Do they have to ask John's permission for using 'Queen' name on forthcoming tour, in the case if John wouldn't be involved in this or maybe even ask him to write special message to Queen fans with his thoughts about this tour? What do you think?
(Please note that I'm not one of those Queen fans who says that Roger can't use sign 'Queen' on his drum kit, but on other side there'll be a lot of fuss about Brian/Roger and 'Queen' name and I guess only one who can stop the fuss is John. IMO. So I'd like to know what do you think about it!)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I think he has to say somthing about it.
I now he's retired but he cant hide and don't say anything forever. We all want to know what's his feelings about it...
Just one interwiew John. Just one and you can go home again and have good times :) But just for us, the fans... We all want to hear you :)
I now he's retired but he cant hide and don't say anything forever. We all want to know what's his feelings about it...
Just one interwiew John. Just one and you can go home again and have good times :) But just for us, the fans... We all want to hear you :)
Do they have to ask John's permission for using 'Queen' name?
No. This has previously been faught in the courts by "Status Quo".
It was found to be perfectly legitimate for Rick Parfitt and Francis Rossi to be called "Status Quo" despite the legal objections by Alan Lancaster and John Coghlan.
This decision can't even be argued on the basis of "founder members" because it was Bassist Alan Lancaster who invited guitarist Francis Rossi to join his band The Scorpions in 1962.
After the departure of John Coghlan, and unsatisfied with the direction the new group had taken, founder bassist Alan Lancaster quit the band in 1986. When Rick Parfitt and Francis Rossi recorded tracks for three albums that they were still under a contractual obligation to provide, Lancaster, unsuccessfully, tried to put a stop to the remaining members using the "Status Quo" name without him.
The judement was awarded in favour of Parfitt and Rossi along the lines of Gordon Banks, Nobby Stiles, Bobby Charlton and Geoff Hurst et all, are a completely different body of men from David Beckham, Steven Gerrard, Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney. Nevertheless the latter group have as much legal right to call themselves England Football Club as the former.
The same is true with bands like "Fleetwood Mac", and "The Rolling Stones".
Therefore it would be perfectly legal for the two surviving members to get together and call themselves "The Beatles", "The Who" or even "Queen" - and there is nothing old Deaksie could do about it - even if he wanted to.
No. This has previously been faught in the courts by "Status Quo".
It was found to be perfectly legitimate for Rick Parfitt and Francis Rossi to be called "Status Quo" despite the legal objections by Alan Lancaster and John Coghlan.
This decision can't even be argued on the basis of "founder members" because it was Bassist Alan Lancaster who invited guitarist Francis Rossi to join his band The Scorpions in 1962.
After the departure of John Coghlan, and unsatisfied with the direction the new group had taken, founder bassist Alan Lancaster quit the band in 1986. When Rick Parfitt and Francis Rossi recorded tracks for three albums that they were still under a contractual obligation to provide, Lancaster, unsuccessfully, tried to put a stop to the remaining members using the "Status Quo" name without him.
The judement was awarded in favour of Parfitt and Rossi along the lines of Gordon Banks, Nobby Stiles, Bobby Charlton and Geoff Hurst et all, are a completely different body of men from David Beckham, Steven Gerrard, Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney. Nevertheless the latter group have as much legal right to call themselves England Football Club as the former.
The same is true with bands like "Fleetwood Mac", and "The Rolling Stones".
Therefore it would be perfectly legal for the two surviving members to get together and call themselves "The Beatles", "The Who" or even "Queen" - and there is nothing old Deaksie could do about it - even if he wanted to.
John, I meant ethical side of it...
As I know Brian and Roger have met with John before GHIII release and chat about details of that compilation album, so I think they could do the same now.
As I know Brian and Roger have met with John before GHIII release and chat about details of that compilation album, so I think they could do the same now.
Notice beside the name/logo Queen that there's no "TM" (for "trademark"). I wonder why they didn't ever do that -- or was it public domain and they couldn't?
Whilst John may have no veto concerning the use of the name "Queen" (as John S. Stuart pointed out; however, there could be a completely different legal basis in the case of Queen. Maybe they've had some special agreement when founding Queen Productions or later on...who knows), he will have a say in many things, because - as far as I know - John still does hold joint rights to all things connected with Queen Productions. So it's not that easy.
However, John has allegedly given green light to most of what Bri and Rog have been doing throughout the last 6 years, so he might do it this time as well.
However, John has allegedly given green light to most of what Bri and Rog have been doing throughout the last 6 years, so he might do it this time as well.
Philipp: I agree with you & think you are correct.
I may be wrong, but after the death of Freddie wasn't the "power-base" dived equally among the remaining three?
This would mean that effectly as two-thirds of the whole, Deaksie would be vetoed by Roger and Brian every time, and in effect, have no real say at all?
(BTW: That's a question - not a statement of fact!)
I may be wrong, but after the death of Freddie wasn't the "power-base" dived equally among the remaining three?
