Procol Harum Court Case
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31127
Printed Date: February 17 2025 at 18:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Procol Harum Court Case
Posted By: dabaynton
Subject: Procol Harum Court Case
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 16:03
Court hit for Procol Harum frontmanhttp://uk.rd.yahoo.com/pa/SIG=113i5evue/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pa.press.net%2F"> Wednesday November 15, 06:26 PM
His replies brought not only laughter from the court and barrister cross-examining him, but also from the 61-year-old judge who shares the same age as the pop singer. Brooker, whose 1967 hit A Whiter Shade Of Pale sold 10 million copies, is being sued by Matthew Fisher, the organist who claims he composed the organ solo and counterpoint melody on the record and deserves a share of the royalties. Brooker was asked to remember the date of a joint interview with Fisher, who had been invited to play with Procol Harum on several occasions since quitting the band in 1969. The singer said he was not sure, but that it must have been in the last five years. Mr Justice Blackburne referred Brooker to a photograph accompanying the article. "You have grey hair in the photograph," remarked the judge. "I have had grey hair since 1977," said the singer. Under cross-examination from Iain Purvis QC, representing Fisher, Brooker was asked about mobile phone ringtones which were now producing big royalties for him and the lyricist Keith Reid, another member of the original group. Mr Purvis said that 65% of the ringtone sites on the internet offering A Whiter Shade Of Pale only provided the opening organ introduction to the hit. Asked whether he thought it fair that Fisher was receiving no income although the ringtone was just the organ he claims to have composed, Brooker replied: "No I don't. I think they should be offering more than that." Brooker said he had never heard Fisher complain he was unhappy that he had not been credited as co-author until the writ was issued last year.
....personally I think this is 38 years too late. There has been plently of time for Fisher to air his grievances. Also, he may not even have a case, as the song was based on an extremely popular classical work. What do you think? ------------- Shines On Brightly, Quite Insane....... |
Replies:
Posted By: Asyte2c00
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 17:11
| Interesting |
Posted By: moodyxadi
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 17:31
|
"resolve it quckly and amicably". If didn't work, "Yes". The organ line is the mark of the song, and doesn't matter if Bach's "Air on G string" is THE real music behind it, because it's not exactly the same to point a plagiarism. ------------- Bach, Ma, Bros, Déia, Dante. |
Posted By: yarstruly
Date Posted: November 16 2006 at 11:16
|
Hell...they both stole it from BACH! ------------- Facebook hashtags: #100greatestprogrockchallenge #scottssongbysong #scottsspotlight |
Posted By: dabaynton
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 06:58
|
Article in The Observer 21/11/06 reads;
The musician who played the famous organ introduction to the 1967 hit song A Whiter Shade of Pale was not entitled to a share of the royalties because he failed to stake any claim at the time, a court heard yesterday. A "killer point" against him was that he had failed to raise the matter for nearly 40 years, the court was told, and had given the impression that he accepted the arrangement. Matthew Fisher, the organist with Procol Harum from 1965 to 1967 [sic] , claims that he is entitled to a share of the writing credits with the band's singer, Gary Brooker, and lyricist Keith Reid. They argue that he has no such entitlement. "He may have grumbled about it in various newspaper interviews," said Andrew Sutcliffe QC, for Mr Brooker, at yesterday's high court hearing, "but he never raised the matter fairly and squarely." Mr Sutcliffe also argued that the song had been written by Mr Brooker and Mr Reid when Mr Fisher joined the band. Mr Fisher had only told Mr Brooker he was unhappy about not being credited in 2003, just before they were due to tour in Japan. The case was adjourned until Friday. Seems to agree with the poll so far.... ------------- Shines On Brightly, Quite Insane....... |
Posted By: Intruder
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 03:21
|
Sorry to hear they're bickering again....so much for that big reunion tour. ------------- I like to feel the suspense when you're certain you know I am there..... |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 03:26
|
Hey! I have that ringtone! ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: December 14 2006 at 06:37
| Without knowing who has the reason, I would like them to resolve this issue amicably and record another good album like Well's on Fire or even better. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 22 2006 at 01:38
There's something called prescription, if somebody doesn't claim his right in 12 years (Almost sure that's the term in UK), he looses the right (According to US law it's10 years:
In the same way the person that uses a right publicly as an owner in the same term acquires the property.
That's why Mrs Thatcher threw out the supposedly Celt Cult followers of the summer Solstice Festival (For most people it was really an excuse to get stoned and drunk
 ) who had been gathering for 11 years around Stonehedge, if she would had waited one year more, the State right to prohibit this celebrations would have expired.Something similar happened with Claire Torry who claimed the authorship of the Great Gig in the Sky because she was told to improvise. Beside's she had accepted a payment, her right had already expired after 20 years.
