| violonbleu 28.08.2006 06:39 |
Hello Mister Books, Can I ask you something what I wish it is a serious question? I'm sorry for the language mistakes. This is a global question which I try to explain in little questions. When a fan records a concert - directly-, is it his right to share it with other people, or does he have to ask the Queen Production? Are the playing artists the owners of their music, everytime? for example,the music that they play live, is it owned by them or can it be "owned" by everybody which was listening them, directly? A concrete example. Imagine I would have been able to listen to Queen + Paul Rodgers, live, inBelgium, ANtwerp, May 2005. Am I able legally to record the concert? Or is every concert in the possession of the artist? Because, eventually, music if always something which becomes offered to the listening people when it becomes produced? When it gets recorded in the studio, the artists are the owners of their music, I'm sure. But when the music becomes produced live, and has not yet been recorded by the band and their team, does the fans have the right to record for them, and if they want, for other people? Are ALL those "bootlegs", as it is called, PIRATING, or are some of them, or are any of them? Another concrete example. Mister Brian May said recently, answering a question about the Queen concert in Knebworth '86 (which is always said to be the last), that the video was not recorded by the band and their team. But if one fan in the world recorded the video, is it owned by the QUeen Productions or by the one who recorded? This is a complexe question which I hope I explain clearly enough, and that I hope you will be able to reply;and, also, which I hope is serious enough to be answered by somebody like you - I want to say: somebody who owns not reproductions of recordings, but real recordings. I'm looking forward for your anwer, All my respect for you, Laurent, a Queen fan from Belgium. |
| zaiga 29.08.2006 02:39 |
Hey Laurent, I hope you don't me answering this question even though my name is not Greg Brooks. Yours is a complex question, and the legal world of copyrights is one big muddy swamp. I'll try to keep it simple. When someone writes a song, he has copyright on that song. This means that no one may duplicate the song in anyway without paying the copyright holder a certain fee. Duplicating in this case means both recording it on an album and performing it in public. When you buy an album of an artist, a percentage of royalties goes to the copyright holders of the songs, and a percentage of royalties goes to the performers (in case the performer and copyright holder are not the same person). So, you can imagine that when you own a recording of a Queen concert, and you reproduce this recording, first you have to get permission from both the copyright holder and the performer, then, when you sell a recording, you have to pay royalties to both the copyright holder and the perfomer. I hope this answers your question. |
| Sebastian 29.08.2006 08:03 |
I'm not Greg Brooks either (thank God!), but I'll complement: As far as I know, in the case of cover versions, you've only got to get permisson from the copyright holder if you change the lyrics or something. You've always got to pay royalties of course, but the copyright owner can't stop you from releasing a song unless you alter its lyrics (that's why Roger couldn't stop Electric Six from covering 'Ga Ga' but he said he'd wait for the cheque). That's why Elektra released 'Liar' as single without telling them back in '73, even though the song is Freddie's; that's why Paul McCartney sometimes has to pay to play his own songs; that's why this pic link is copyrighted to Music-Pictures instead of Queen. |
| violonbleu 29.08.2006 16:10 |
thanks very much both friends! |
| Queen Archivist 30.08.2006 23:10 |
I AM Greg Brooks. Can I have a go???? I'll give this my best shot. It's 3.56 a.m. but I can't sleep. So..... When a fan records a concert - directly-, is it his right to share it with other people, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO PLAY YOUR CDS OF QUEEN, U2, BEATLES, ETC, TO YOUR FRIENDS, PRIVATELY. TO PLAY IT PUBLICLY, AT A FESTIVAL OR FOR A GATHERING OF PEOPLE IN A HALL OR PARK, ETC, YOU WOULD NEED A LICENSE. PUBLIC BROADCAST WOULD INCUR SOME COST. IF A FAN RECORDS A CONCERT AT THE CONCERT, THIS IS AN ILLEGAL RECORDING. OBVIOUSLY ANY RECORDINGS THE FAN THEN GIVES AWAY OR SELLS OR COPIE, ARE ALL ILLEGAL TOO. IF YOU RECORD A QUEEN LIVE ALBUM FOR YOUR MATE, THIS IS ILLEGAL TOO, BECAUSE OF COURSE THIS MEANS HE WILL NOT BUY THE CASSETTE OR LP AND THE ARTIST AND RECORD COMPANY LOSE OUT. THIS IS WHY MODERN CD'S HAVE SOFTWARE PREVENTING THIS