NastyQueenie74
Yep. I put out a thread on it a while back
Thread
Posts in chronological order
dysan
The old musicians union rules meant that if bands were to mime a TV show they'd have to rerecord the track. Lots of bands dodged this by getting the MU rep drunk and then presenting the studio version as the new recording (perhaps lightly remixed) As shown by the BBC radio sessions Queen favoured using their proper album versions for backing tracks (saving time, preserving the nuances of the recording) but I can imagine in the case of NIH they actually fancied presenting it in a more 'live' version so were happy to redo it. Perhaps they were in the studio that day anyway? We know SSOR was a last minute appearance so I guess there was no time to recut it and that version remained on file at the BBC for future TOTP appearances. KQ might have been considered too intricate to redo? GOFLB? Dunno.
Perhaps the 1975 KYA started out like this for some reason ahead of the US reissue? I always thought it far too raw to be considered a new studio version for release. Perhaps KYA was going to be reissued in the UK too? I speculate.
Perhaps the 1975 KYA started out like this for some reason ahead of the US reissue? I always thought it far too raw to be considered a new studio version for release. Perhaps KYA was going to be reissued in the UK too? I speculate.
dave76
I've offered him some Queen outtakes but he even turned that down. He told me that someone has offered him 1K and he didn't go for that either.
.
The guy says he isn't a huge Queen fan but has sent the transfer to the BBC for their archive, and has not asked for payment - good man.
He also provided a clip showing the quality, and has stated the length of the appearance - nice one.
So it's now good to know this copy exists and is possibly also in the QP archives by now.
He doesn't want to share it in full or sell it - nothing wrong about that.
For his efforts he gets called a carrot dangler - charming.
He also provided a clip showing the quality, and has stated the length of the appearance - nice one.
So it's now good to know this copy exists and is possibly also in the QP archives by now.
He doesn't want to share it in full or sell it - nothing wrong about that.
For his efforts he gets called a carrot dangler - charming.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]The Kurgan wrote:[/b]
The guy says he isn't a huge Queen fan but has sent the transfer to the BBC for their archive, and has not asked for payment - good man.
He also provided a clip showing the quality, and has stated the length of the appearance - nice one.
So it's now good to know this copy exists and is possibly also in the QP archives by now.
He doesn't want to share it in full or sell it - nothing wrong about that.
For his efforts he gets called a carrot dangler - charming.[/QUOTE]
If he actually dealt with QPL and the BBC, he wouldn't be boasting about it on youtube. Lawyers would be after him for breach of copyright.
Look at his youtube channel - he has a ton of this stuff from other artists. All this means is he managed to get his hands on old tapes, but that's as far as it goes.
Anyone involved in such genuine interactions does not go public, ever, as there is always an NDA. This is complete bullshit.
The guy says he isn't a huge Queen fan but has sent the transfer to the BBC for their archive, and has not asked for payment - good man.
He also provided a clip showing the quality, and has stated the length of the appearance - nice one.
So it's now good to know this copy exists and is possibly also in the QP archives by now.
He doesn't want to share it in full or sell it - nothing wrong about that.
For his efforts he gets called a carrot dangler - charming.[/QUOTE]
If he actually dealt with QPL and the BBC, he wouldn't be boasting about it on youtube. Lawyers would be after him for breach of copyright.
Look at his youtube channel - he has a ton of this stuff from other artists. All this means is he managed to get his hands on old tapes, but that's as far as it goes.
Anyone involved in such genuine interactions does not go public, ever, as there is always an NDA. This is complete bullshit.
.
So now you are a legal expert?
Utter tosh, I have sent vintage reel transfers of BBC radio broadcasts (via Genome) to the BBC and that's the end of the matter.
No NDA or lawyers required, just a nice reply thanking me for supplying them with material wiped from their archive.
Here is a recent reply I received from a manager at the BBC archive:
From: Archives Collections Managers
Sent: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: BBC Reel Transfers 1965 - 1975
Hi Mark
Our sound preservation specialist has reviewed your audio files and reports that they are of high quality and are suitable for adding to the archive sound collection.
So far you have sent files of: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; if you have any more files of complete programmes with an identified title and tx date we would be happy to take these too.
Thanks very much for making these recordings available.
XXXXX
Utter tosh, I have sent vintage reel transfers of BBC radio broadcasts (via Genome) to the BBC and that's the end of the matter.
No NDA or lawyers required, just a nice reply thanking me for supplying them with material wiped from their archive.
Here is a recent reply I received from a manager at the BBC archive:
From: Archives Collections Managers
Sent: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: BBC Reel Transfers 1965 - 1975
Hi Mark
Our sound preservation specialist has reviewed your audio files and reports that they are of high quality and are suitable for adding to the archive sound collection.
So far you have sent files of: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; if you have any more files of complete programmes with an identified title and tx date we would be happy to take these too.
Thanks very much for making these recordings available.
XXXXX
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]The Kurgan wrote:[/b]
So now you are a legal expert?
