Copyright and Royalties explained somewhere?

Started by Ephestion, October 06, 2014, 07:40:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

chrish

#25
I was reading ambient artist Robert Rich's web site. There was this russian guy interviewing him and telling him to come over for a tour because he has many, many fans there. His music sells well in russia, only thing is, he recieves zero income from those sales because all his music is bootlegged over there. I'm guessing he's not the only one getting bootlegged there, maybe those bmi/ascap cats could have a meeting with Putan.



admin

#28
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/business/media/whats-in-a-name-just-ask-frank-zappas-feuding-heirs.html?%3Cbr%20/%3E[b

What's in a Name? Just Ask Frank Zappa's Feuding Heirs[/b]

For a decade, Dweezil Zappa, a son of the rock star Frank Zappa and a noted guitarist in his own right, has been paying tribute to his father's music under the name Zappa Plays Zappa. The project, which features exacting performances of Frank Zappa's famously complex music, has toured the world and won a Grammy.
http://www.dweezilzappaworld.com/pages/zpz-section
But when Dweezil Zappa takes the project on the road this summer, it will be with a far less catchy name: Dweezil Zappa Plays Frank Zappa.

"It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue," he said in an interview, "but this is being done under duress."

The name change is the most visible sign of a rift that has grown within one of the rock world's most famous families since the death last year of Gail Zappa, the widow of Frank Zappa, who had managed her husband's musical legacy with a firm hand since his death in 1993.

This month, the Zappa Family Trust, which

This month, the Zappa Family Trust, which owns the rights to Mr. Zappa's music, informed Dweezil that he did not have permission to tour as Zappa Plays Zappa — the name is a trademark owned by the trust — and that he risked copyright infringement damages of $150,000 each time he played a song without proper permission.

"My last name is Zappa; my father was Frank Zappa," Dweezil said. "But I am not allowed to use the name on its own. I'm not allowed to use a picture of him. I'm not allowed to use my own connection with him without some sort of deal to be struck."

Business disputes are familiar territory among celebrity siblings, and members of groups like the Doors and Creedence Clearwater Revival have also fought over the use of a valuable band name. As the 1960s rock generation ages, these types of disputes may become more common, music lawyers say.

After Gail Zappa's death, control of the trust passed to two of the four Zappa children: Ahmet, a son, who controls the day-to-day operations of the business, and Diva, a daughter. Dweezil and his sister Moon are not trustees, but all four children are beneficiaries, and tensions have flared between the two sides over the Zappa Plays Zappa tours and a recent Kickstarter campaign for a documentary film.

Dweezil and Ahmet, who were once so close that they recorded two albums together and made regular appearances on late-night TV, now seem to communicate primarily through lawyers, with disputes over trademarks and music licensing.

In addition to changing the name of his tribute project, Dweezil Zappa said that he would not carry any of the trust's official merchandise or use any images of his father — whose likeness is also controlled by the trust — in promoting the tour. He will, however, play the same songs from his father's catalog that he always has.

In an interview, Ahmet Zappa said he was not feuding with his brother but rather maintaining the integrity of the estate and preserving Zappa Plays Zappa as a family enterprise, available to any of the four children.

"I am not standing in the way of Dweezil playing the music," Ahmet said. "He would just have to be in accordance with the family trust."

Dweezil Zappa said that changing the name of his tour would "emancipate" him from dealing with the family trust. His complaints in some ways resemble those of a disgruntled artist warring with a record company: lack of communication, inexplicable delays, disagreements over payments from merchandise sales. The dispute also spills over into the division of estate property, like a set of guitars that Dweezil said were given to him by his father but, he says, were "repossessed" by his mother.

But the most contentious part of the dispute is over the minutiae of music licensing, an area in which the Zappa estate has long taken controversial stances. The family trust argues that for a show consisting largely of Frank Zappa's music, performers cannot rely on the standard performing-rights licenses that music venues typically get from agencies like Ascap or BMI, but instead need special permission from the estate for "grand rights," a term that usually applies to theatrical presentations.

Gail Zappa and Ascap pursued a number of bands under this theory, with mixed success. Project/Object, a well-known Zappa tribute group, had some of its shows canceled by clubs that had received legal letters, but André Cholmondeley, a member of the band, said that the group was advised by a lawyer that it did not need a special license, and so has never gotten one. "We simply adhered to U.S.A. law," Mr. Cholmondeley said in an email.

What makes a piece of music dramatic is not clearly stated in copyright law, but Conrad M. Rippy, a lawyer who has worked in both theater and music, said that it generally needed to meet several criteria.
"Is it performed in a place where you generally would perform a theatrical work? Are people wearing costumes? Does it advance a narrative story line?" Mr. Rippy said. "The closer you get to answer those questions 'Yes,' the more it looks like that's a grand right. A tribute band playing a Frank Zappa song in a club meets none of those tests."

Dweezil Zappa said that while his mother charged him an "exorbitant fee" to use the name Zappa Plays Zappa, he has never paid for a grand rights license.

For the Zappas, the dispute seems to have divided a once-tight-knit family, whose children were very much a part of their father's musical career. Moon, the eldest child, sang as a teenager on Frank Zappa's only Top 40 single, "Valley Girl," in 1982.

Ahmet said he was perplexed by the claims by his brother, whom he praised as a supremely talented guitarist and "the funniest dude." He added: "Maybe he's grieving. For all of us it's been superemotional." (Dweezil's answer: "There is obvious deceit in my brother's response. His actions speak louder than words.")

The Dweezil Zappa Plays Frank Zappa tour will begin in July, with what Dweezil said would be a crew of "highly skilled musicians" performing his father's music faithfully.

Dweezil said he was eager to be free of the demands of the estate, but he was concerned that the name change might confuse fans or erode the good will he has built up with his audience over a decade of Zappa Plays Zappa shows.

"I just hope people will understand," he said, "that the only thing I'm changing is the name."