Even if the guy wrote the keyboard intro, his right doesn't exist anymore.
Iván
EDIT: Yes, in England is 12 years:
In this case, Procol Harum has publicly registered and used the somg for almost 4 decades, the supposed owner has failled to act in more than a reasonablie lapse of time. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Joolz
Date Posted: December 22 2006 at 06:29
|
THE JUDGEMENT .... http://www.procolharum.com/awsop_lawsuit-061220_judgment1.htm - http://www.procolharum.com/awsop_lawsuit-061220_judgment1.htm How the BBC reports it .... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6196413.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6196413.stm Seems Fisher is vindicated, though the lawyers are the main winners!!! |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 22 2006 at 12:20
|
Very interesting rulling, IMO Fisher is not entitled to past royalties due to prescription and the Judge has accepted this:
It's interesting that the only way to stop prescripsion is tha the defendant admits he recognizes the right of the legitimate owner, but seems Mr.Brooker and the label are well defended because they have not accepted Mt. Fisher's claims:
At the end it's a pirric victotory because Mr. Fisher won't receive a dime from past royalties but will be entitled to future rights.
His declaration to the press has been clear enough to know how little value has this victory:
Mostly this rulling allows him to perform the song in public and a payment of ryalties for eaxch new contract, that the band will be very careful to sigm probably as a renewal of a past contract or maybe will ficticiously sell the rights as if part of the whole album. so his share will be ridiculous.
Now after looking at Mr. Fisher's rights, lets look at the impact of this rulling that surely has not pleased the Recod Labels...Why?:
The allmighty santity of Copyright registers has bev¿came weaker because despite the song is registered to Garry Brooker and Onward music, this records will change includoing Mr. Fisher instead of Onward Music, considering Brooker and Fisher as the only rightful owners.
But lets remember this case is different to the usual because apparently Procol Harum used pieces of a song by Matthew Fisher.
I'm sure this rulling will be part of the curriculum of Law Universities in many countries because it's very interesting, because the keyboard intro is not even a Fisher work, but a recreation of Bach (Who is public for anybody to use).
I still believe the statute of limitation in time should had been applied, but lets leave this to UK legal experts, probably Brooker's Lawyer will appeal the veredict.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: December 22 2006 at 23:35
|
This lawsuit would have been almost justified 39 years ago, had the organ part been composed rather than stolen from Bach. I don't think that taking something from the public domain and slapping it onto a record really justifies him getting any royalties anyway.
-------------   |
Posted By: Joolz
Date Posted: December 23 2006 at 06:38
| I am no legal expert, but it looks to me like opening a can of worms - if a judge can reach this conclusion nearly 40 years after the event, on a piece of music based on someone else's work [Bach's], then surely it opens the door for all sort of nonsense? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 23 2006 at 10:31
Despite you're not a legal expert you understood better than most advanced students why property should be kept in the hands of the posessor instead of the person who bought or created it originaly using the Acquisitive Prescription.
The legaly most trascendental reason for prescription is that if the owner has done no effort in being credited legally in a 5, 10 or 20 years lapse despite the property or creator and the right has used publicly as ownre by a third person (Hey, there's nothing more public than releasing an album and writting the credits in 10'000,000 of copies), he has no real interest in it, so the property should be granted to the person that has showed interest.
But a practical interpretation like yours is very valuable in a trial, after certain time, the evidence of authorship is lost or at least corrupted in the case of copyright, so it's hard to prove who was the original creator (Probably they were so high that it was product of jamming
 or a joint product of the band), if the piece is a copy or arrangement of another author, the evidence is even weaker.Good deduction.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: December 25 2006 at 02:53
it's also a matter of legal security.. how could I pay a 40-year royalty debt to a person who has not shown interest in claiming his "property" (the presumed authorship) earlier (indeed he's not the author and the piece was itself made by another author)... I would be a debtor for life the moment the guy suddently wakes up and think "um.. oh right, I think I'll go now and sue those b*****ds for living through my royalties" (or at least what's left of it  )... I know at least that there's a lapse to claim the right, so that the legal owner who had no interest in the property before doesn't suddenly ruin the rest of your life over something that was his fault in the first place (neglect his property)... what makes it worse is the fact that the piece he wrote wasn't even his in the first place, which of course means that the trial undoubtly should rule in favor of the defendants------------- Jesus Gabriel |