plumrach
bassline to be used by vanilla ice and jedward?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Mr Mercury
Because it will sell shit loads and make the Queen guys loads of cash. Remember QPL is a business as well and business' needs cash.
Micrówave
Because Freddie was a musical prostitute.
Who the $#@! is Jedward?
Who the $#@! is Jedward?
david (galashiels)
i dont think they gave permision....sure queen sued ice for copyright.
jedward lol.the hair..
done with the same hair gel as in the film.
something about mary lol lol lol.
but as teenage boys they had more gel lol lol lol.
jedward lol.the hair..
done with the same hair gel as in the film.
something about mary lol lol lol.
but as teenage boys they had more gel lol lol lol.
Vali
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
Who the $#@! is Jedward? [/QUOTE]
Wondered the same until I saw the video on youtube .... someone should go to jail for letting this kids appear on stage.
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
Who the $#@! is Jedward? [/QUOTE]
Wondered the same until I saw the video on youtube .... someone should go to jail for letting this kids appear on stage.
plumrach
Jedward is what the press call John and Efward otherwise known as 2 talentless twins
KingMercury
[QUOTE]
[b]david (galashiels) wrote: [/b]
i dont think they gave permision....sure queen sued ice for copyright.
jedward lol.the hair..
done with the same hair gel as in the film.
something about mary lol lol lol.
but as teenage boys they had more gel lol lol lol.[/QUOTE]
That`s right
You can do a queen cover, put it on a record and sell it, but you have to pay royaltis to the band
Vanilla ice did not pay royaltis, and Queen sued that guy for violating copyrights laws
[b]david (galashiels) wrote: [/b]
i dont think they gave permision....sure queen sued ice for copyright.
jedward lol.the hair..
done with the same hair gel as in the film.
something about mary lol lol lol.
but as teenage boys they had more gel lol lol lol.[/QUOTE]
That`s right
You can do a queen cover, put it on a record and sell it, but you have to pay royaltis to the band
Vanilla ice did not pay royaltis, and Queen sued that guy for violating copyrights laws
emrabt
[QUOTE]
[b]KingMercury wrote:[/b]
That`s right
You can do a queen cover, put it on a record and sell it, but you have to pay royaltis to the band
Vanilla ice did not pay royaltis, and Queen sued that guy for violating copyrights laws
[/QUOTE]
If you're performing the song to an audience, you need to pay royalties. no exceptions, unless it's private entertainment in your own home.
If you sing happy birthday at a pub, Disney could technically charge you 25p or so. queen productions could come along and charge the site owner because of the stage of champions section here, as it breaks the copyrights.
In recent years some companies have taken a slightly different attitude to wards youtube covers and "fan films", they don't mind if it's distributed for free, but in reality it all breaks the law.
[b]KingMercury wrote:[/b]
That`s right
You can do a queen cover, put it on a record and sell it, but you have to pay royaltis to the band
Vanilla ice did not pay royaltis, and Queen sued that guy for violating copyrights laws
[/QUOTE]
If you're performing the song to an audience, you need to pay royalties. no exceptions, unless it's private entertainment in your own home.
If you sing happy birthday at a pub, Disney could technically charge you 25p or so. queen productions could come along and charge the site owner because of the stage of champions section here, as it breaks the copyrights.
In recent years some companies have taken a slightly different attitude to wards youtube covers and "fan films", they don't mind if it's distributed for free, but in reality it all breaks the law.
Freya is quietly judging you.
I heart Jedward.
beachj
As I recall,that was in about 1990 when Hollywood had just purchased the rights for the Queen back catalogue.In that situation,the exposure to your music would outweigh any thought of litigation,think of the free publicity! same with the new version,they haven't copied the track,just produced a version of it. so they could sue,but why bother?....
Jean_Luc2000
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
Because Freddie was a musical prostitute.
Who the $#@! is Jedward? [/QUOTE]
All you need to know is Jedward's cover of Under Pressure makes nails down a chalk board sound like f'ing Mozart!
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
Because Freddie was a musical prostitute.
Who the $#@! is Jedward? [/QUOTE]
All you need to know is Jedward's cover of Under Pressure makes nails down a chalk board sound like f'ing Mozart!
Cwazy little thing
[QUOTE]
[b]emrabt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]KingMercury wrote:[/b]
That`s right
You can do a queen cover, put it on a record and sell it, but you have to pay royaltis to the band
Vanilla ice did not pay royaltis, and Queen sued that guy for violating copyrights laws
[/QUOTE]
If you're performing the song to an audience, you need to pay royalties. no exceptions, unless it's private entertainment in your own home.
