RADIO GAGA COVER

i dont know electric 6
i dont know anything about his music, about his life, if they`re gay, etc
now i know they made a cover of radio ga ga
but i cant understand one thing: radio gaga was written by roger
if one person want to make a cover of a copyrighted song, he has to get permission from the song writter
my question is: how could electric 6 made that video?
how could "queen" allowed electric 6 to make that video??????!!!!!!!!!!
(the video shows electric 6 singer dancing on freddie`s grave and making fun of his teeth and his clothing....terrible)
that was a big mistake
who knows electric 6???
here in argentina, they are nobody
and sure, when peolple ask electric 6 about the video, they`ll say that the video is a tribute to freddie mercury...that sucks!

I agree, Electric 6 should be killed (although I am glad I haven`t seen the thing). Why do Roger, Brian and John fail to prevent such things. Or can EMI do with these songs what they want??
I don`t get it - if Brian and Roger really gave permission to these assholes, then both are poor greedy bastards.

Why would Roger want to ban it? He gets royalties from it...

I guess you are right. But its a sad commentary on his loyalty to the musical legacy of Queen - and his "friendship" to Freddie Mercury.

Roger has become a washed up looking asshole

I agree.

Every singer or group whose ever recorded or performed a cover should be lined up against a wall and shot.

As I understand the law of copyright, so long as the lyrics aren't changed, there's nothing anybody can do to stop releases such as this. Once a song's in the public domain, and so long as the appropriate royalties are paid it's a free for all.

So there's nothing Roger could have done about it even if he wanted to. I'm sure he looks forward to your apologies.

Oh, he sure could have done something - he could alt least have a statement released that he does not approve of this cover-version. But money seems to be more important to him (though he is a billionaire). Instead reviving his shaky solo career and do some better stuff, he continues to destroy Queen`s legacy.

And by the way, I`m not into music copyright law, but it seems strange to me that a song is in the public domain after twenty years - in the film industry its more than 50 and up to 80 years.

Strange or not. It is a fact that the only right a composer has over his work is who records it first, whether it be themselves or someone else. Like I say, once it's in the public domain it's up for grabs. But the lyrics must remain unchanged otherwise it's deemed a new song. If Electric 6 had changed even one line from Radio GaGa, then the record could have been stopped and charges of plagerism brought to bear.

actually, copyright law covers the lyrics, but not music. thus why "Weird Al" can (or rather, could, if he wanted) get away with parodying songs without seeking permission first.

re: public domain -- i don't know about elsewhere in the world, but here in the US, Disney managed to get the public domain time from 75yrs to 95yrs ("Steamboat Willy" was due to go public domain this year, until Disney managed to get that changed). as every country has slightly different copyright laws, i believe Electric6 (or anyone else wanting to release a cover) would be required to meet everyone's requirements -- i.e. if GaGa is infact public domain in, say, Iceland right now, then it could leagally only be released in Iceland, or anywhere else where the copyright has expired.

expiration of copyrights is extremely unlikely in the case of Queen. at least, anytime soon -- it's one of the benefits of continually remastering and rereleasing albums. if Gaga were, in fact, public domain, then, at the very least, anything 'The Works' and prior would be public domain, which really just means absolutely anyone could release it, legally. EMI could release a Greatest Hits package, but just as easily could Tooth&Nail, or Victory, or even Standard Recording.

" Strange or not. It is a fact that the only right a composer has over his work is who records it first, whether it be themselves or someone else." -- that all depends on who holds the copyrights (not just songwriting, but also publishing, and permormance rights). not everyone is under the same contract, and not every record company's "standard contract" is the same. smaller independant labels allow artists to maintain all copyrights. some larger indies allow artists to hold on to everything but publishing (in other words, once an artist has left a lable, said lable is still allowed to release anything by that artist that is already in their possession).

one final thought -- although i've not seen the video yet (is it online anywhere?), isn't it possible that what some are calling "disrespectful" some others would call "taking the piss"? as i say, i've not seen the video yet, but reading these desciptions makes it sound not much different from Wyclef & co. making off with the Freddie statue in their AOBTD vid.

BackToHuman: I'm sure you're correct in what you are saying, and I am certainly no expert in copyright laws. It is the case, however, that to all intents and purposes anybody has the right to record any song he or she wants as long as notice is given to the songs copyright owners within 30 days of the recording being made, and before it is distributed. It makes no difference whether the song is 3 months old or 30 years old.

All I was trying to do was to explain that it's quite possible for cover versions to be released by just about anybody without the endorsment, or even the knowledge of the original artists. The attack on Roger earlier in the thread was harsh, personal, and (in this case) patently unwarranted.

ogre t raylot wrote:

I agree.

Every singer or group whose ever recorded or performed a cover should be lined up against a wall and shot.

Even Johnny Cash?

*DOUBLE POST*

it's the video that I find offensive and disrespectful...the audio is so-so....