Elantric

#29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acuff-Rose_Music

Acuff-Rose Music was an American music publishing firm formed in 1942 by Roy Acuff and Fred Rose in Nashville, Tennessee. Acuff-Rose's honest behavior towards their writers set them apart from other music publishing firms at the time and led them to fame throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Currently the company's catalog is owned by Sony/ATV Music Publishing.
Early history
Acuff-Rose was formed by country music performer Roy Acuff and Fred Rose, a major Nashville music-industry figure who had a respected ability as a talent scout. Many country performers had been badly cheated in the past with regard to copyright and other rights to their creations. Many were unsophisticated and naive and were taken advantage of by unscrupulous agents, attorneys, record promoters, record labels and others. When they started their publishing company, a condition to the gentleman's agreement between Acuff and Rose was that "our company would be honest. The writers would always be taken care of. No one would act in a shady way."[1] Acuff-Rose was affiliated with BMI and had a subsidiary firm, Milene Music, which handled music from ASCAP member composers.
Acuff-Rose had its headquarters on 8th Avenue South in the Melrose district of Nashville and was something of a landmark to those knowledgeable of the music industry. It was here that Hank Williams, to prove his ability to Rose, wrote what would become a major hit song ("I Can't Help It If I'm Still in Love with You") while Rose went out to a nearby restaurant for a cup of coffee.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Everly_Brothers
After three years on Cadence, the Everlys signed with Warner Bros. Records in 1960,[1] for 10 years. Their first hit for Warner Brothers, 1960's "Cathy's Clown" (written by Don and Phil), sold eight million, the duo's biggest-selling record. "Cathy's Clown" was number WB1, the first in the United Kingdom by Warner Bros. Records.
We're not Grand Ole Opry ... we're obviously not Perry Como ... we're just pop music. But, you could call us an American skiffle group!
— NME – November 1960[16]
Other successful Warner Brothers singles followed in the United States, such as "So Sad (To Watch Good Love Go Bad)" (1960, Pop No. 7), "Walk Right Back" (1961, Pop No. 7), "Crying in the Rain" (1962, Pop No. 6), and "That's Old Fashioned" (1962, Pop No. 9, their last Top 10 hit). From 1960 to 1962, Cadence Records released Everly Brothers singles from the vaults, including "When Will I Be Loved" (written by Phil, Pop No. 8 ) and "Like Strangers".
In the UK, they had Top 10 hits until 1965, including "Lucille"/"So Sad" (1960, No. 4), "Walk Right Back"/"Ebony Eyes" (1961, No. 1), "Temptation" (1961, No. 1), "Cryin' in the Rain" (1962, No. 6) and "The Price of Love" (1965, No. 2). They had 18 singles into the UK Top 40 with Warner Brothers in the 1960s. By 1962, the brothers had earned $35 million from record sales.

In 1961, the brothers fell out with Wesley Rose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acuff-Rose_Music
during the recording of "Temptation". Rose was reportedly upset that the Everlys were recording a song which he didn't publish (and for which he wouldn't receive publishing royalties) and made strenuous efforts to block the single's release. The Everlys held firm to their position, and as a result, in the early 1960s, the Everlys were shut off from Acuff-Rose songwriters. These included Felice and Boudleaux Bryant, who had written most of their hits, as well as Don and Phil Everly themselves, who were still contracted to Acuff-Rose as songwriters and had written several of their own hits. Nevertheless, from 1961 through early 1964, the Everlys recorded songs by other writers to avoid paying royalties to Acuff-Rose. They used the pseudonym "Jimmy Howard" as writer and/or arranger on two tracks—unsuccessfully, however, as Acuff-Rose assumed the copyrights once the ruse was discovered.
Around this time, they set up their own record label, Calliope Records, for solo projects. Using the pseudonym "Adrian Kimberly," Don recorded a big-band instrumental version of "Pomp and Circumstance", arranged by Neal Hefti, which charted in the United States top 40 in mid-1961. Further instrumental singles credited to Kimberly followed, but none charted. Phil formed the Keestone Family Singers, which featured Glen Campbell and Carole King. Their lone single, "Melodrama," failed to chart, and by the end of 1962 Calliope Records was no more.

Elantric

#30
as reported earlier

https://www.vguitarforums.com/smf/index.php?topic=6125.msg127644#msg127644
-There are many other tunes that share Stairway to Heaven chord structure

Today in a Los Angeles courtroom,  the final verdict came  and Led Zeppelin prevailed
https://www.yahoo.com/music/led-zeppelin-prevail-stairway-heaven-lawsuit-172700158-rolling-stone.html
I think justice is served.
But I got tired of the past month all Ive heard from friends, is:

Quote"Did you hear that Led Zeppelin must pay Randy California's estate millions for stealing the the opening chords from the 1968  Spirit song "Taurus" for Stairway to Heaven ?" 

. . . like this was already the final outcome of the copyright trial.     

IMHO - This shows how poorly the news coverage was / is  , and how poorly the public's comprehension of this case is.



chrish

The opening sounds simular but changes after the fifth chord. The stairway ending 3 chords is hendrix sounding or is the hendrix (all along the watchtower, i think) tune sounding like led zep, or is just the same three chord structure found in many rock tunes?
At any rate, according to the news, one of the requirments of the law is that it has to be shown that the copied song had to been heard by the person said to have copied the song.  Page said he never heard that song even though both groups worked together.
Also, the law suit could only be filed because that old stairway song was re-released and the limitation statute reset timewise. Again,only know what was reported on the news.

Rhcole

I am reminded of George Harrison's lawsuit for "My Sweet Lord" to "He's So Fine" by the Chiffons. I couldn't believe he lost because the chords and melody are similar to about a million gospel and traditional songs.

It's like somebody suing over the chords to "Louie Louie".


Elantric

QuoteIt's like somebody suing over the chords to "Louie Louie".

Louie Louie had its share of legal battles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louie_Louie

By the time the Kingsmen version had achieved national popularity, the band had split. Two rival editions—one featuring lead singer Jack Ely, the other with Lynn Easton who held the rights to the band's name—were competing for live audiences across the country. A settlement was reached later in 1964 giving Easton the right to the Kingsmen name but requiring all future pressings of the original version of "Louie Louie" to display "Lead vocal by Jack Ely" on the label.
On November 9, 1998, after a protracted lawsuit that lasted five years and cost $1.3 million, the Kingsmen were awarded ownership of all their recordings released on Wand Records from Gusto Records, including "Louie Louie". They had not been paid royalties on the songs since the 1960s.[29]
When Jack Ely died on April 28, 2015 his son reported that "... my father would say, 'We were initially just going to record the song as an instrumental, and at the last minute I decided I'd sing it.'" When it came time to do that, however, Ely discovered the sound engineer had raised the studio's only microphone several feet above his head. Then he placed Ely in the middle of his fellow musicians, all in an effort to create a better "live feel" for the recording. The result, Ely would say over the years, was that he had to stand on his toes, lean his head back and shout as loudly as he could just to be heard over the drums and guitars.[30]

Paul Revere & the Raiders also recorded a version of "Louie Louie", probably on April 13, 1963, in the same Portland studio as the Kingsmen.[31][32] The recording was paid for and produced by KISN radio personality Roger Hart, who soon became personal manager for the band. Released on Hart's Sandē label, their version was more successful locally. Columbia Records issued the single nationally in June 1963 and it went to #1 in the West and Hawaii. The quick success of "Louie Louie" suddenly halted, however, and a few years later Paul Revere & the Raiders learned why: Columbia A&R man Mitch Miller, who did not like rock n' roll, had pulled the plug on their version.
Robert Lindahl, president and chief engineer of NWI and sound engineer on both the Kingsmen and Raiders recordings,[33] noted that the Raiders version was not known for "garbled lyrics" or an amateurish recording technique. But despite these attributes, the single never seized the public's attention the way the less-polished Kingsmen version did.