KIND OF ILLEGAL COPYING... EVEN THOUGH IT IS EASY TO GET AROUND!!!! YOU CAN RECORD TAPES AND CDS FOR YOUR OWN USE ONLY - NOT LEAST BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE PURCHASED THE LP FIRST. or does he have to ask the Queen Production? Are the playing artists the owners of their music, everytime? IF YOU FIND A RARE LIVE RECORDING ON A TAPE, AT A BOOT FAIR FOR EXAMPLE, THAT TAPE BELONGS TO YOU. IT IS YOUR TAPE. BUT THE PERFORMANCE, THE MUSIC, BELONGS TO THE ARTIST, SO YOU CAN DO NOTHING WITH IT. YOU CANNOT MAKE YOUR OWN ALBUM AND FEATURE IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T OWN THOSE RIGHTS. THIS HAPPENS WITH US FROM TIME TO TIME. WE SOMETIMES BUY SOMEBODY'S RARE QUEEN TAPE, BECAUSE QPL OWN THE BROADCAST RIGHT, BUT THAT PERSON HAS THE ONLY RECORDING WE KNOW OF. SO WE WOULD BUY THE TAPE, OR INSTEAD PAY A PRICE TO COPY IT. QPL AND EMI WOULD THEN PERHAPS PUT IT OUT AS A PRODUCT... BUT THE PERSON WHO FIRST FOUND THE TAPE, CANNOT DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT. for example,the music that they play live, is it owned by them or can it be "owned" by everybody which was listening them, directly? THE MUSIC IS CREATED BY QUEEN, THEY OWN IT, AND THE RIGHTS TO THE SONGS, AND THE RECORDS THEY MAKE. NO PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE HAS ANY RIGHT AT ALL TO RECORD THE SOUND OR VIDEO THE ACTION. SUCH RECORDING IS ILLEGAL. WHEN QUEEN EMPLOY A COMPANY TO FILM THEIR CONCERT, OR RECORD THE AUDIO, THAT COMPANY DOES NOT OWN THE RIGHTS, QUEEN DOES. THE COMPANY ONLY OWN THE ACTUALL TAPES AND BOXES. THEY CAN DO NOTHING WITH THEM. A concrete example. Imagine I would have been able to listen to Queen + Paul Rodgers, live, inBelgium, ANtwerp, May 2005. Am I able legally to record the concert? NO. YOU ARE NOT. IT IS/WAS ILLEGAL FOR YOU TO RECORD THEIR SHOW. EXACTLY AS IT IS ILLEGAL FOR YOU TO SIT WITH YOUR CAMCORDER AND SECRETLY RECORD THE LATEST JAMES BOND FILM AS SOON AS IT APPEARS IN THE CINEMA. YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DO THAT. YOU ARE 'STEALING' PEOPLES WORK IN THAT CASE. Or is every concert in the possession of the artist? Because, eventually, music if always something which becomes offered to the listening people when it becomes produced? QUEEN/EMI OWNS THEIR MUSIC, AND THE RIGHTS TO RE-CREATE IT, USE IT, COVER IT. ANY USAGE HAS TO BE LICENSED. IF YOU WANT TO RECORD A COVER OF 'DON'T STOP ME NOW', YOU CAN, NO PROBLEM. BUT IF YOU WANT TO RELEASE IT AS A CD YOU WOULD NEED PERMISSION. IF QUEEN REJECTS IT, YOU HAVE WASTED YOUR TIME AND MONEY. IMAGINE IF YOU WROTE A GREAT SONG, GREAT ALBUM, OR MADE A GREAT FILM, AND SPENT MUCH TIME AND MONEY DOING IT, THEN SOME HUY IN ENGLAND STARTED SELLING ILLEGAL COPIES OF YOUR WORK TO MAKE HIM RICH... WHILE YOU DID NOT GET A PENNY. YOU WOULD BE ANGRY. When it gets recorded in the studio, the artists are the owners of their music, I'm sure. But when the music becomes produced live, and has not yet been recorded by the band and their team, does the fans have the right to record for them, and if they want, NO. IT IS ILLEGAL. for other people? Are ALL those "bootlegs", as it is called, PIRATING, or are some of them, or are any of them? YES. COPYIN QUEEN MUSIC ONTO C |
| That guy who digs energy domes 30.08.2006 23:52 |
Mr Brooks, Why cant I play a Queen DVD at an Oil Rig? |
| Maz 31.08.2006 00:38 |
Queen Archivist wrote: IF YOU WANT TO RECORD A COVER OF 'DON'T STOP ME NOW', YOU CAN, NO PROBLEM. BUT IF YOU WANT TO RELEASE IT AS A CD YOU WOULD NEED PERMISSION. IF QUEEN REJECTS IT, YOU HAVE WASTED YOUR TIME AND MONEY.Now, here's a question - that doesn't square with what Brian has said on his soapbox in the past. According to him, any artist can cover a song and do with it as they like as long as proper royalities are paid. Brian has brought this up whenever irrate fans email him complaining about some new cover. The only exception, again according to him, is if the artist changes the original lyrics, which then require the rights holder to give permission. To illustrate his point, Brian refers to his failure to get permission from Yoko Ono for his rendition of God (The Dream is Over) from his Live at Brixton Academy CD. In that case, Brian changed the lyrics somewhat, but never heard back from Yoko. Brian says that QP's policy is to allow covers that require permission, unless the new lyrics are offensive to women (his example, though I'm sure it would be extended to similar senitments). I freely admit that I know nothing about copyright law. Legally speaking, is Brian right or not? |
| violonbleu 31.08.2006 06:00 |
THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR FOR HAVING TAKEN TIME TO ANSWER MY QUESTION! |
