That's Me, The Silent Son
- Mar 16, 2018
- Reaction score
I don't see it when viewing on my phone. When using my laptop, it is at the bottom of every post DanRH makes. It looks like this:I don’t see a list of gear ….???
Are or should? They should be illegal. Make and play your own music.
Or it could be the Alabama Blues Brothers--a pretty killer cover/tribute band.If you see a pair of dudes standing in the back of your next dive bar gig, dressed as Jake and Elwood, hiding behind dark sunglasses… that would the CIA uniform adopted in 1984 for a special task force to take out criminal cover band cartels in your local area.
They blend right in so look out.
See, to me this is the way to do, literally 'paying tribute' to the original artist in more than just artform.They're from my neck of the woods. And they've been doing the tribute thing the right way and for a loooong time. (Going on 30 years). Phil Collins even brought his kids to one of their shows so that they could experience how Gennesis did it back in the days... They pay licensing fees and have gone through the propper channels to receive a green light from the member of G (or their lawayers/managers).
Thank you for these details. I've always wondered how the local cover bands could just play whatever covers they wanted at the local venue where I was a photographer.I got this from an e-book "Hack the Music Industry"
Music Copywrite law:
"The right to make derivative works based on the original - A derivative work is one base on one or more pre-exis1ng works. Some examples of deriva1ves are translations, arrangements, the translation of a book or an album into a motion picture, samples, and remixes. As a rule of thumb, a work becomes a derivative as opposed to a reproduti1on if it transforms, recasts, or adapts the original. For this reason, a cover song that does not change the composition is considered a reproduction, not a derivative."
I wanted to add the following from the same source:
"The right to publicly perform the work (composition copyright) - This right applies only to the composition copyright. It grants the right to publicly perform the composition. Any time you hear your favorite song being played publicly, be it in a TV show, on the radio, or by a cover band at a local club, the composition owner is being paid. The Performing Rights Organizations such as ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (US) are responsible for issuing public performance licenses for the composition and collecting the fees on the songwriter’s behalf. "
The biggest issue from the side of a creator is when the person copying/tributing your work is getting more compensation than you are--that's when the rub is the wrong way.
I haven't experienced this with music, but I have experienced it with my photography being used without license--and it stings when a magazine is getting big revenue from advertisers and your photo is on the cover and they will wiggle out of paying you a dime via 'innocent infringer' clauses. It makes you stop wanting to create, because as someone posted earlier 'music is a business' and so is everything else when it comes down to it, so if your costs aren't covered or it's not worth it to you financially, you'll stop.
If I was a musician with published works and then these works were being performed/copied/tributed without even a penny come my way while the person using them was making money off of them, I would be irked. That's my blood, sweat, and tears that someone is profiting off of because all artists know, that's what our art consists of--nothing less.
I notice there is not ONE picture of the lawyer who filed suit so we can determine if he's too fat, ugly and untalented to make these claims. You think this reporter would have dug up a picture of the lawyer, supposedly playing drums with Bolton.