Rhcole

Man,

How do you KNOW all of this stuff Elantric?? It's like you can comment on EVERY POST on this site.
If I hadn't spoken with you personally, I'd suspect that you are actually some kind of cloud-based cyber experiment being tested in secret by a foreign agency.
'Course, we never met in person...  8)

gumbo

Quote from: Rhcole on August 03, 2016, 05:10:06 PM
Man,

How do you KNOW all of this stuff Elantric?? It's like you can comment on EVERY POST on this site.
If I hadn't spoken with you personally, I'd suspect that you are actually some kind of cloud-based cyber experiment being tested in secret by a foreign agency.
'Course, we never met in person...  8)

...but according to a recent picture he released, he HAS got great knees... ::)
Read slower!!!   ....I'm typing as fast as I can...

admin

#36
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/business/media/how-a-justice-department-ruling-could-affect-your-favorite-musician.html

How a Justice Department Ruling Could Affect Your Favorite Musician

Taylor Swift performing at the Grammy Awards in February. The Justice Department said Thursday that it would not make changes to the regulatory agreements that govern the two large clearinghouses for performing rights that process royalty payments for the music industry.
MATT SAYLES / INVISION, VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS
By BEN SISARIO
AUGUST 4, 2016
The Justice Department announced on Thursday that it had concluded a two-year investigation into the complex world of music licensing and decided against making changes to the regulatory agreements that govern Ascap and BMI, two large clearinghouses for performing rights that process about $2 billion in royalty payments each year.

BMI quickly said it would challenge the decision in federal court, and Ascap said it would "explore legislative solutions" to the problems of music licensing in the digital age.

Let's take a look at what happened and what it means.

What are Ascap and BMI?

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (Ascap) and Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI), known as performing rights organizations, collect money for songwriters and music publishers whenever their songs are publicly performed, whether on the radio, on television, in retail stores, bars, restaurants or on streaming services.

Why is the government involved?

Since Ascap and BMI are collectives that sell music rights at set prices, they have long been under antitrust scrutiny, and since 1941 they have been bound by regulatory agreements called consent decrees. Two years ago, both organizations asked the Justice Department to change these agreements, saying they needed to be updated to secure fair royalty rates in the digital era.

What's the decision?

The Justice Department said it had decided not to make any changes to the consent decrees. But it added a requirement, saying that for Ascap and BMI to comply with the existing regulations, they must offer "100 percent licensing" of their songs.

Many songs have multiple writers, and those writers don't always belong to the same rights society. According to the government's proposal, if a song has, say, three writers — one affiliated with Ascap, one with BMI and the other with one of the smaller, unregulated groups like Sesac
https://www.sesac.com/

or Global Music Rights
http://globalmusicrights.com/

— then for Ascap or BMI to offer that song to radio stations and digital services, it would need to have legal clearance to represent the song and be responsible for getting the writers their share of the royalties.

What's the problem?

Music industry groups say the proposed requirement would break with decades of practice, causing turmoil and possibly even violating private contracts. They argue that the performing rights organizations have long represented only the fractions of songs that they control, and that for a radio station or digital service to be properly licensed, it must have deals in place with the various groups representing any portion of a song.

In a filing with the Justice Department, Ascap said the government's proposed rule could also cast doubt on whether it would actually be able to license as many as 370,000 of the more than 10 million songs in its catalog, which would cause headaches for any music outlets that wanted to play them. And musicians — like Max Martin, who has written blockbuster hits for the likes of Taylor Swift and Britney Spears — say it could interfere with their creative process, causing complications when they collaborate with a writer who is a member of a different rights organization.

Broadcasters and tech groups dispute this. In their view, offering entire works is the only way to have a fair marketplace and prevent the monopoly power that consent decrees were put in place to block.

What about the money?

Some executives and analysts in the music industry said the government's proposed changes would drive down the amount of money artists received because it would give an incentive to groups like broadcasters and streaming services to shop for the lowest royalty rates. Advocates for technology companies say that by helping keep costs down, this will lead to more consumer choice.

Others say it is too soon to know how the ruling could affect things. Justice Department officials said they expect Ascap and BMI to compete to retain members, which should prevent rates from dropping.

One area in which the effect of the new ruling is unclear is unregulated competitors like Global Music Rights, started three years ago by the music executive Irving Azoff. It represents top writers like Pharrell Williams, Bruno Mars and members of the Eagles. On one hand, carrying out the "100 percent licensing" rule would seemingly undermine that company's leverage to demand higher rates for any songs that were co-written with a member of Ascap or BMI. But music executives also say that the model of Global Music Rights and Sesac may now become more attractive for top writers who are unhappy with the new rules for Ascap and BMI.

What happens now?

The Justice Department is giving the music industry a year to comply with its new requirements. It is unclear how this would happen, but industry executives say it could include the creation of new databases to share data that previously was proprietary.

Mike O'Neill, the chief executive of BMI, said in a statement announcing the group's legal challenge that the government's decision "serves no one, not the marketplace, the music publishers, the music users and most importantly, not our songwriters and composers who now have the government weighing in on their creative and financial decisions."

But the challenge may be difficult because the judges who monitor Ascap and BMI have made tough rulings in recent years. Another possibility is that major publishers like Universal and Sony/ATV could withdraw completely from Ascap and BMI, moves that would severely weaken those groups and add yet more uncertainty in the world of music licensing. For the music companies and the outlets that need music, that is an outcome they would prefer to avoid.


StellaHarmony

In the US, royalties and copyright pertain to performances.  If you do cover songs and distribute them, it is no different than playing them in a venue:  the royalty fees that go to the copyright owner are the responsibility of the performance venue. You can hand out all the music you want.  You can play all you want.  When a famous singer does a song in concert that someone else wrote, it is that someone else who gets the royalty check.  A few years back, BMI created an app where you can perform your own copy written music in a bar, and log the performance on a phone and allot yourself a payment based upon said bar's yearly licensing fee.

Copyright is independent of music sales.  If you are selling recorded cover tunes, then BMI,et. al don't have a dog in that race.  If your CD gets played (performance) in a bar or on radio, then there is a copyright payment to be made.  This is how Whitney Houston made Dolly Parton a boatload of cash on "I will always love you," Tina Turner did it for Fogarty on "Proud Mary," Manfred Mann for Springsteen, etc.  Every time those songs hit the airwaves, it is the writer (copyright holder) who gets paid, not the performer.

Living in Nashville, I know songwriters, who are house painters, mechanics, professional musicians, all just trying to make a living.  They have a few songs that make a few bucks but it is not enough to live on.  There are many more small money writers, the big money writers.  These folks are everywhere in jeans and t-shirts and you would never know them, by face or name, but you know the song(s).  Everyone wants to bash copyright laws and the enforcement, but for these folks, copyright is all they have.  If bars don't make any money from copy written music, then why do they play it?  If you are a writer and you are not getting paid for your copyright use in your own or other public performances, it is your own fault.


Majiken

Quote from: StellaHarmony on April 08, 2017, 10:48:12 PM
In the US, royalties and copyright pertain to performances.  If you do cover songs and distribute them, it is no different than playing them in a venue:  the royalty fees that go to the copyright owner are the responsibility of the performance venue. You can hand out all the music you want.  You can play all you want.  When a famous singer does a song in concert that someone else wrote, it is that someone else who gets the royalty check.  A few years back, BMI created an app where you can perform your own copy written music in a bar, and log the performance on a phone and allot yourself a payment based upon said bar's yearly licensing fee.

