NO!!!!!!!!!! ELP sells out.. - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

bluetailfly View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1383

Posted: September 27 2007 at 23:16

bluetailfly wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

They could own the music as authors, but the copyright used to belong to Atlantic Records.

Iván

But I don't know if that necessarily means Atlantic or whatever company could use their songs in advertising without their consent. This is the missing piece of information.

I mean, if Atlantic could sell the advertising rights out without ELP's consent, then why haven't we heard "Lucky Man" used to sell...I don't know... Viagra or something.

Edited by bluetailfly - September 27 2007 at 23:17

"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."

rileydog22 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844

Posted: September 27 2007 at 23:18

bluetailfly wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

They could own the music as authors, but the copyright used to belong to Atlantic Records.

Iván

But I don't know if that necessarily means Atlantic or whatever company could use their songs in advertising without their consent. This is the missing piece of information.

I mean, if Atlantic could sell the advertising rights out without ELP's consent, then why haven't we heard "Lucky Man" used to sell...I don't know... Viagra or something.

Re-write:
"He had white horses, and ladies by the score. All dressed in satin and waiting by the door.
Too bad he couldn't get it up!"

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: September 28 2007 at 00:20

bluetailfly wrote:

But I don't know if that necessarily means Atlantic or whatever company could use their songs in advertising without their consent. This is the missing piece of information.

This depends in the local law, for example, MikeenRegalia pointed me (And I couldn't believe it until he got me a copy) that in Germany the copyright holder can't sell or transmit the rights to third parts without the express authorization of the owner.

In most parts of the world (USA and almost sure UK too) the copyright owner has the complete right over the music unless the author considers it's negative for theiir image and they have stated they keep this right in the agreement.

So9 lets check UK law:

2 Rights subsisting in copyright works

(1) The owner of the copyright in a work of any description has the exclusive right to do the acts specified in Chapter II as the acts restricted by the copyright in a work of that description.

Chapter II Rights of Copyright Owner

16 The acts restricted by copyright in a work

(1) The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom—

(a) to copy the work (see section 17);

(b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);

(d) to broadcast the work or include it in a cable programme service (see section 20);

(e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21)

I guess yes they can, but they have to pay the royalties to the author but as I said the copyright owner has some limits:

2 Rights subsisting in copyright works

(2) In relation to certain descriptions of copyright work the following rights conferred by Chapter IV (moral rights) subsist in favour of the author, director or commissioner of the work, whether or not he is the owner of the copyright—

80 Right to object to derogatory treatment of work

(1) The author of a copyright literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, and the director of a copyright film, has the right in the circumstances mentioned in this section not to have his work subjected to derogatory treatment.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “treatment” of a work means any addition to, deletion from or alteration to or adaptation of the work, other than—

(i) a translation of a literary or dramatic work, or

(ii) an arrangement or transcription of a musical work involving no more than a change of key or register; and

(b) the treatment of a work is derogatory if it amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director;

So, if the author considers a commercial is derogatory for their music like for example using the music to make publicity to a brodel or lets say even liquor and/or cigarrettes because it could damage their image, they have the right to challenge the use

schizoid_man77 wrote:

Theres no way I can compete with that statement Ivan!!!

I applaude you

Man, I'm a lawyer, despite i don't know UK or USA law, if I find the text, I'm able to analyze it,. so it's no merit or need to applaude.

Iván

BTW: Somebody asked about why was Lucky Man not used, but here in Perú, there was an advertising with "From the Beginning" it was a panty hose propaganda.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 28 2007 at 00:26

A B Negative View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 02 2006
Location: Methil Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 1594

Posted: September 28 2007 at 03:53

rileydog22 wrote:

Damn...why the hell did they make the record label then?

Vanity and money?

"The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time."

rushfan4

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66264

Posted: September 28 2007 at 06:50

Not necessarily a sellout moment, but I was at the Detroit Red Wings preseason game last night and when the opposing player from the Tampa Bay Lightning scored a goal they started playing "Oh what a lucky man he was...."

Garion81

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338

Posted: September 28 2007 at 15:53

Thanks for the clarification Ivan. I did not realize there was such a big gap between the copyright expiration in US vs UK. Explains the difference between Kansas situation and ELP.

