You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#901 Re: The Sunset Strip » Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment » 865 weeks ago
No its not. Baz cannot own my picture or audio clip of his show. Its literally impossible, and a judge would laugh you out of court. The only thing he technically owns the rights to are his lyrics, artwork, and music on cds/dvds he releases. He doesn't own cell phone footage. He cant even make a claim against bootleg companies, but you think he can with cell phone footage?
If we wanna argue performance rights, you could make a case for the venue having more ownership than Baz. They paid for him to be there. They own the venue. They insure the event. They have 'no cam/cellphone' policies.
As I said own is not the right word. In effect it is illegal for one to own a photo of a performance unless they have permission from the Artist. That is Law and it is Fact. The venue has no more "ownership" as I said performance art has different legal implications surrounding it than who wrote songs etc. It applies to a Bach concert a Ballet or a Puppet show.
According to the logic you're using, artists cant do cover songs live because the creator of the songs retain the rights. As we both know, that isn't true
Every-time an Artist plays a cover song they gotta pay for it. Effectively buying the artists permission to sing that song. Yes the creator retains the rights, to make money they allow other people sing their songs for a price. ASCAP makes these collections. I know this first hand , as many venues I have played myself I have to submit a list of any cover songs that will be in my set and sort out a payment to the collection agency.
Do you wanna know why pirate bay didn't win their case? Because they have millions of albums and movies that are copyrighted. Wanna know why no one can sue youtube for fan clips?
Take a guess. Baz cant go after youtube regarding those clips because youtube has a legal team that will laugh in his face, so he goes after fans instead.
Actually youtube are ardently against posting of materials of which the poster has no ownership. They did not laugh in Princes face when he had his music stripped from youtube. He had the money to make that happen. Youtube knew they were in the wrong by allowing posting of such material. I recently had "When the Doves Cry" stripped from a youtube video of mine. I also had Chinese Democracy demo intro stripped. Youtube simply do not have the staff to police the site well enough. If they had the man power there would not be a single song up there.
As we speak the youtube guys are working with Universal on a new site that will be exclusively for Videos with performances and musical content. This site will be strictly policed and ALL musical and performance content will be banned from you tube. It seems to me youtube are taking this very seriously and definitely not laughing in any artists face on this issue because as I have said , like it or not, the Artist is in the right here.
Have you ever wondered why bootlegs are allowed on fan communities but released albums/videos are not?
Because the artist owns one and not the other
No that's wrong. The reason bootlegs are allowed to be posted is because within the music biz the practice is generally accepted and the Artists allow it happen. Its a kind of good faith thing that is done for the fans on the artists behalf. I can tell you that if a certain artist took it upon himself to revoke that affordance , you would be law bound to remove that artists bootlegs from your site. Many artists filter their bootlegs and promote circulation of the better ones that make them look good! This is common practice in rock circles.
#902 Re: The Sunset Strip » Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment » 865 weeks ago
wow long post
#903 Re: The Sunset Strip » Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment » 865 weeks ago
No he doesn't. If I go to a concert and record a few minutes of a song on a cellphone, the artist does not own that clip. I do. If you think the artist owns that clip, than you must also think the venue owns it, the promoter owns it, and the chick who sold me a coke owns it. How about the girls dancing near the stage? Maybe they own the clips as well since they are being recorded.
The girl who sold you the coke didn't write the song, does not retain performance rights. The venue didn't write the song, does not retain performance rights . In most cases Sebastian Bach didnt even write the song. The creator of the song retains the rights. Its the law.
Its stances like yours that embolden artists like Baz. If someone wanted to waste money and time taking one of these relics to court over this shit, they'd win.
They wouldn't. He's within his rights. If that were the way, the pirate bay would have won their case. Its the same thing. Taking something that is not yours and post it on the internet.
Artists under law retain the rights of ownership for each one of their performances.
You do not own a performance just because you recorded it. . Legal preference is given in these cases to the actual performance over your recording of it.. if that makes sense. In that yes you own your recording equipment and the footage in so far as it doesnt show the performance.... Ill show you an example
Guns N Roses 2006 Download Festival:
The guy who took this picture owns the imagery of the sky, of the hills. He owns the imagery of the stage shell. He does not own the portion of the image which shows the Giant TV Screens. He does not own the 17 pixels that make up the band. He does not own the parts of the image that show their equipment... Its crazy but that is the Law
... Even then its a gray area because its not so much that he doesnt own it (but in practice that's how it works out) Its more that, it is illegal for him to have that without consent of the performing artist
When an Artist releases a DVD of Live Performances in essence what they do is Sell the performance to the DVD production company and sign a contract that allows them pick up substantial revenue off each unit sold.
It is not the case that the artist has the ownership rights to the recorded performance . Its not that they own the "tapes" of the performance. Its that they own the actual performance.
