If this is true... talk about bad timing...

CLARE TORRY TO SUE PINK FLOYD?

Brain Damage reports:

Brain Damage:

A rather strange report has appeared in today's UK Daily Express
newspaper. They report that vocalist Clare Torry is taking Pink Floyd and
its record company EMI, to court, suing them for damages and lost
earnings.


Clare Torry, vocalist on Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon, 1973

Torry provided the improvised vocal on The Great Gig In The Sky, and
was paid the standard fee of £30 for her work on January 23rd 1973.
However, some thirty-one years later she is now claiming that she
composed the song, and has asked the High Court for monies she believes
are due to her, a half-share of copyright ownership and a 50 per cent
share, possibly worth millions, of past and future income.

Torry says they (the band and EMI) have breached her copyright and is
asking for damages and for "all illicit copies of the song to be destroyed".
This could result in the album being withdrawn from sale temporarily.

EMI declined to comment on the matter. If the story is correct, it is rather
strange that she has waited until now to pursue the matter. The album
has, since release, been a high seller, and one of the most well-known
releases of all time. She has also previously been on very good terms with
the band, including an appearance at both nights of Roger Waters' 1987
Wembley shows as part of his encore.

-------------
THIS IS ELP

If this is true, it's sad. As a session bassist I have often been called told "here's the chords, write yer own part." It's part of the job.

Clare did her bit in one take, and promptly apologized to the band for her effort, which she didn't think was what they were after. It was, of course, exactly what they were after, but that doesn't mean they owe her royalties.

"If the story is correct, it is rather strange that she has waited until now to pursue the matter."

You can say that again!

She must have fallen on hard times.The 'suing culture' so prevailent in America is becoming more obvious in the UK with a number of high profile cases getting publicity.£30 seems a paltry sum to be paid though for making such a significant contribution.However the fame she got from just appearing must have helped her career I would think.If any common sense is to prevail then this will be thrown out of court.

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!

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.

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 - 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."

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.

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 !)

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.

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...

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!

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...

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 - http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=15892

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 - http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Neil_Young  - tho' that Fogerty case looks familiar - maybe I got them mixed up...

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

I thought she was black!

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:

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

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'.

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!.  

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?

Rock God said:

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