Copyright is independent of music sales.  If you are selling recorded cover tunes, then BMI,et. al don't have a dog in that race.  If your CD gets played (performance) in a bar or on radio, then there is a copyright payment to be made.  This is how Whitney Houston made Dolly Parton a boatload of cash on "I will always love you," Tina Turner did it for Fogarty on "Proud Mary," Manfred Mann for Springsteen, etc.  Every time those songs hit the airwaves, it is the writer (copyright holder) who gets paid, not the performer.

Living in Nashville, I know songwriters, who are house painters, mechanics, professional musicians, all just trying to make a living.  They have a few songs that make a few bucks but it is not enough to live on.  There are many more small money writers, the big money writers.  These folks are everywhere in jeans and t-shirts and you would never know them, by face or name, but you know the song(s).  Everyone wants to bash copyright laws and the enforcement, but for these folks, copyright is all they have.  If bars don't make any money from copy written music, then why do they play it?  If you are a writer and you are not getting paid for your copyright use in your own or other public performances, it is your own fault.

Amen!!!
Take what you need, put back a bit more, leave the place behind you better than it was before :-)

www.majiken.rocks

Majiken

Quote from: StellaHarmony on April 08, 2017, 10:48:12 PM
In the US, royalties and copyright pertain to performances.  If you do cover songs and distribute them, it is no different than playing them in a venue:  the royalty fees that go to the copyright owner are the responsibility of the performance venue. You can hand out all the music you want.  You can play all you want.  When a famous singer does a song in concert that someone else wrote, it is that someone else who gets the royalty check.  A few years back, BMI created an app where you can perform your own copy written music in a bar, and log the performance on a phone and allot yourself a payment based upon said bar's yearly licensing fee.

Copyright is independent of music sales.  If you are selling recorded cover tunes, then BMI,et. al don't have a dog in that race.  If your CD gets played (performance) in a bar or on radio, then there is a copyright payment to be made.  This is how Whitney Houston made Dolly Parton a boatload of cash on "I will always love you," Tina Turner did it for Fogarty on "Proud Mary," Manfred Mann for Springsteen, etc.  Every time those songs hit the airwaves, it is the writer (copyright holder) who gets paid, not the performer.

Living in Nashville, I know songwriters, who are house painters, mechanics, professional musicians, all just trying to make a living.  They have a few songs that make a few bucks but it is not enough to live on.  There are many more small money writers, the big money writers.  These folks are everywhere in jeans and t-shirts and you would never know them, by face or name, but you know the song(s).  Everyone wants to bash copyright laws and the enforcement, but for these folks, copyright is all they have.  If bars don't make any money from copy written music, then why do they play it?  If you are a writer and you are not getting paid for your copyright use in your own or other public performances, it is your own fault.

Amen!!!
Take what you need, put back a bit more, leave the place behind you better than it was before :-)

www.majiken.rocks

admin

#41

Source: Tap Production/Rex/Shutterstock
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-20/this-is-spinal-tap-s-400-million-lawsuit

This Lawsuit Goes to 11
The creators of This is Spinal Tap, the most influential mockumentary ever made, have been paid almost nothing. The rock gods are angry.
by Robert Kolker
April 20, 2017, 2:00 AM PDT
From   Subscribe  Reprints
In comedy, as in rock 'n' roll, nothing is quite as easy as it looks. And so it makes sense that several years before the 1984 release of the legendary rock 'n' roll mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap, director Rob Reiner and stars and co-writers Michael McKean, Christopher Guest, and Harry Shearer first had to make a shorter version of the same movie: a sort of sample-size Spinal Tap, meant to whet the appetite of studios that might bankroll the real thing. Titled The Final Tour, this 20-minute demo reel about a past-its-prime, unselfconsciously ridiculous band makes for an uncanny viewing experience today, if for no other reason than how fully conceived the idea already was. It's on YouTube if you're curious.

There's Reiner as the band's earnest interlocutor, Tony Hendra of National Lampoon as the hapless manager, and Bruno Kirby as the cranky limo driver with a thing for Sinatra. There's the drummer who dies in a bizarre gardening accident—and the other drummer who spontaneously combusts. There's Shearer's airport metal-detector scene, where the problem is in his pants. There's the touching piano number with the surprisingly bawdy title that can't be printed here. And there are most of the memorable songs: Big Bottom, Sex Farm, Gimme Some Money, Tonight I'm Gonna Rock You Tonight, and, of course, Stonehenge, fully staged, complete with that catastrophically tiny prop (they'd expected 18 feet and got 18 inches) and two costumed little people dancing around it.


"I was amazed when I last looked at it," says Shearer, who plays Derek Smalls, the band's bare-chested, mutton-chopped, pipe-smoking bassist. "We had this little pittance"—a $60,000 screenplay fee from a company that eventually rejected the idea—"to shoot characters and performances." He remembers his long black wig costing about $5, and that it took an hour and a half to remove once the shoot was over (the costumer had used super glue). Shearer, Reiner (who plays Marty DiBergi, the fake documentarian), Guest (as lead guitarist Nigel Tufnel), and McKean (as vocalist David St. Hubbins) had been nursing and developing the idea since 1978. They first performed as the band in a 1979 variety show called The T.V. Show. Then they wrote seven new songs, played a few gigs in costume in Los Angeles, and worked out a complete band history to ensure that their improvisations had a narrative spine they all could rely on. "Michael McKean, I believe, still has the napkin on which the possible names and the possible misspellings were outlined," Shearer recalls, "because I think at one point we thought maybe S-p-y-n-a-l?"

Armed in 1980 with that demo reel, Reiner and the others were rejected by every studio they pitched. Finally, in 1982, they got $2 million from Embassy Pictures Corp., a tiny studio run by Norman Lear, whom Reiner knew well from his days in the cast of All in the Family. (Lesson No. 1 in Hollywood: It helps to have powerful friends.) By the time the movie came out, Lear had left Embassy, which was on the verge of bankruptcy. Despite an appearance by the band as musical guest on Saturday Night Live, the movie performed anemically in theaters and faded quickly.

But then a funny thing happened: Tap refused to die, thanks in no small part to repeat viewings on VHS. "We may have been the first nonporn home video to do well," Shearer says. In just a few years, This Is Spinal Tap became a sort of comedy-nerd Casablanca, a classic so infinitely quotable that it practically generated its own language. (If anyone has ever told you that something "goes to 11," you probably haven't required an explanation.) And like a low-IQ, longhaired Pinocchio, Spinal Tap transformed into the real thing, recording albums and even touring. "The thing that we joke about is called the Spinal Tap curse," Shearer says, "where we have to go through everything that we've made fun of."

It's hard to think of another movie from the past 50 years that's had a bigger impact on modern comedy. Spinal Tap pioneered a mock-doc genre that's influenced everything from the long run of improvisational films directed by Guest (Waiting for Guffman and Best in Show among them) to docu-styled sitcoms such as The Office and Modern Family. This made it all the more surprising when, about four years ago, Shearer became the first of his fake bandmates to learn lesson No. 2 in Hollywood: No matter how well your movie does, there's no such thing as net profit.


Shearer as Tap bassist Derek Smalls.
Source: Embassy Pictures/Evert Collection
In one major respect, Shearer seems the least likely of his collaborators to be chasing after riches from Spinal Tap. He earns a reported $300,000 per episode for his work on Fox's The Simpsons, inhabiting the characters of Montgomery Burns, Waylon Smithers, Principal Skinner, Ned Flanders, and dozens of others. Given that, rummaging behind the couch cushions of an old cult movie can seem unnecessary, even unseemly.