Utter tosh, I have sent vintage reel transfers of BBC radio broadcasts (via Genome) to the BBC and that's the end of the matter.
No NDA or lawyers required, just a nice reply thanking me for supplying them with material wiped from their archive.[/QUOTE]
So if you posted clips of their material onto youtube now that they know who you are, you think you wouldn't get served a lawsuit?
Public broadcasters don't take copyright infringement lightly. Have you ever tried licensing anything from them? A single frame out of place and the lawyers are knocking.
Youtube is no different. We'll see if this fellow's channel is still there in a year or two.
So now you are a legal expert?
Utter tosh, I have sent vintage reel transfers of BBC radio broadcasts (via Genome) to the BBC and that's the end of the matter.
No NDA or lawyers required, just a nice reply thanking me for supplying them with material wiped from their archive.[/QUOTE]
So if you posted clips of their material onto youtube now that they know who you are, you think you wouldn't get served a lawsuit?
Public broadcasters don't take copyright infringement lightly. Have you ever tried licensing anything from them? A single frame out of place and the lawyers are knocking.
Youtube is no different. We'll see if this fellow's channel is still there in a year or two.
.
I have no intention of trying to license anything.
As regards YouTube, I think I had a Freddie Mercury interview from Spanish TV removed a few years back, and I do regularly receive the following notices:
''Copyrighted content was found in your video. The claimant is allowing their content to be used in your YouTube video. However, ads might appear on it.''
and very occasionally:
"Copyrighted content was found in your video. Because of the claimant's policy, this video can't be played in some countries."
On the whole I think that's pretty fair, and on my part I avoid uploading complete recordings, as I feel that would only encourage disputes.
That's the reality of how things currently stand at the moment, EU article 13 might change all of this, but for now I'll play on.
As regards YouTube, I think I had a Freddie Mercury interview from Spanish TV removed a few years back, and I do regularly receive the following notices:
''Copyrighted content was found in your video. The claimant is allowing their content to be used in your YouTube video. However, ads might appear on it.''
and very occasionally:
"Copyrighted content was found in your video. Because of the claimant's policy, this video can't be played in some countries."
On the whole I think that's pretty fair, and on my part I avoid uploading complete recordings, as I feel that would only encourage disputes.
That's the reality of how things currently stand at the moment, EU article 13 might change all of this, but for now I'll play on.
Queenman!!
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Kurgan wrote:[/b]
The guy says he isn't a huge Queen fan but has sent the transfer to the BBC for their archive, and has not asked for payment - good man.
He also provided a clip showing the quality, and has stated the length of the appearance - nice one.
So it's now good to know this copy exists and is possibly also in the QP archives by now.
He doesn't want to share it in full or sell it - nothing wrong about that.
For his efforts he gets called a carrot dangler - charming.[/QUOTE]
If he actually dealt with QPL and the BBC, he wouldn't be boasting about it on youtube. Lawyers would be after him for breach of copyright.
Look at his youtube channel - he has a ton of this stuff from other artists. All this means is he managed to get his hands on old tapes, but that's as far as it goes.
Anyone involved in such genuine interactions does not go public, ever, as there is always an NDA. This is complete bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
-----------------------------
Maybe this was part of the deal he made with BBC and QPR. After all these years the copyrights may have expired
[QUOTE] [b]The Kurgan wrote:[/b]
The guy says he isn't a huge Queen fan but has sent the transfer to the BBC for their archive, and has not asked for payment - good man.
He also provided a clip showing the quality, and has stated the length of the appearance - nice one.
So it's now good to know this copy exists and is possibly also in the QP archives by now.
He doesn't want to share it in full or sell it - nothing wrong about that.
For his efforts he gets called a carrot dangler - charming.[/QUOTE]
If he actually dealt with QPL and the BBC, he wouldn't be boasting about it on youtube. Lawyers would be after him for breach of copyright.
Look at his youtube channel - he has a ton of this stuff from other artists. All this means is he managed to get his hands on old tapes, but that's as far as it goes.
Anyone involved in such genuine interactions does not go public, ever, as there is always an NDA. This is complete bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
-----------------------------
Maybe this was part of the deal he made with BBC and QPR. After all these years the copyrights may have expired
.
You don't need a "deal" and perhaps (like me) he just sent them a transfer or tape - gratis.
.
The wiped Roxy Music TOTP performance from 1973 the guy linked to is now safely in the BBC archive.
By coincidence, it was shown two days ago on a BBC4 documentary about the band.
By coincidence, it was shown two days ago on a BBC4 documentary about the band.
.
The BBC also advised me to contact the national sound archive regarding some old Jazz broadcasts I have on reel tape.
Anyone interested in the archive might want to check it out here http://www.bl.uk/subjects/sound
Anyone interested in the archive might want to check it out here http://www.bl.uk/subjects/sound
.
Try a search using their sound and moving image catalogue, you might be surprised at what you find.
Update: even vinyl bootlegs it seems.
Update: even vinyl bootlegs it seems.