If you sing happy birthday at a pub, Disney could technically charge you 25p or so. queen productions could come along and charge the site owner because of the stage of champions section here, as it breaks the copyrights.
In recent years some companies have taken a slightly different attitude to wards youtube covers and "fan films", they don't mind if it's distributed for free, but in reality it all breaks the law.
[/QUOTE]
Now, are you SURE about that?
Recording a track and selling the recording is clear breach of copyright, be it a studio or a live recording, but Im pretty sure you cant prevent people from a live performance to an audience. The fact this concert was broadcast may alter the situation, but if I go out and busk '39, Im pretty sure I dont owe Brian May a cent.
Such a law would kill covers bands, and would, for example allow Axl Rose to stop Slash from performing Gun's N Roses tracks with whichever project he is currently involved in, whereas Slash performed It's So Easy and Mr Brownstone constantly with Velvet Revolver.
[b]emrabt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]KingMercury wrote:[/b]
That`s right
You can do a queen cover, put it on a record and sell it, but you have to pay royaltis to the band
Vanilla ice did not pay royaltis, and Queen sued that guy for violating copyrights laws
[/QUOTE]
If you're performing the song to an audience, you need to pay royalties. no exceptions, unless it's private entertainment in your own home.
If you sing happy birthday at a pub, Disney could technically charge you 25p or so. queen productions could come along and charge the site owner because of the stage of champions section here, as it breaks the copyrights.
In recent years some companies have taken a slightly different attitude to wards youtube covers and "fan films", they don't mind if it's distributed for free, but in reality it all breaks the law.
[/QUOTE]
Now, are you SURE about that?
Recording a track and selling the recording is clear breach of copyright, be it a studio or a live recording, but Im pretty sure you cant prevent people from a live performance to an audience. The fact this concert was broadcast may alter the situation, but if I go out and busk '39, Im pretty sure I dont owe Brian May a cent.
Such a law would kill covers bands, and would, for example allow Axl Rose to stop Slash from performing Gun's N Roses tracks with whichever project he is currently involved in, whereas Slash performed It's So Easy and Mr Brownstone constantly with Velvet Revolver.
emrabt
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
If you sing happy birthday at a pub, Disney could technically charge you 25p or so. queen productions could come along and charge the site owner because of the stage of champions section here, as it breaks the copyrights.
In recent years some companies have taken a slightly different attitude to wards youtube covers and "fan films", they don't mind if it's distributed for free, but in reality it all breaks the law.
[/QUOTE] Now, are you SURE about that?
Recording a track and selling the recording is clear breach of copyright, be it a studio or a live recording, but Im pretty sure you cant prevent people from a live performance to an audience. The fact this concert was broadcast may alter the situation, but if I go out and busk '39, Im pretty sure I dont owe Brian May a cent.
Such a law would kill covers bands, and would, for example allow Axl Rose to stop Slash from performing Gun's N Roses tracks with whichever project he is currently involved in, whereas Slash performed It's So Easy and Mr Brownstone constantly with Velvet Revolver.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah that’s the law, at least in England,
I can’t say for other countries.
If you busk then it’s unlikely any company would sue, simply because they don’t know about it, and it would take too much
time and effort, but they could.
Slash isn’t allowed to sing any guns and roses song he didn’t co write.
When Michael Jackson owned the Beatles back catalogue, Paul could sing the
songs freely that he wrote, But had to pay royalties for printing lyrics.
Same reason wikipedia pages about songs have no lyrics printed on them, they
can talk about the song all they like, under the fair used act, but the lyrics are copyrighted.
If you sing happy birthday at a pub, Disney could technically charge you 25p or so. queen productions could come along and charge the site owner because of the stage of champions section here, as it breaks the copyrights.
In recent years some companies have taken a slightly different attitude to wards youtube covers and "fan films", they don't mind if it's distributed for free, but in reality it all breaks the law.
[/QUOTE] Now, are you SURE about that?
Recording a track and selling the recording is clear breach of copyright, be it a studio or a live recording, but Im pretty sure you cant prevent people from a live performance to an audience. The fact this concert was broadcast may alter the situation, but if I go out and busk '39, Im pretty sure I dont owe Brian May a cent.
Such a law would kill covers bands, and would, for example allow Axl Rose to stop Slash from performing Gun's N Roses tracks with whichever project he is currently involved in, whereas Slash performed It's So Easy and Mr Brownstone constantly with Velvet Revolver.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah that’s the law, at least in England,
I can’t say for other countries.
If you busk then it’s unlikely any company would sue, simply because they don’t know about it, and it would take too much
time and effort, but they could.