On the other hand, Shearer might also be the Tap member most given to righteous indignation. He seems to make a habit of falling out with people, from Albert Brooks (Shearer co-wrote Brooks's first feature, Real Life) to McKean, whom he suggested during a 2015 interview on Marc Maron's podcast wasn't exactly a friend. An unnamed colleague from one of his stints on Saturday Night Live was once quoted calling him "brilliant, funny, and detestable." Among the cast of The Simpsons, Shearer has long been the malcontent-in-chief, openly complaining about how Fox fails to appreciate the show. In 2015 he announced he was quitting because, he said, the network had introduced language into his contract that curtailed his freedom to do other work. He says he changed his mind and stayed only after the language was removed.

Sometimes it takes a malcontent to disturb something as intractable as Hollywood accounting practices. By the terms of the contract they signed in 1982 with Embassy Pictures, the four creators of Spinal Tap are entitled to a portion of income from the film, including merchandise and music, provided certain benchmarks are hit. Given the wild afterlife of This Is Spinal Tap, it seems impossible that anyone with a piece of the movie hasn't made money. And yet this is Hollywood, where studios have claimed that some of the highest-grossing films—hits such as Return of the Jedi, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy—somehow haven't turned a profit. As David Zucker, one of the creators of Airplane!, once said of his own sleeper hit, "It made so much money that the studio couldn't hide it fast enough."

"I always thought record contracts were mind-bogglingly abusive until I started reading movie studio contracts"
With Embassy out of business, the theatrical rights to Spinal Tap bounced around from Coca-Cola to De Laurentiis Entertainment Group to a L'Oréal property named Parafrance to, around 1990, Studiocanal, a subsidiary of the French company Vivendi SA. The home-video rights followed a separate path and landed with Sony Music Entertainment. None of those companies paid the four creators, and no one did anything about it until Shearer finally lost his patience. "We were approaching the 30th anniversary," he says, "and this low-burning lightbulb begins to go off—'Hey, wait a minute, what's going on here?' "

A friend referred him to Amanda Harcourt, a U.K.-based intellectual-property consultant with a specialized practice helping artists secure the rights to their creations. "I always thought record contracts were mind-bogglingly abusive until I started reading movie studio contracts," she says. Most of Harcourt's clients don't want to be identified publicly. Shearer does. "He said to me right at the beginning, 'One of the reasons I want you is you're not in Hollywood,' " Harcourt says, " 'because I don't care who I upset.' "

In 2013, Harcourt advised Shearer to ask Vivendi for a complete statement of his interests in This Is Spinal Tap. Harcourt combed through the material that came back, and her conclusions were so shocking that Shearer's response was as unprintable as some of his band's lyrics. According to Vivendi, Shearer and his three creative partners' share of total worldwide merchandising income from 1984 to 2006 was $81, and the total income from soundtrack sales from 1989 to 2006 was $98. That's just dollars, with no zeros at the end. It was Stonehenge all over again: They'd expected feet and got inches.


Shearer, McKean, and Guest as Spinal Tap.



admin

Source: Tap Production/Rex/Shutterstock
Last October, Shearer sued Vivendi for $125 million. Asserting that the movie "has generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue in the thirty years since its original theatrical release," the complaint notes that the four collaborators are entitled to 40 percent of all net receipts from the film, plus 50 percent of the gross receipts from the music, and that Vivendi "fraudulently underreported the revenues owed" them. The suit demands an honest accounting of what's owed Shearer and the others and accuses Vivendi of deliberately failing to fulfill the terms of the original deal with Embassy. In response, Vivendi filed a motion expressing "genuine admiration for the talents of Shearer and his partners," but argued that the company had "not received anything close" to what Shearer claims. "As a reality check on this lawsuit, even though Spinal Tap has garnered affection in the United States, it has generated U.S. theatrical revenue of under $5 million," Vivendi's motion reads. "Revenue from other sources and territories has been similarly modest." (Vivendi's attorneys declined to comment on the litigation.)Shearer's suit seemed easy to ignore—a spat started by a habitually argumentative artist. Then, on Feb. 8, he made room for three new co-plaintiffs: Guest, McKean, and Reiner. The band is back together again, and they're demanding $400 million in damages. The other cast members aren't commenting on the specifics of the litigation, deferring to Shearer as their spokesman on the matter.

Shearer, for his part, is happy for a chance to score a victory for Spinal Tap's true creators and blow the lid off Hollywood's bizarre accounting. "There is almost an overwhelming asymmetry that faces the creative artist," he says. "You get told over and over again, 'Well, it's just a little cult picture, it doesn't mean anything.' And you internalize it. We love what we do, and they know it. And that is a rusty bayonet that we've handed them to insert in our innards whenever they want."


It's Free Innit?

Marketers are still using "goes to 11" and other Spinal Tap references. Shearer says almost no one (including these companies) pays


McDonald's used "goes to 11" in 2012—28 years after the movie was released


The sound system in the Tesla Model S goes to, yes, 11


A non-11 commercial use


The alcohol content is 11 percent. Another brewer went all out and named its 11 percent beer Spinal Tap

One of the better-known axioms in Hollywood—let's call it lesson No. 3—is that the majority of movies lose money. Unlike the other lessons, it's impossible to tell whether this is true or just industry spin, meant to improve studios' bargaining power. "All I can say is, I'm always amazed at the number of people who want to invest in the motion picture business," Shearer says. "Nobody twisted Sony's arm to say, 'Hey, get out of the hardware business. Come make movies.' They seem to know something."

One well-known progenitor of the theory of Hollywood failure is Arthur De Vany. In a paper published in 2004, De Vany, now professor emeritus in economics at the University of California at Irvine, blamed pervasive reported losses on studio overhead, distribution charges, and any number of cost allocations that he had trouble precisely quantifying. The data available to him indicated that 78 percent of movies lose money—and just 6.3 percent of all movies earned 80 percent of Hollywood's total profit over the previous decade. It's research like this that explains studios' efforts to persuade creators and talent to take as little as possible upfront in return for promise of payment later. It also helps Hollywood justify lobbying for stricter copyright protections, and even make the case for more media conglomeration.

And yet other studies have produced the opposite conclusion. In 2015, Sergio Sparviero, a communications professor in Salzburg, published research demonstrating that more than 70 percent of motion pictures distributed in 2007 by the six largest media conglomerates are likely to have generated a positive return for the producers. The difference between his research and De Vany's appears to be that Sparviero accounted for the money movies make in secondary markets, such as home video, merchandising, and foreign licensing.

It's precisely this revenue that Shearer believes is hidden from view in the Spinal Tap case. To take one example, the lawsuit accuses Vivendi of failing to account for a 2004 settlement payment of more than $1.6 million that the company received from MGM Home Video for underreported VHS and DVD revenue for This Is Spinal Tap. Shearer didn't know about this payment until Harcourt dug it out of the material he received in 2013.

