Copyright infringement?

Zeek

Country Gent
May 29, 2016
1,920
Illinois USA
If Joe Walsh cant play his songs and bands cant play covers of other bands without getting in trouble in clubs, Then how can Marty and others do this?

 

Back in Black

Country Gent
Double Platinum Member
Jun 22, 2020
1,738
Ontario Canada
Everybody wants a piece of the pie.
Exactly!

Back in the 50's, early 60's musician wealth like that of Taylor Swift, and getting a million dollars a show was unheard of, especially with the ''one hit wonders'', who had no money to start out with, and were not smart enough to preserve the little money they made in their very short time on the top.

I read an article recently on the wealth, or the lack thereof of former famous musicians. Very few have anything today, and for those who are still alive, and can afford a lawyer, commencing a copyright infringement law suit could mean the difference between enjoying a steak, or opening up a can of beans.

When a subject like this comes up, I'm always reminded of Phil Collins. Good musician, OK, I'll give him that, on matters of the heart, crippled and retarded. Just about all his money has gone to numerous divorce settlements with Ex-Spouses.

And...now that he can barely sit up straight, he wants to tour again. Just me, but Genesis was everything with Peter Gabrielle and nothing without him.

Best,

BIB Genesis.jpg
 

GlenP

Country Gent
Double Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2019
2,566
WA
Funny story. Joe Walsh was on a late show recently sitting in with the band. The host asks Joe if he will be playing one of his old songs. Joe said no, he can't. That would cost extra. So the host, a little stunned by the answer, asks if he should pass a hat around the audience to take up a collection so Joe can play Life's Been Good." I didn't totally get the joke until now. Thanks for explaining it.
I think it was actually an Eagles song that he said would cost extra, Life in the Fast Lane, and he played a short riff in a kind of slurred fashion just somewhat barely recognizable.
 

Shock

Synchromatic
Sep 7, 2020
663
Minnesota
If Joe Walsh cant play his songs and bands cant play covers of other bands without getting in trouble in clubs, Then how can Marty and others do this?


Obviously no expert on the subject, but I have heard if it is for educational purpose, you can do it, because he would not be infringing on any copywrite protections.
 

Synchro

The artist formerly known as: Synchro
Staff member
Jun 2, 2008
26,707
Tucson
Exactly!

Back in the 50's, early 60's musician wealth like that of Taylor Swift, and getting a million dollars a show was unheard of, especially with the ''one hit wonders'', who had no money to start out with, and were not smart enough to preserve the little money they made in their very short time on the top.

I read an article recently on the wealth, or the lack thereof of former famous musicians. Very few have anything today, and for those who are still alive, and can afford a lawyer, commencing a copyright infringement law suit could mean the difference between enjoying a steak, or opening up a can of beans.

When a subject like this comes up, I'm always reminded of Phil Collins. Good musician, OK, I'll give him that, on matters of the heart, crippled and retarded. Just about all his money has gone to numerous divorce settlements with Ex-Spouses.

And...now that he can barely sit up straight, he wants to tour again. Just me, but Genesis was everything with Peter Gabrielle and nothing without him.
You make a good point. The notion that musician/artist == rich, is a relatively new concept. Up until the era of the Beatles, most successful musicians lived a middle class life. Highly successful songwriters might have

Obviously no expert on the subject, but I have heard if it is for educational purpose, you can do it, because he would not be infringing on any copywrite protections.
There are fair use exceptions. With regard to public performance, this only applies to non-profit educational organizations.
 

Synchro

The artist formerly known as: Synchro
Staff member
Jun 2, 2008
26,707
Tucson
I’ve seen this clip, before. It’s astounding.

if you own a piece of intellectual property, you are within your rights to charge as you see fit; I understand that. However, I’m not certain that charging $250,000 for performance rights serves the best interests of the intellectual property holder.

I would venture that almost every music purchase I’ve made in the last twenty years has fallen into two categories, new music that I was introduced to through some online platform, or older releases that I am backfilling, into my collection. Even in the case of older releases, I was usually spurred to make the purchase by something online.

A perfect example is a recent Rick Beato video where he analyzed Frampton Comes Alive, which resulted in my purchase of a copy. I also finally bought a copy of Fragile, by Yes, after seeing a Beato video regarding Yes. Any number of Surf and Rockabilly recordings in my collection came because I was introduced to in posts on various online platforms.

So, if I happened to be the publisher of a Classic Rock sound, I would be happy to see these songs appear in YouTube videos, because I would probably sell some songs, when viewers were introduced, or reintroduced to older songs.

I would never ask anyone to give their music away. I’ve written a handful of song which I value, and I can assure you that I would not surrender my copyright of these songs. However, I would see platforms such as YouTube as a good promotion mechanism which would result in sales.

So, did tne Eagles actually benefit, in any way, by setting the price of performance at $250,000? Well, in tne forst place, the decision was made not to play an Eagles song, so the $250,000 license fee never happened. Had the license fee been reasonable, and the song been played, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine that among the millions of viewers, there would have been some sales of Eagles albums. As things occurred, I don’t think that any viewer came away with a more positive impression of The Eagles after seeing this play out on the Letterman show. If anything, it served to reinforce the impression that The Eagles are a bit selfish.
 

Henry

I Bleed Orange
Apr 9, 2014
19,224
Petaluma
There are only so many notes and ways you can put them together that sound good. Even fewer for chords. Good thing some early blues guy didn't copyright the 1-4-5 12 bar blues format.
Gott agree. Basically, one group of poor people invented music. Another group of richer people copied and monetized it.
 

Henry

I Bleed Orange
Apr 9, 2014
19,224
Petaluma
There are fair use exceptions. With regard to public performance, this only applies to non-profit educational organizations.
I am skeptical of this but I am not familiar with copyright rules. even for a nonprofit the use must be for an educational purpose. E.g. not sure a fundraiser would qualify as no one is listening for educational purposes, but for entertainment/fundraising.
 

Synchro

The artist formerly known as: Synchro
Staff member
Jun 2, 2008
26,707
Tucson
I am skeptical of this but I am not familiar with copyright rules. even for a nonprofit the use must be for an educational purpose. E.g. not sure a fundraiser would qualify as no one is listening for educational purposes, but for entertainment/fundraising.
I don’t think that fundraisers are excepted. My take on the public performance exception would be recitals, and that sort of thing. So a public school can hold recitals, or the marching band playing at a football game; that sort of thing.
 

Roy Clark

Synchromatic
Jun 16, 2017
747
Bat cave.
Country uses the same chords. Bill Anderson said on the Country Homcoming that the woman that sung Honky Tonk Angles had the same melody to a Gosple song.

It all sounds the same. I noticed it in the move Cole Miners Daughter.
 


Top