Slash isn’t allowed to sing any guns and roses song he didn’t co write.
When Michael Jackson owned the Beatles back catalogue, Paul could sing the
songs freely that he wrote, But had to pay royalties for printing lyrics.
Same reason wikipedia pages about songs have no lyrics printed on them, they
can talk about the song all they like, under the fair used act, but the lyrics are copyrighted.
john bodega
Yep - copyright law is actually a lot harsher than most people are really aware of.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]The reality is though that a lot of copyright infringement isn't cracked down upon because it isn't deemed to be worth doing, which is why we live in a world where you can go to a pub and sing covers without being fined. Haha.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]The reality is though that a lot of copyright infringement isn't cracked down upon because it isn't deemed to be worth doing, which is why we live in a world where you can go to a pub and sing covers without being fined. Haha.[/QUOTE]
Cwazy little thing
I stand humbly corrected gentlemen -
Im a lawyer, albeit a not yet qualified one, and did some copyright law whilst I was studying, but its been a couple of years, so Im a bit rusty. I decided it was worth having a glance in a text book, and sure enough, S.16 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 gives a copyright owner the exclusive right (amongst others) to perform the work, and anyone else who does that is therefore infringing.
However, the reasons why no one enforces this law are many, firstly time and effort as you've mentioned. Secondly the fact that if someone isnt making any profit from the performance, or is only making a relatively small profit, then the cost of the artist getting their lawyers on the case would vastly outweigh the benefit of chasing someone for the money they make busking/playing in a covers band.
Plus, realistically, covers bands are actually free promotion for an artist. It'd be different if someone was passing off songs they didnt write as their own, but thats not usually the case at all.
Its a funny little legal situation. Im inclined to say that the reason the law remains as it is is because no one enforces it - I think if artists actually started trying to shut down covers bands, you'd soon find an exception put into statute.
As for this Guns/Slash, Beatles/McCartney business, Im pretty sure if McCartney sang a George Harrison song at a gig, no one would sue, but Slash performing an Axl song on the other hand might well lead to action, cos they hate each other.
Other examples would be Pink performing Bo Rap and Boyzone doing a Queen medley - I wouldnt have thought they'll have paid to license those songs, and I'd be inclined to question if they even asked permission. Its probably a case of mutual respect, and the fact that someone covering you live is more of a homage and flattery than anything else.
Back to the original topic however, Xfactor is such big business that I imagine Jedward's owners probably got a licence to use the Vanilla Ice version when they were on the show, which in turn will likely feed royalties back to Queen. Unless, again, the whole Xfactor thing is seen as free promotion by artists, in which case perhaps they just let them use whatever, knowing their greatest hits will soon be back in the charts (see Journey!).
Interesting. haha
Im a lawyer, albeit a not yet qualified one, and did some copyright law whilst I was studying, but its been a couple of years, so Im a bit rusty. I decided it was worth having a glance in a text book, and sure enough, S.16 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 gives a copyright owner the exclusive right (amongst others) to perform the work, and anyone else who does that is therefore infringing.
However, the reasons why no one enforces this law are many, firstly time and effort as you've mentioned. Secondly the fact that if someone isnt making any profit from the performance, or is only making a relatively small profit, then the cost of the artist getting their lawyers on the case would vastly outweigh the benefit of chasing someone for the money they make busking/playing in a covers band.
Plus, realistically, covers bands are actually free promotion for an artist. It'd be different if someone was passing off songs they didnt write as their own, but thats not usually the case at all.
Its a funny little legal situation. Im inclined to say that the reason the law remains as it is is because no one enforces it - I think if artists actually started trying to shut down covers bands, you'd soon find an exception put into statute.
As for this Guns/Slash, Beatles/McCartney business, Im pretty sure if McCartney sang a George Harrison song at a gig, no one would sue, but Slash performing an Axl song on the other hand might well lead to action, cos they hate each other.
Other examples would be Pink performing Bo Rap and Boyzone doing a Queen medley - I wouldnt have thought they'll have paid to license those songs, and I'd be inclined to question if they even asked permission. Its probably a case of mutual respect, and the fact that someone covering you live is more of a homage and flattery than anything else.
Back to the original topic however, Xfactor is such big business that I imagine Jedward's owners probably got a licence to use the Vanilla Ice version when they were on the show, which in turn will likely feed royalties back to Queen. Unless, again, the whole Xfactor thing is seen as free promotion by artists, in which case perhaps they just let them use whatever, knowing their greatest hits will soon be back in the charts (see Journey!).
Interesting. haha