A concert (unlike an album) is performance art. It is governed by performing Arts laws rather than standard music laws applying to CD's and actual material. If Bach farts onstage that's part of his performance. He owns that. You can't stick a video of that on the internet. You cannot just record what is his and do with it as you like.
That would be the same as someone recording your penis while you are in your own home (equate being in your home with being on stage mid performance) and plastering it across the internet. Your penis is your property just like his performance is his. Your home is your property(in many cases) as his performance is his.
A lot of these laws are overlooked and ignored because they are crazy. For example if a news station records a piece outside your house they SHOULD look for your permission but that kinda shit isn't really enforced or penalised very harshly
#904 Re: Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » Velvet Revolver Still Mulling New Frontman » 865 weeks ago
Stepvhen wrote:I can't believe there is a debate as to who the better artist is. Its cut and dry. Slash has been living in the 80s for 20 years . AT LEAST Axl tried to do something different with the way he approach4d the music on chinese democracy. You won't see slash and duff churn out a song like "if the world" or "Madagascar". In the words of Robert Plant. They "Live on former Glories so long ago and Gone"
To this I say "Thank God." Trying to do something different just for the sake of trying to do something different is far less intelligent than sticking with something that works. Axl has been living in the 90s and released a 1995 album in 2008. Don't label him as some superhero that conquered a new genre. He put out dated material of his own.
I didnt say he conquered anything I said at least he tried, which he did.
#905 Re: Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » Velvet Revolver Still Mulling New Frontman » 865 weeks ago
I can't believe there is a debate as to who the better artist is. Its cut and dry. Slash has been living in the 80s for 20 years . AT LEAST Axl tried to do something different with the way he approach4d the music on chinese democracy. You won't see slash and duff churn out a song like "if the world" or "Madagascar". In the words of Robert Plant. They "Live on former Glories so long ago and Gone"
#906 Re: Guns N' Roses » RB2 cracked? mogg available? » 865 weeks ago
Just came across some more clips of the Rehersal for those interested. Its official MTV stuff so I presume that some sort MTV employees could get at it . Probably how the hoarders got it
#907 Re: The Sunset Strip » Best album of the 90s elimination- Round 18 » 865 weeks ago
UYI 2 is m favourite guns n roses record
#908 Re: The Sunset Strip » Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment » 865 weeks ago
monkeychow wrote:Got to be depressing when you suspect that downloading ruined it for you. Now you might say he just isn't popular and it wasn't the downloading. I dunno, but excuse the guy for having some self respect and choosing to blame the download then.
To me, the problem lies in that Bach hasn't come to grips with where he is in his career. I doubt his album sold any less than the last Warrant, Slaughter, LA Guns, Firehouse, etc albums did.
Actually it probably sold quite a bit more based on Axl being on it if nothing else.
He sees himself as above his peers, but fact of the matter is, he's not looked at as anything other than a guy from a second or third tier 80's band by most of the public.
Bitching about/to the people who are interested isn't going to keep or raise their interest.
Even at that ... that's how he's perceived in America. I can tell ya 4 people n my country bought Angel down and 3 of them are on this board...
#909 Re: The Sunset Strip » Best album of the 90s elimination- Round 18 » 865 weeks ago
I incredibly dislike both, "Don't Tread On Me" and "Holier Than Thou".
...And neither does Hetfield like them
PLAYBOY: Only a few albums have sold more than 10 million copies. Do you think the Black Album is the band's best record?
HETFIELD: There are some songs on there I don't like. Through The Never was a little wacky. Don't Tread on Me, probably not one of my favorite songs musically. Holier Than Thou was one of the sillier songs, more the old style of writing.
Enlightening. Wow I fell the same way...which is weird. I am VERY anti Metallica.
#910 Re: The Sunset Strip » Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment » 865 weeks ago
You misspelled Slave to the Grind....
monkeychow wrote:He's a straight up dude
Yeah a straight up dude who blames his fans for not buying his shit. He's also a straight up dude who has long time fans youtube accounts deleted for uploading live footage of him.
He's a straight up relic completely out of touch with reality.
I don't care what this guy releases. I will never open my wallet again for any product that has his name attached.
I don't really buy music for the personality flaws, relevancy of the artist artist or even for the artists relationship to their fan-base. I usually buy music if I like it.
Radiohead have a pretty good relationship with the fans and are quite relevant. I never bought or downloaded so much as a single song, they just don't do it for me.
On the other-hand NIN are quite relevant and have a good relationship with their fans. I got lots of NIN stuff.
The only difference is I like the music.
I got a friend who's areal ass-hole. Like in the most extreme sense. He's a great cook though. When he cooks for me I eat it. His being an asshole is hi problem. Why should I have to suffer by not enjoying the food just because hes an ass?
Its kinda like the Bach situation