The more sophisticated the bookkeeping, the harder it can be to find the revenue. The most notorious technique is "cross-collateralizing," or bundling the revenues and expenses of a collection of movies and then never fully separating out which movies made or lost money. It so happens that Spinal Tap was bundled during one of the many times it was sold. Shearer's lawyers don't know yet which movies it was bundled with—but presumably none of the others was also a beloved comedy classic whose popularity has been renewed constantly over the decades.

Muddying the waters further, a contemporary contract is likely to contain what Harcourt calls a "contractual matrix" among various parts of the company—that is, funneling revenue to related entities that, by the terms of the contract, don't need to open their books. "When you go to audit Disney," she says, "you say, 'I want to see the contract between you and Buena Vista.' And they say, 'Well, you don't have a contract with Buena Vista. That's private.' So you have no way of knowing how much Disney has allowed Buena Vista to retain." In the case of Spinal Tap, Shearer is arguing that Vivendi's ownership of Universal Music Group, which owns the music from the film, creates a similar conflict of interest.

The flip side of revenue reporting is cost allocating. Distribution is one highly malleable category; advertising and publicity is another. Shearer's lawsuit questions Vivendi's decision to factor in $2.5 million in marketing and promotion expenses and more than $500,000 in freight and other direct costs—all allegedly incurred years after the movie was released. Typically, when studios are questioned about their accounting tactics, they say the wording of the contracts permits this, and that the contract language is standard across the industry. "What's a definition of a standard clause?" Harcourt says. " 'We all rip you off in exactly the same way.' "

Trying to track down what's owed to you years later isn't easy. "Audits are expensive," says Los Angeles attorney Neville Johnson, who's represented numerous artists against studios. His newest case is on behalf of Sylvester Stallone, who this month sued Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. for "outright and obviously intentional dishonesty" when calculating the money owed to him for the 1993 hit Demolition Man. (Warner Bros. has yet to respond.) Suits like Shearer's and Stallone's represent the rare moments when these arguments spill out into the public sphere. Quite often the studios are simply too powerful to be called out, and the contracts reinforce that. "They require the audits to be done in secret, confidentially," Johnson says. "Working talent is rightly concerned about being blacklisted or blackballed. And it doesn't pay to litigate unless there's seven figures involved, ordinarily."

Increasingly, litigation isn't even an option, because most contracts now stipulate that all audits result in arbitration. Johnson and others have long argued that the arbitrators are motivated to rule in favor of the studios, for fear that they would have difficulty finding work with any studio in the future.


But when the revenue the studios report defies basic common sense, it's hard for someone like Shearer not to be tempted to push back. Take merchandising, for instance. The four creators of Spinal Tap are entitled to 5 percent of all gross merchandising revenue related to the film. If it really were true that Shearer and the others were collectively entitled to just $81 over 20 years, that would mean the movie brought in just $1,620 in merchandising revenue in that time. That hardly seems realistic to Shearer.

Why would anyone agree to a contract that allowed for so much secrecy, so much take-our-word-for-it? What Shearer remembers from the Spinal Tap deal is the feeling of powerlessness and desperation, and he says the studios were more than happy to take advantage of this. "We were basically in the position of beggars," he says. "We'd been turned down by every studio in town. We wanted to make this movie. And what I've learned in the intervening years is that perhaps it's best not to advertise that fact to people you're going into business with."

"The thing you gain if you're very, very, very, very—that's four verys—lucky in this business is some degree of leverage"
Once Shearer filed his lawsuit, Reiner and Guest called him, and Reiner in turn notified McKean. They not only joined the suit, they also filed notices along with Shearer to terminate and reclaim the copyright to the name "Spinal Tap"—a step many artists take once the copyright on their work has existed for 35 years. (Copyright reversion was designed as a way for creators to get a second chance at a copyright if, like Shearer and the others, they bargained it away the first time around.)

Vivendi, in its response to the lawsuit, argued that the creators made the film as a work for hire, and were hence not entitled to the copyright. It seems crazy, given that there's plenty of evidence the four of them invented the band years before making their deal with Embassy, but calling a contribution work-for-hire is fairly common in copyright cases. In Shearer's latest filing, he calls Vivendi's position on the copyright a threat to scare him away from pressing his profit case. He also says it's hypocritical for the company to cling to a film's copyright while suggesting, based on what it claims is the film's poor performance, there's no money to be made with it.

Hollywood's accounting practices haven't been subject to a high-visibility challenge for more than a generation, since Art Buchwald sued Paramount Pictures Corp. over Coming to America, the Eddie Murphy hit that famously brought in $288 million and yet somehow made no profit. And that case was settled before Buchwald had a chance in court to open the studio's books to the public. No matter how many people have accused the studios of systematically masking their profits, Harcourt says, the chances of it being investigated as a criminal matter are slim. "Los Angeles is Hollywood's town," she says. A class-action case would be almost as unlikely. "There are very specific rules about what constitutes a class action," Harcourt says, "and you have to get court approval." If something changes, it will be because of one angry person—or, perhaps, four reasonably irritated people—with an appetite for civil litigation.

"The thing that you gain if you're very, very, very, very—that's four verys—lucky in this business is some degree of leverage," Shearer says. "I've gotten several communications from people who say, 'Man, I've been in the same spot. I wish I could have been able to do what you guys are doing.' 'Get the bastards' is sort of the consensus summation of what they say."

As Shearer fully appreciates, he and his bandmates may be the perfect plaintiffs for a case like this. Their original deal with Embassy dates from the period before the Buchwald suit motivated studios to find ways to make their contracts more lawsuit-proof, such as adding the mandatory arbitration and confidentiality clauses. The creators may qualify for copyright recapture, giving them even more leverage. And Shearer, at least, has a war chest filled with all that Simpsons money—and is famous enough to get lots of publicity and start shaming the studios right away. They're not the first to go after Hollywood accounting, but they could be the loudest.

Shearer chuckles. He gets the reference. "Well, how appropriate," he says, "for 'one of England's loudest bands.' "
[/i]

chrish

#43
"Beatles' holding company wins lawsuit over 1965 Shea Stadium concert footage
By AARON KATERSKY and MATT FRIEDLANDER
Jul 27, 2017, 4:52 PM ET

The Beatles' holding company has emerged victorious in a lawsuit launched last year by a company founded by Sid Bernstein, the late promoter of the band's famous August 1965 concert at Shea Stadium in New York, over ownership of footage from that show, ABC News has confirmed.

Sid Bernstein Presents, claimed Bernstein -- who died in 2013 at age 95 -- was the producer of the original 1966 film that featured the footage, and that Apple Corps Ltd., the band's holding company, had infringed on its copyright when it allowed it to be used in the 2016 documentary "Eight Days a Week -- The Touring Years."


Apple Corps manages the rights to the Beatles' work and is controlled by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and the estates of John Lennon and George Harrison.

A New York judge dismissed the suit on Wednesday, saying that no matter how much the late Bernstein may have been responsible for the concert taking place, the company has no claim to the master tapes.

The judge said the contract signed in 1965 "reserves no rights whatsoever for Bernstein in any filming or recording of the concert."

