You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment
No he doesn't. If I go to a concert and record a few minutes of a song on a cellphone, the artist does not own that clip. I do. If you think the artist owns that clip, than you must also think the venue owns it, the promoter owns it, and the chick who sold me a coke owns it. How about the girls dancing near the stage? Maybe they own the clips as well since they are being recorded.
The girl who sold you the coke didn't write the song, does not retain performance rights. The venue didn't write the song, does not retain performance rights . In most cases Sebastian Bach didnt even write the song. The creator of the song retains the rights. Its the law.
Its stances like yours that embolden artists like Baz. If someone wanted to waste money and time taking one of these relics to court over this shit, they'd win.
They wouldn't. He's within his rights. If that were the way, the pirate bay would have won their case. Its the same thing. Taking something that is not yours and post it on the internet.
Artists under law retain the rights of ownership for each one of their performances.
You do not own a performance just because you recorded it. . Legal preference is given in these cases to the actual performance over your recording of it.. if that makes sense. In that yes you own your recording equipment and the footage in so far as it doesnt show the performance.... Ill show you an example
Guns N Roses 2006 Download Festival:
The guy who took this picture owns the imagery of the sky, of the hills. He owns the imagery of the stage shell. He does not own the portion of the image which shows the Giant TV Screens. He does not own the 17 pixels that make up the band. He does not own the parts of the image that show their equipment... Its crazy but that is the Law
... Even then its a gray area because its not so much that he doesnt own it (but in practice that's how it works out) Its more that, it is illegal for him to have that without consent of the performing artist
When an Artist releases a DVD of Live Performances in essence what they do is Sell the performance to the DVD production company and sign a contract that allows them pick up substantial revenue off each unit sold.
It is not the case that the artist has the ownership rights to the recorded performance . Its not that they own the "tapes" of the performance. Its that they own the actual performance.
A concert (unlike an album) is performance art. It is governed by performing Arts laws rather than standard music laws applying to CD's and actual material. If Bach farts onstage that's part of his performance. He owns that. You can't stick a video of that on the internet. You cannot just record what is his and do with it as you like.
That would be the same as someone recording your penis while you are in your own home (equate being in your home with being on stage mid performance) and plastering it across the internet. Your penis is your property just like his performance is his. Your home is your property(in many cases) as his performance is his.
A lot of these laws are overlooked and ignored because they are crazy. For example if a news station records a piece outside your house they SHOULD look for your permission but that kinda shit isn't really enforced or penalised very harshly
Re: Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment
So a Sebastian Bach performance is comparable to male genatalia 
I'm on the fence on this issue. On the one hand Stepvhen is right, the performance is Bach's property and if he doesn't want to share that he's perfectly entitled to. On the other hand he's kind of shooting himself in the foot by having videos that promote him removed.
Re: Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment
They wouldn't. He's within his rights. If that were the way, the pirate bay would have won their case.
Do you wanna know why pirate bay didn't win their case? Because they have millions of albums and movies that are copyrighted. Wanna know why no one can sue youtube for fan clips?
Take a guess. Baz cant go after youtube regarding those clips because youtube has a legal team that will laugh in his face, so he goes after fans instead.
The girl who sold you the coke didn't write the song, does not retain performance rights. The venue didn't write the song, does not retain performance rights . In most cases Sebastian Bach didnt even write the song. The creator of the song retains the rights. Its the law.
No its not. Baz cannot own my picture or audio clip of his show. Its literally impossible, and a judge would laugh you out of court. The only thing he technically owns the rights to are his lyrics, artwork, and music on cds/dvds he releases. He doesn't own cell phone footage. He cant even make a claim against bootleg companies, but you think he can with cell phone footage?
If we wanna argue performance rights, you could make a case for the venue having more ownership than Baz. They paid for him to be there. They own the venue. They insure the event. They have 'no cam/cellphone' policies.
According to the logic you're using, artists cant do cover songs live because the creator of the songs retain the rights. As we both know, that isn't true.
There's a reason that only irrelevant artists go after people for this stuff.
If Bach farts onstage that's part of his performance. He owns that. You can't stick a video of that on the internet. You cannot just record what is his and do with it as you like.
I most certainly can. He does not own that fart. That fart is in the public domain. If he has his own cameras there recording the show, he owns his recorded version of the fart.