SO then ELP are sellouts.

"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"

debrewguy

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596

Posted: September 28 2007 at 19:47

If I may add my two cents here - there are some cases where the artist is presented with an interesting choice - license your song to us for this ad, or we will just get someone to write a song that sounds close enough to give the impressionthat is one of your songs; but not similar enough to be sued for copyright infringement.
If memory serves me, the Sex Pistols were faced with such a choice.
So I don't judge the group negatively whether they do or don't license their music for advertising. I'm sure there are some associations that I would not support, extreme example - Wakeman's music used in white supremacist media (not that that is likely , I just pulled the two out of the air). In a case like that, I would dump any music I have from that artist.

"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: September 28 2007 at 22:41

debrewguy wrote:

If I may add my two cents here - there are some cases where the artist is presented with an interesting choice - license your song to us for this ad, or we will just get someone to write a song that sounds close enough to give the impressionthat is one of your songs; but not similar enough to be sued for copyright infringement.

That's impossible, ass little as one chord may be enough to sue somebody, even if iot's just a hi9nty that could lead to confussion,can cause a trioeal and a millionare settlement

When we talk about copyright in the audio domain, we're generally talking about musical compositions and sound recordings, although lyrics and sounds also raise interesting issues. The hot issue here is sampling; whether it's capturing a whole song, a riff, or even a single note, you can be assured of finding yourself in a gray area

http://www.benedict.com/Audio/Audio.aspx

At least today, it's almost impossible, not even requires a substantial portion of the song, if it sounds remotely similar, may be eniiugh, famous cases are The Chiffons vs George Harrison for My Sweet Lord compared with He's So Fine

In making its determination, the court looked at the structure of the two songs in question. He's So Fine consists of four repetitions of a short musical phrase - Motif A, followed by four repetitions of Motif B. The second use of the Motif B series includes a unique grace note, illustrated in Motif C.

My Sweet Lord has a very similar structure in that it consists of four repetitions of Motif A , followed by three repetitions of Motif B. Particularly telling, however, is that the fourth repetition of Motif B includes the grace note illustrated in Motif C. It is possible that this grace note is what pushed the court over the edge in determining infringement.

Harrison lost the trial, and this was in 1976.

In the case of Queen vs Eminem for Ice Ice Baby and Under Preasure, it was so evident that never reached the coutrts, it's "vox populi" that they settled for a huge amount of money.

At least in the Harrison case I find no similarity, ther judge ruled based on the structure of a short section that only appeared in the version in which Billy Preston jamms the grace note, he had to pay $260,103.

If memory serves me, the Sex Pistols were faced with such a choice.

That's blackmailing and it's a crime, they only required to attend the meeting with a recorder, a practice that any lawyer will recommend when treating this kind of issues.

So I don't judge the group negatively whether they do or don't license their music for advertising. I'm sure there are some associations that I would not support, extreme example - Wakeman's music used in white supremacist media (not that that is likely , I just pulled the two out of the air). In a case like that, I would dump any music I have from that artist.

I don't judge them, but neither believe in myths, if the music is in a commercial, most likely the author gave his blessing and received a lot of bucks.

Iván

andu

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089

Posted: September 29 2007 at 08:10

I remember reading somewhere that there's a maximum of four chords to legally "borrow" from others' songs to yours, but it could have been, probably, from something I read about Romanian law.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: September 29 2007 at 13:19

andu wrote:

I remember reading somewhere that there's a maximum of four chords to legally "borrow" from others' songs to yours, but it could have been, probably, from something I read about Romanian law.

That's an urban myth, because in that case you couldn't plagiarize Punk songs mostly consisting of 2 or 3 chords.

It's the criteria of the judge and/or jury, even one note in a determined place could indicate plagiarism.

Iván

andu

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089

Posted: September 29 2007 at 19:11

Hmm, I'm not sure what a "chord" actually means, I'm totally immune to musical theory. It could have been about a series of four consecutive notes... I'm not sure, I'll have to try to remember where I read that, and find it.

rileydog22 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844

Posted: September 29 2007 at 19:13

A "chord" is defined as being multiple notes played simultaneously.