In its original motion to have the lawsuit dismissed, lawyers for Apple Corps and Subafilms Limited -- the company that was granted a copyright on the footage in 1988 -- claimed Bernstein had no creative control over, nor input into, the filming of the show or the production of the 1966 movie, "The Beatles at Shea Stadium."

In addition, a legal memo filed with the court says the contract between Bernstein and Apple Corps' predecessor company, Nems Enterprises, granted Nems the sole right to film the show and to any receipts from the movie.


Bernstein's company had argued that, "[w]ithout Sid, the mastermind of the event, this film would never have been made."

The judge refuted the company's claims on multiple grounds, including a preexisting contract with Nems Enterprises, as well as statute of limitations issues.

An attorney for Sid Bernstein Presents said he believes there may be grounds for an appeal, but the company has not announced any further legal action at this time."

http://abcnews.go.com/amp/Entertainment/beatles-apple-corps-wins-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-1965/story?id=48889808

Tony Raven

#44
Back in the mid-'80s, I found myself chatting with a guy from a Minneapolis-area band that had a bit of a following & a contract with some regional label.

In sum, he said that he just didn't understand the accounting practices. The band was playing regularly, sometimes opening for big names, their expenses were covered, yet they never seemed to actually make any money. Steady album sales? He was told, "We need to sell albums to support the tour, of course!" Regular bookings at large venues? "We need to sell tickets to support the album, of course!"

::)

Somehow, their label & management company seemed to be making a profit, yet the band never got ahead.

I've since heard similar stories dating back to the early '50s, where performers & writers regularly signed away their rights, forever, for literal pennies per side -- which was never updated, so if they agreed to a nickel per single sold in 1957, they were still getting a nickel per play/use in the 1980s. Seems like even in The Good Old Days the only career option was to become an out-&-out staff songwriter (maybe arranger as well) for a studio or label (where you have a chance to negotiate an actual, clear contract) or become a session player (with pay carefully scrutinized by the Union, healthcare benefits, & even access to a retirement home).

Quote from: StellaHarmony on April 08, 2017, 10:48:12 PMEveryone wants to bash copyright laws and the enforcement
Well... not actually, eh? ;) Looks like most of the people hereabouts are NOT in tribute/cover bands, & in fact are at least tacit composers.

I can be said to "dislike copyright," but in much the same wise as I "dislike the AFM." Though I'm a pro-labor guy all the way, I didn't join the Union because I felt I'd be putting myself at clear risk of penalties for taking part in jam sessions, even if in private residences (I had many pro & semi-pro musician friends back then). I might even court trouble if I stopped off for a beer at a bar that had a less-than-stellar history with Local 17 (the Twin Cities Hospitality Union). Nevertheless, I encourage working musicians to look into joining the AFM.

Copyright enforcement is lumpy & awkward, something seemingly meant for big complicated corporations, not for small-time musicians. This awkwardness certainly does little to make friends. And in this Internet age, it seems like everyone wants what they want NOW, & FREE, one click & problem solved.

Quote from: StellaHarmony on April 08, 2017, 10:48:12 PMIf you are selling recorded cover tunes, then BMI,et. al don't have a dog in that race.  If your CD gets played (performance) in a bar or on radio, then there is a copyright payment to be made.
Not so long ago, putting a cover tune up on YouTube or Facebook was a relatively harmless act, because nobody made any money -- heck, maybe it got a song some exposure. Now, these have established profit routes

FWIW, the AFM is behind the Fair Play Fair Pay Act of 2017, which directly addresses some inequities that have appeared in broadcast radio --
http://www.afm.org/what-we-are-doing/current-campaigns/get-paid-when-you-get-played/
A key problem addressed is the "1972" watershed. Basically, when you listen to an "oldies" station/channel, the broadcaster isn't paying. Here's a reason to dislike music copyright --
QuoteIt was not until 1971 that Congress put sound recordings under federal copyright protection, but they applied only to works made after Feb. 15, 1972.

That has created confusion, as artists and labels have instead turned to state laws to establish copyright protections, but it has created a patchwork of different state laws.
As one result, digital broadcast -- apparently still defined for the 1990s -- is generally exempt from paying royalties. Not that this is novel --
QuoteBroadcast radio stations do not have to pay royalties to artists and labels for airplay, even though the music industry has long sought legislation to require compensation for broadcasts of performances.
]
Lots of stuff to find. FWIW, I sometimes really hate Congress for attempting childish cuteness: the "Fair Play Fair Pay" title has gone away, & the bill (HR 3301) is known as the Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act.

::)

While the Led Zep suit was popular squawk fodder among the Facebook crowd, there was LOTS of other stuff occurring. Like, a judge in a U.S. Disctrict Court in California decided that songs recorded before 1972, when digitally remastered, become new original tracks as derivative works.
QuoteThe testimony showed that the digital version was the result of more than simply hooking the analog source material to a digital recorder and distributing the result. Human intervention in deciding how to materially change the original work to produce a new digital work was found by the Court – deciding that this was a classic version of a derivative work, authorized by the Copyright holders themselves when they commissioned the digital versions of the recordings. Thus, these works were entitled to their own copyright – a copyright that arose when the work was created after 1972.
QuoteUnder this argument, the specifically performed works aren't protected by state law, and (the broadcaster) doesn't have to pay.
Yep: tweaking the tempo & pitch, adding some reverb, & tightening the drums makes it an entirely different track.

And it was established a few months ago that (in New York at least) digital broadcast doesn't constitute a "public performance," & as well that there's no effective "common-law copyright" --
QuoteThe US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the New York Court of Appeals that there is no New York State common law "right of public performance" for pre-1972 recordings that is equivalent to federal copyright protection. Flo & Eddie v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-1164 (2d Cir., Feb. 16, 2017)
Meanwhile, in a parallel suit between the same parties in California, a judge ruled that
Quotethere is a stronger argument that the years of judicial silence "implies exactly the opposite of what Sirius contends — not that common law copyright in sound recordings carries no right of public performance, but rather that common law copyright in sound recordings comes with the entire bundle of rights that holders of copyright in other works enjoy."

...she rules out fair use, declares that SiriusXM has engaged in unfair competition and rejects a defense built upon the interstate commerce clause.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=641e29a2-54c1-4e76-917d-72091747bafb
http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2016/06/articles/us-district-court-finds-digitally-remastered-pre-1972-sound-recordings-are-derivative-works-covered-by-federal-law-dismisses-suit-against-broadcaster-seeking-over-the-air-p/
http://variety.com/2017/music/news/music-recordings-copyright-pre-1972-1202502016/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/siriusxm-slammed-again-as-new-749230
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cbs-beats-lawsuit-pre-1972-898633
http://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/0002/bipartisan-bill-seeks-royalties-for-pre1972-musical-works/340057
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cbs-beats-lawsuit-pre-1972-898633

Back in the '80s, I was hooked on a comic called American Flagg!, in which the central character was a has-been actor reduced to running security at a megamall. Actually, the series he'd starred in was still going strong... but he had unwittingly signed away some key rights, & had been replaced by CGI.

