Looks like McIver has been chosen to fall on the sword. They needed someone benign to divert the blame to and put an end to this chapter. I wonder what “the whipping boy” position pays?
I take it back. It was the Jews’ fault. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/07/19/3800078/david-duke-jewish-sabotage/
The way I look at it is at least I have a top lawyer to call and not sitting around like an uninformed gossip column thinking I am brilliant.
Anyway, I rest my case because I was 100% correct in my first post because Queen is no longer in control of the darn song. My lawyer colleague was also correct in how he interpreted Queen’s position on things and that it truly does “depend” on specifics and the specifics are not on Queen’s side. Queen is basically hot air on this. Well, hot air just like @dstark.
In short, just like I thought, Queen gave up the rights to the song and placed it is collective catalog so that it (Queen) can make more money off of it. Hey, maybe Queen and too many bands do not understand this basic logic - live by the collective, die by the collective!
And you (the artists) then cannot change the rules mid-stream to suit your fancy. You (the artists) are the ones who signed the papers to make more money off your music - and they know what they signed. Do not feel a bit sorry for them.
Here is good example of deceptive reporting and lawyer-speak to make it seem that artists have more rights that they do in these situations.
So, what is deceptive? Well, it lumps artists who actually owned their songs with ones who do not. Note the conflating of “sued, issued cease and desist letters, or gone public.”
Well, the only people who would sue are the ones who actually still own their songs and the user has no license or permission to use it.
That is a universe apart from a user who has valid blanket license - then the artist can issue a cease and desist letter or go public, but like I said on my very first and second posts, the user with the valid license does not have to stop.
The lawyer is deceptive as well because the respect of copyrights he mentions only applies to artists who have not given up said copyright.
If you sell your song to someone else, you no longer have that copyright protection to determine usage of the song. You still have copyright of the authorship, but no longer the legal authority to determine usage. The lawyer should have explained that - not all copyrights are the same.
(Emphases mine)
Because it does not matter what non-parties to a bona fide contract think - it is between the artist, the user, and th licensing company.
You need to face the fact that Queen played the clueless like fiddles.
Queen knows the campaign had a valid license to use the song in that way and has the been sent the license number and know that it is valid because it (Queen) sent the campaign a cease and desist letter a couple months ago. Big tell there, as Queen did not sue the campaign; it just asked it to stop using the song. Hint - if there was no license Queen would have sued outright and immediately.
The campaign ignored the letter, as it has the right to (sound familiar - I wonder who said that before on this thread?) because it does have a valid license to use the song and paid for that license. Even crazier still Queen already pocketed the royalty money from the Trump campaign license, as these are usually paid out monthly.
Wow, the public got so played by Queen on this.
Yes, you do need permission, and you do need a license.
Well, so much for your Google knowledge base. Good example a little knowledge is often useless without the big picture.
Owning the rights to a song (or anything) does not mean that you own the rights to how the song (or that thing) is used. There are different rights.
OK, I will get out of this thread because it is not fair - I have sent hundreds of thousands of dollars getting licenses for all sorts of things for my company and people on here are talking Google bits and pieces and have not a clue about the intricacies of business licenses and contracts.
This issue is a little more gray than I thought.
@awcntdb, I do appreciate the info.
Grey is too simple a term - the proper term is complicated, as there could be several layers of custodial rights with a song - thus the need for licensing clearing houses to make sure all people get paid and the song makes income for everyone involved.
The dirty secret is many artists and songwriters make most of their money from their songs by SIGNING OVER their use copyrights and having a third party represent as a clearing house for licensing out the song.
I understand that Queen may really dislike Trump, but it is a flat out lie that with a valid blanket license for Queen or SONY/ATV to say the campaign needed to ask permission.
Think of the illogic of this - why have a license granting process if you need to ask permission separately? The license being authorized and granted and paid for is your permission!!! This other permission stuff is hogwash for the masses - beyond silly.
@awcntdb, read the answers to the last two questions in the ascap link in post 266.
Queen can sue even if a license was bought. Doesn’t mean Queen will win.
But I do like your lawyer friend’s answer better than mine now. I may have gotten faked out by Queen and Sony.
@DonnaL already posted a link to this NYT article, but here it is again:
How Melania Trump’s Speech Veered Off Course and Caused an Uproar
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/melania-trump-convention-speech.html?referer=
If you’re going to cut-and-paste verbatim from some other First Lady’s speech, at least pick one from your party.
She’s even dumber than I thought. Lol.
@dstark is not the windbag here.
Queen protesting their music being used at the GOP convention reminded me of how Gretchen Peters (who wrote “Independence Day” aka “the Hannity song”) handled her concern about authorized but not approved use of her intellectual property. I saw her in concert a couple of years ago and she was still mad that a song about domestic abuse had been co-opted for a cause she didn’t believe in. So, during the election cycle, she donated all of her royalties earned for the song to Planned Parenthood. So every time the GOP played the song, they were essentially making a donation to PP.
"Not her talent - she was just in spotlight since birth. And her good looks are not her achievement either.
This is just so unfair. So rich, beautiful and well spoken. She needs to share."
I wish Tiffany Trump the best and I’m certainly not going to pick on a 22 yo. I don’t think she’s beautiful, but she does the best with what she has. Nonetheless, there is nothing about her “rich, beautiful, well spoken” life that I envy, or that I would wish my 23 yo d to trade for. Nothing.
“The way I look at it is at least I have a top lawyer to call and not sitting around like an uninformed gossip column thinking I am brilliant.”
Really? You really think some of us on here don’t have “top lawyers” at our disposal? Or do you assume the only lawyers we must know are Jethro at the county courthouse involved in disputes about the local fishing hole? You are not the only person who has ever run a business, though you seem to think otherwise.
same.
Elizabeth Warren had a plagiarism episode.
“According to Turnitin, a plagiarism-checking website that examines 200,000 papers day, the “likelihood that a 16-word match is ‘just a coincidence’ is less than 1 in a trillion.” Melania Trump’s longest match? 23 words.”
https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/07/19/we-ran-melania-trumps-speech-through-a-plagiarism-checker/