Polite Note From Queen Productions Ltd. to YT users

[QUOTE] [b]boah wrote:[/b]

So over the top.Just read a great article where Bruce Springsteen was asking his fans to send them their live footage and rare recordings for a documentary.The guy is a genius and in touch with his fans which is more than I can say with Queen these days...........sad but true.[/QUOTE]
A couple years back Brian appealed to the public for 8mm footage of the last two songs of the Hammersmith 75 concert. Not sure if he was successful.

QPL does get rare stuff from fans. They just aren't as overt about it.

Trouble is, Springsteen asks his fans for it so he can use it to give them great product - Queen ask on the promise of that, then it just ends up being hoarded away and we don't get the release.

[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]

Trouble is, Springsteen asks his fans for it so he can use it to give them great product - Queen ask on the promise of that, then it just ends up being hoarded away and we don't get the release.[/QUOTE]

With the exception of the Magic tour rehearsal and the Alexandra Palace '79 clips in the Great Pretender documentary, you're absolutely right.

;)

[QUOTE] [b]boah wrote:[/b]

So over the top.Just read a great article where Bruce Springsteen was asking his fans to send them their live footage and rare recordings for a documentary.The guy is a genius and in touch with his fans which is more than I can say with Queen these days...........sad but true.[/QUOTE]

Riiight, because Bruce Springsteen is the first artist to do so ;)

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]

Trouble is, Springsteen asks his fans for it so he can use it to give them great product - Queen ask on the promise of that, then it just ends up being hoarded away and we don't get the release.[/QUOTE]

With the exception of the Magic tour rehearsal and the Alexandra Palace '79 clips in the Great Pretender documentary, you're absolutely right.

;)[/QUOTE]

Don't forget about the Winterland 77 clips in Champions of the World.

How can there be rights on something not released..

Nobody can imo haves on 'noice or sound' when never published or been on sale.

They are legally simply not there.. I think.

[QUOTE] [b]kosimodo wrote:[/b]

How can there be rights on something not released..

Nobody can imo haves on 'noice or sound' when never published or been on sale.

They are legally simply not there.. I think.

[/QUOTE]

Very, very wrong. You might want to brush up on your copyright.

[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]kosimodo wrote:[/b]

How can there be rights on something not released..

Nobody can imo haves on 'noice or sound' when never published or been on sale.

They are legally simply not there.. I think.

[/QUOTE]

Very, very wrong. You might want to brush up on your copyright.[/QUOTE]


But would you have a reasoned argument that, because there has never ever been a statement or declaration to confirm who owns the copyright, you reasonably thought the track was 'in the public domain'?

Queen are asking for tracks that are under their copyright to be withdrawn, but how are we supposed to know which tracks they hold copyright on and which they don't? Well we can easily tell from anything that has been released that this is actually under copyright because the packaging, sleeve, disc, label etc,,, bears a warning notice, but a track that has never been released in any form has never had actually had such a copyright notice publicly announced, so perhaps legally they should be obliged to prove their right to ask for these to be removed first before we hand them over - if not, we could all lay claim to all sorts of music that is all over the net and declared to be in the public domain!

However as a musician who has had copyright issues I know the difficulties involved, so am just playing Devil's Advocate here by putting the 'innocent' argument across!

Copyright is started at the point of creation - it's not registered officially or anything like that. You created it, you got copyrighted.

Shouting back "prove it then" when we all know which group of people created this would be incredibly disingenuous.

"Queen are asking for tracks that are under their copyright to be withdrawn, but how are we supposed to know which tracks they hold copyright on and which they don't?"

Anything they've recorded or written. There's a large grey area of stuff that most people don't tend to take action on, but Queen are within their rights to remove virtually anything from Youtube that infringes.

I don't know if they're going to remove gig recordings, for instance, but they are totally allowed to.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that they should need to prove that they created it (the main way of which this is done is by issuing a formal copyright notice) otherwise they could lay claim to creating anything that doesn't have a published copyright notice already on?!!

How many times have we heard songs on here that claim to be Queen unreleased tracks, and then turn out to be fans doing their own 'Queen soundalike' songs - we may well think they are genuine Queen songs that Queen hold copyright to them, but they're not, and they don't. How do we know that, for example, My Secret Fantasy, is actually Queen?? (again, just playing Devil's Advocate!)

... that's not devil's advocate, that's just ridiculous. My Secret Fantasy is patently a Queen demo. I've heard people try to make fake ones, and it's always hilariously not-convincing. I know you're just trying to set up a plausible example, but you need a better one.

Besides which, the infrastructure of issuing copyright takedowns is already pretty good. It's a little unfortunate that Youtube errs on the side of caution, but I've had to appeal bad decisions before and the appeals process works fine. It's not fun, mind you. But it does work.

When you say, "they should need to prove that they created it (the main way of which this is done is by issuing a formal copyright notice)" ... this is basically already how it's done, at least on Youtube.

As far as the 'why Queen is doing this' question goes ... I'd love to be an optimist about it. I'd like to think they're going to throw us a bone and do at least a semi-official job of letting us hear some rarities. Won't hold my breath, but we'll see.

The indignation of some people on here is laughable.

Stop trying to find excuses. From the moment of creation Queen own their recordings, released or not.

Go and create something of your own you leeches.

It is not for sale.. It is out there.. Dunno how, maybe a technician with his copy who shared his. But when it is out there is it is there. Cant see the legal point of them having rights on copy of sound with no copyright. If there was copyright on it.. There must be published list. Isnt it?

*headdesk*

Look. Just because you don't understand copyright law doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The simplest way I can put it is that copyright is automatic. It exists from the second that you create something. Copyright exists on every Queen item; even the live gig recordings. They've either been nice or lazy in not being more enthusiastic about having stuff taken off the internet. That doesn't make the infringements any more or less real - it just means they weren't acting on them for whatever reason.