This would mean that effectly as two-thirds of the whole, Deaksie would be vetoed by Roger and Brian every time, and in effect, have no real say at all?
(BTW: That's a question - not a statement of fact!)
Good point. It's possible, unless they had a rule saying that decisions must be made unanimously.
However, I'm pretty sure that even if John could be outvoted on certain issues (like recording a song with Robbie Williams, for example...), there are certain limits where general law would enable John to categorically obstruct no matter what Bri/Rog say. Any sound recordings or products that Queen Productions hold the rights to cannot be used or changed without John's permission. If I'm not mistaken, it is impossible to release any compilation albums (e.g. GH III, Jewels) or album re-masters (miniatures etc...) without John's consent, because he's a joint owner of all of Queen's recordings and copyright law would enable John to prevent any further steps.
However, I'm pretty sure that even if John could be outvoted on certain issues (like recording a song with Robbie Williams, for example...), there are certain limits where general law would enable John to categorically obstruct no matter what Bri/Rog say. Any sound recordings or products that Queen Productions hold the rights to cannot be used or changed without John's permission. If I'm not mistaken, it is impossible to release any compilation albums (e.g. GH III, Jewels) or album re-masters (miniatures etc...) without John's consent, because he's a joint owner of all of Queen's recordings and copyright law would enable John to prevent any further steps.
HeM:
Queen NEVER recorded in a studio WITHOUT Deacon.
Queen were NEVER a success WITHOUT Deacon.
Queen's biggest EVER international hit (and it ain't Bo Rhap) WAS written by Deacon.
The train of thought here is that Queen are NOT QUEEN without Freddie or the Deackster. Now, I am NOT saying that Brian and Roger and Paul would NOT kick ass... but they are NOT Queen!
I mean I like "Star Trek" and I like "The Next Generation". I like "Free" but I also like "Bad Company". I like "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" - but I do NOT like "Fleetwood Mac".
Now I know that this is all my personal opinion. But for me, Queen II, or Queen Two, or Queen Too, or Queen The Next Generation, but NOT QUEEN!!!
Queen NEVER recorded in a studio WITHOUT Deacon.
Queen were NEVER a success WITHOUT Deacon.
Queen's biggest EVER international hit (and it ain't Bo Rhap) WAS written by Deacon.
The train of thought here is that Queen are NOT QUEEN without Freddie or the Deackster. Now, I am NOT saying that Brian and Roger and Paul would NOT kick ass... but they are NOT Queen!
I mean I like "Star Trek" and I like "The Next Generation". I like "Free" but I also like "Bad Company". I like "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" - but I do NOT like "Fleetwood Mac".
Now I know that this is all my personal opinion. But for me, Queen II, or Queen Two, or Queen Too, or Queen The Next Generation, but NOT QUEEN!!!
If John Deacon doesn't like, fuck him off!
When he joined the band they had already played under the name Queen.
The band was "Queen" right after Tim left Smile and Freddie joined.
So they tried 3 different bassists before finding John.
If Queen existed before Deekey, why can't it exist AFTER him?
Maybe because John still exists and because those 3 bassists did nothing at all for Queen?
Why can't they tour as Smile?
Because they'd need Tim Staffell to join (otherwise it would cause endless moaning yet again) and he most probably won't want to (unless they change their musical concept quite dramatically). Also because Smile is a far too obscure name to virtually anyone outside the hard core of Queen fans.
Why can't they tour as Smile?
There's a topic about that, egret. I wonder why too
i totally agree with you John!
QUEEN IS INDEED NOT "QUEEN" WITHOUT DEACY!!!!
...or Freddie either mind you!
I think Brian and Roger should do something else as far as a name goes...i mean, like Mr. Stuart suggested above...
Call themselves "Queen Again" or "Queen Phoenix"....some OTHER name besides "Queen".
Sorry folks, i'm with JS on this one...Queen are'nt Queen with only 2 members man!
QUEEN IS INDEED NOT "QUEEN" WITHOUT DEACY!!!!
...or Freddie either mind you!
I think Brian and Roger should do something else as far as a name goes...i mean, like Mr. Stuart suggested above...
Call themselves "Queen Again" or "Queen Phoenix"....some OTHER name besides "Queen".
Sorry folks, i'm with JS on this one...Queen are'nt Queen with only 2 members man!
HeM:
Queen NEVER recorded in a studio WITHOUT Deacon.
Queen were NEVER a success WITHOUT Deacon.
Queen's biggest EVER international hit (and it ain't Bo Rhap) WAS written by Deacon.
The train of thought here is that Queen are NOT QUEEN without Freddie or the Deackster. Now, I am NOT saying that Brian and Roger and Paul would NOT kick ass... but they are NOT Queen!
I mean I like "Star Trek" and I like "The Next Generation". I like "Free" but I also like "Bad Company". I like "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" - but I do NOT like "Fleetwood Mac".
Now I know that this is all my personal opinion. But for me, Queen II, or Queen Two, or Queen Too, or Queen The Next Generation, but NOT QUEEN!!!
well put.