruvian, and found something interesting:

1.- Prescription 

 

A method of acquiring rights through the silence of the legal owner. Known in common law jurisdiction as "statute of limitations." When used in a land law context, the term refers to the acquisition of property rights, such as an easement, by long and continued use or enjoyment. The required duration of continued use or enjoyment, before legal rights are enforceable, is usually 12 years, known as "statute of limitations.".

Well, Pink Floyd has used and enjoyed the the intellectual rights for more than 30 years.

The Law says that after 12 years of silence of the legal owner, the person (or company, society, corporation etc.) that has enjoyed the rights, is the legal owner.

Even if Clare Torry is the legal owner of the rights of The Great Gig in the Sky (what I don't believe), she lost the right to claim the property after 12 years.

2.- There's also another legal issue that I can't explain easily in English (Don't know the legal terms in this language), so I'll try to give an idea with an example:

If a person who works for Microsoft Corp creates a magic software, the legal owner is still Microsoft, because the guy works for a company, signed a contract, used the facilities of the company to create the software and recieved a payment for his work.

In this case Clare Torry worked for Pink Floyd, she made her improvisation during that contract and she recieved a payment for that job, a payment that she considered fair for her job in that moment.

So when she accepted the salary, she also accepted the terms of a contract and she has no legal right.  

I believe she is being misguided by a lawyer who wants to get some bucks from a bunch of rich guys and even if he loses the case will recieve free advertising.

Iván



Edited by ivan_2068
Back to Top
greenback View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: August 14 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3300
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2004 at 23:09

OMG!! Finally, we can see how she looks like!

I thought she was black!

Back to Top
frenchie View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: July 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2004 at 18:42
I think the band treated her fairly and she should be bloody honoured to be part of such a classic album. If she wants money she should do more talented singing to earn it, not rake it out of Pink Floyd. I hope her case dont win.
The Worthless Recluse
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2004 at 07:50

Here's an article which includes a little about how Geffen tried to sue Young for not sounding like Young http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Neil_Young - tho' that Fogerty case looks familiar - maybe I got them mixed up...

Back to Top
Easy Livin View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2004 at 15:23
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

Although I understand that Neil Young was once taken to court for plagiarising himself, after being sued for not sounding like himself...

John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival was certainly sued by Saul Zaentz for plaigarising his own song. The chorus of "The old man down the road" written by Fogerty but "owned" by Zantz, was deemed to be a copy of "Run through the Jungle" written by John Fogerty. Fogerty wrote the song  "Vanz (originally called Zanz) can't dance", apparently by way of retribution. Fogerty eventually won the case though.

For more on this see: http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=15892

Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2004 at 08:56
Nah, record company legalisms aside, it's impossible to rip yourself off; I was just trying to be funny in my own sad way...I'm thinking mainly of the recurring "In the Flesh" musical motif that gets worked into all three albums in the first few minutes.
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2004 at 04:13

Err...

"The Final Cut" sounds to me like an attempt to add an exclamation mark to "The Wall" - whether it's successful or not depends on your taste, I suppose.

"The Pros and Cons..." sounds like Waters doing his own thing - it's a bit self-indulgent (that statement could go anywhere, I guess...), but it doesn't sound like "The Wall" to me.

I hear no rip-offs

Although I understand that Neil Young was once taken to court for plagiarising himself, after being sued for not sounding like himself...

Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2004 at 17:43

I think Roger Waters should be forced to pay restitution to himself for ripping off the Wall so blatantly on "Final Cut" and "Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking"...or at least reimburse those of us who purchased those albums!

Back to Top
threefates View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4215
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2004 at 16:03

Well I agree with all of you.  Her part of the song was note worthy.. I can somewhat see her point legally. According to an interview with Rick Wright, she was told to adlib to a background tape of chord progressions.. which gave her a chance to create the melody... so actually she did create the melody to that song. Without her voice ... it would not be the same song. And then to only get paid 30 quid. But does this mean she deserves 50% of the songwriting credit..?

However that being said... to sue a group that would probably give you money if you asked nicely.... 31 years after the fact.. is just ludicris! 

I read a few years ago that Alan Parson's only got paid 35 quid to do the sound engineering on DSOTM...and he thought he deserved a producer credit...



Edited by threefates
THIS IS ELP
Back to Top
Easy Livin View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2004 at 14:42

I'm a bit in two minds on this one. I deplore the sue me sue you (blues - George Harrison anyone?) culture which has developed in recent years. There must surely be a better way.

That said, I understand Torry was not given any music to sing as such, she was simply asked to improvise over the basic track. What she came up with amazed the band, who were understandably delighted with the results. I do think she was (not is) therefore entitled to some recognition for her part in the composition of the song. 

I reckon however that it should now be far too late for her claim to be entertained. As James suggests, maybe she just yearns for another 15 minutes of fame.

Back to Top
Aztech View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: February 11 2004
Location: Montreal
Status: Offline
Points: 112
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2004 at 11:49

Interesting thread threefates.

I think the significance of her contribution is small yet note worthy.

If your a session musician and just play what you are told with your own "feel" and "groove" then you should get paid the going union rate but if you composed then you should get more.

She may possibly be down on her luck financially or maybe just craves more money like most of us.

IMHO if such a thing is possible ,she should sue the record company not the members (God knows the record company make way too much money off the public and the artists !)

 

Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2004 at 09:23

If "The Great Gig In the Sky" seemed even slightly stylistically out-of-place among the other tracks, I'd give her claims more credence. Now, if Mel Collins were to lodge a complaint, that might be slightly more understandable (though still ludicrous).

..or you could look at it this way: Claire's only doing what the members of the band have been doing for years- trying to get some cash for their part in something monumental that none of them have matched since. Maybe she's got an album coming out soon and she wants to generate some hype to boost sales.

Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2004 at 02:42

I also read that Peter Blake has recently started asking for royalties for designing the front cover for "Sergeant Pepper", for which he received the princely sum of £200.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1230252,00 .html

That is how it was done in the 1960s - even the musicians tended to earn a relatively small amount compared to today's "pop stars", whose remunerations are many times greater than the actual worth of their musical talents.

IMHO

My message to Clare is "You didn't write the song - Pink Floyd did. It was a great vocal, despite what you thought, and you obviously accepted what you thought it was worth at the time - and I expect Pink Floyd remunerated you acceptably for the few times you sang it live for them. Stop gold-digging and move on - sing some more and earn money. The world does not owe you a living."

 



Edited by Certif1ed
Back to Top
arqwave View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 21 2004
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 177
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2004 at 21:38
i agree with JOREN, why waiting 31 years? i think that she wants money from the 20th and 30th re-issue of the record... who cares but Floyd, and actually aren't they now disbanded?
between darkness and light
Back to Top
threefates View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4215
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2004 at 16:37
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

BTW I can't stand her singing on DSOTM.Sounds like she's got a piano stuck on her foot. I think I'll sue her for giving my ears aggravation!

I used to think the same way until I spent so much time listening to the other singers try to reproduce it on tour.  After listening to Durga..and whoever that girl was with the Aussie PF,  I think I much prefer Clare's version.

THIS IS ELP
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.