I figure that soon enough we'll see a singer bring suit for having her/his voice cloned, just another VST plugin.


admin

http://variety.com/2017/music/news/steely-dans-donald-fagen-sues-walter-beckers-estate-for-control-of-band-1202621530/

Walter Becker's Estate Responds to Donald Fagen's Steely Dan Lawsuit
Rolling Stone  Rolling Stone 4 hours ago
Reactions  Like  Reblog on Tumblr  Share  Tweet  Email

The estate of Walter Becker has responded to a lawsuit filed by his Steely Dan bandmate Donald Fagen over the ownership of the band.
The estate of Walter Becker has responded to a lawsuit filed by his Steely Dan bandmate Donald Fagen over the ownership of the band following Becker's September 3rd death.

In Fagen's lawsuit, the singer accuses Becker's estate of reneging on a Buy/Sell Agreement that he and Becker agreed to in 1972; under that agreement, one member of the duo would purchase all shares of Steely Dan if the other member quit or died.

"We believe the agreement to which Mr. Fagen refers in his suit — drafted 45 years ago — was not in effect at the time of Walter's death," a representative for Becker's estate said in a statement to Rolling Stone.

"Mr. Fagen's lawsuit, riddled with half-truths and omissions, misleadingly fails to state that the day after Walter died, Mr. Fagen had his lawyer send a demand letter to Walter's estate, thus beginning a legal campaign against Walter's family immediately after his death."

In Fagen's lawsuit – which also sued the band's former business management firm and tour accounting company over "secretive behaviors" – the musician claimed that he received a letter from Becker's widow stating that, as director or officer of Steely Dan, she is entitled to 50 percent ownership of the band. He also accused the Becker estate of not relinquishing control of the Steely Dan website.

However, the Becker estate rep added "the misrepresentation that his widow, [Delia Becker] initiated any litigious action is simply untrue." The estate also said they were "disappointed" that Fagen opted to file the lawsuit on the day before Thanksgiving.

The Becker estate claimed that they twice have neared a compromise with a pair of Fagen's legal teams, only for Fagen to fire both counsels. A third lawyer for the musician filed the lawsuit, they allege, without first reaching out to the Becker estate.

Following the publication of this article, Fagen's attorney Skip Miller released the following statement to Rolling Stone. "Mr. Fagen reluctantly took this step in response to certain actions of Mr. Becker's estate. The main point is that the Buy/Sell agreement at the heart of the suit is as valid as the day it was signed. It's something Mr. Becker felt strongly about keeping in place and honoring, even during his years of illness. Mr. Fagen believes Mr. Becker's estate is entitled to receive all normal royalties on the songs they wrote together. But this case is about the future of the band, and we will vigorously defend the contract."

Read the Becker estate's full statement below:

"We were disappointed to learn that Donald Fagen commenced a lawsuit against (the estate of) Walter Becker, his partner of 50 years, on the eve of Thanksgiving. We believe the agreement to which Mr. Fagen refers in his suit — drafted 45 years ago— was not in effect at the time of Walter's death.

Mr. Fagen's lawsuit, riddled with half-truths and omissions, misleadingly fails to state that the day after Walter died, Mr. Fagen had his lawyer send a demand letter to Walter's estate, thus beginning a legal campaign against Walter's family immediately after his death. The misrepresentation that his widow, Ms. Cioffi initiated any litigious action is simply untrue. In our view, Mr. Fagen is unfairly trying to deprive Walter's family of the fruits of their joint labors.

Since Walter's passing, we have endeavored to achieve a compromise with Mr. Fagen. We were close to a resolution with his longtime counsel who he suddenly fired. We then negotiated in good faith with replacement counsel who Mr. Fagen also fired. Mr. Fagen's third and current lawyer did not even attempt to contact us prior to filing a lawsuit.

While we regret Mr. Fagen's latest actions, we will vigorously defend against his unwarranted and frivolous case."

leshogan

Pretty pathetic situation.

This is the core of the problem:  The Buy-Sell was not regularly updated and never funded.  If SD had decent financial counsel, and this was indeed a concern for both W&D,  a funded and Trusteed agreement, kept updated regularly, would have been already executed and separate from probate matters.

Probably was forgotten about.  Life insurance is often the best option for funding; many advantages, including tax-free accumulation at guaranteed interest that for the last 20yrs has been very high.  But, like the Nat King Cole apllication that was not pre-paid at the time of his death; an unfunded agreement created over 40yrs ago and never updated is not worth much if surviving heirs don't want to sell.   Of course, pretty hard to obtain life insurance, other than by Lloyds syndicate, if insured has health problems or drug abuse history...

This is likely just one of the sideshows pertaining to Mr. Becker's estate. 

As a complete aside and personal observation:  Value of Becker's share of the S-D franchise will probably never be higher.  Great time to sell and Mr. F really wants to buy...

Elantric

#48


https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/03/tom_petty_neil_young_publisher_launches_16bn_copyright_lawsuit_at_spotify/
You Wreck Me, Spotify: Tom Petty, Neil Young publisher launches $1.6bn copyright sueball
Wixen won't back down, claims Spotify failed to get a licence for 10,000-plus tunes
By Rebecca Hill 3 Jan 2018 at 11:40 26  Reg comments SHARE ▼
Spotify
Spotify has been accused of rockin' a little too freely by a Californian music company that claims the streaming biz failed to gain proper licences for its artists' songs.

Wixen Music Publishing – which represents Tom Petty, Neil Young, The Black Keys, The Doors, and more – launched the sueball at Spotify at the end of last month.

http://www.wixenmusic.com/


As the exclusive licensee of the copyrights for their songs, Wixen is seeking damages of "at least $1.6bn" under the US Copyright Act.

That's £150,000 for each of the 10,784 songs it says Spotify has used without getting either a direct licence from Wixen or a compulsory licence.

"Spotify brazenly disregards United States Copyright law and has committed willful, ongoing copyright infringement," the company's lawsuit said.

"Spotify's conduct has at all times been willful, intentional, purposeful, in disregard of and indifferent to the rights of Wixen and those of the artists it represents.

"As a direct and proximate result of Spotify's willful and infringing conduct, Wixen is entitled to actual damages, including the substantial profits of Spotify."

Wixen also said that Spotify had "outsourced its responsibility to a third party, the Harry Fox Agency... [which] was ill-equipped to obtain all the necessary mechanical licenses".

Spotify was aware the agency didn't "possess the infrastructure to obtain the required mechanical licenses", the filing added.

Wixen also set out its intention to seek an injunction to "prevent and restrain Spotify's ongoing copyright infringement" – although your correspondent was still able to enjoy Petty, Young and more on the service as part of "research" for this article.

Spotify agreed to a $43m settlement to stop a $150m lawsuit over royalties last year.

Spotify declined to comment. ®

admin

https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?posts/25737072/

tiktok wrote>
Got my BMI check today

$107 for the year.

Which, is not a lot of money. Except, it's from live performances of my own tunes, where I filed set lists with the BMI Live program. Which I did for, I don't know, maybe a dozen shows in small venues, none of which had more than 100 people, and most had fewer than 50 in the audience. So maybe, I don't know, 500 people total?

I put this out here not to toot my own horn, or kazoo in this case ($107!), but to compare that to how many streams I'd need to get the same money (tens of thousands in a best case scenario) and also to address the question of "Who gets paid from ASCAP/BMI performance fees?"