Scratch that. I cant with Baz because he deletes it. I can with other artists though.
Have you ever wondered why bootlegs are allowed on fan communities but released albums/videos are not?
Because the artist owns one and not the other.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment
Some great posts guys.
It might be different in the usa but this is my understanding of how things work around here. There are several types of copyright in a work.
Lets take "Live and Let Die" for example:
1. The copyright in the lyrics. This is owned at first instance by the original author of the lyrics. So Paul and Linda McCartney. They may have transfered ownership to a publisher or something in real life. But it starts as theirs.
2. The copright in the melody,tune, music. Owned at first instance by the original composers. Paul and Linda McCartney
3. The copyright in the sound recording itself of the song. The recorded version. This is owned at first instance by the person/company who paid for the recording or made the recording. The wings version would be owned by Apple Records. The GNR version by Geffen Records. Or whoever those companies are these days.
4. The copyrights in the performace on the recorded version. Owned by whoever peforms on the song unless they contract out of them. So this would be owned by Axl in the UYI version, and paul on the wings track.
So thus one video or one recording can use all 4 of these types of copyright, and there are multiple people who might need to authorise it or be paid for the use.
Re: Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment
No its not. Baz cannot own my picture or audio clip of his show. Its literally impossible, and a judge would laugh you out of court. The only thing he technically owns the rights to are his lyrics, artwork, and music on cds/dvds he releases. He doesn't own cell phone footage. He cant even make a claim against bootleg companies, but you think he can with cell phone footage?
If we wanna argue performance rights, you could make a case for the venue having more ownership than Baz. They paid for him to be there. They own the venue. They insure the event. They have 'no cam/cellphone' policies.
As I said own is not the right word. In effect it is illegal for one to own a photo of a performance unless they have permission from the Artist. That is Law and it is Fact. The venue has no more "ownership" as I said performance art has different legal implications surrounding it than who wrote songs etc. It applies to a Bach concert a Ballet or a Puppet show.
According to the logic you're using, artists cant do cover songs live because the creator of the songs retain the rights. As we both know, that isn't true
Every-time an Artist plays a cover song they gotta pay for it. Effectively buying the artists permission to sing that song. Yes the creator retains the rights, to make money they allow other people sing their songs for a price. ASCAP makes these collections. I know this first hand , as many venues I have played myself I have to submit a list of any cover songs that will be in my set and sort out a payment to the collection agency.
Do you wanna know why pirate bay didn't win their case? Because they have millions of albums and movies that are copyrighted. Wanna know why no one can sue youtube for fan clips?
Take a guess. Baz cant go after youtube regarding those clips because youtube has a legal team that will laugh in his face, so he goes after fans instead.
Actually youtube are ardently against posting of materials of which the poster has no ownership. They did not laugh in Princes face when he had his music stripped from youtube. He had the money to make that happen. Youtube knew they were in the wrong by allowing posting of such material. I recently had "When the Doves Cry" stripped from a youtube video of mine. I also had Chinese Democracy demo intro stripped. Youtube simply do not have the staff to police the site well enough. If they had the man power there would not be a single song up there.
As we speak the youtube guys are working with Universal on a new site that will be exclusively for Videos with performances and musical content. This site will be strictly policed and ALL musical and performance content will be banned from you tube. It seems to me youtube are taking this very seriously and definitely not laughing in any artists face on this issue because as I have said , like it or not, the Artist is in the right here.
Have you ever wondered why bootlegs are allowed on fan communities but released albums/videos are not?
Because the artist owns one and not the other
No that's wrong. The reason bootlegs are allowed to be posted is because within the music biz the practice is generally accepted and the Artists allow it happen. Its a kind of good faith thing that is done for the fans on the artists behalf. I can tell you that if a certain artist took it upon himself to revoke that affordance , you would be law bound to remove that artists bootlegs from your site. Many artists filter their bootlegs and promote circulation of the better ones that make them look good! This is common practice in rock circles.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment
In 2009, artists are under intense scruntiny to either "get with the times", and to embrace a more limited role in ownership of music. Artists like Baz are choosing to fight it tooth and nail, and that's fine, he's perfectly fine to do that... but I don't want to hear HIM complain when he's doing dishes at Geno's Italian.
I know I'm always arguing about this with you guys..but i'm just yet to be convinced this new model for the industry is going to work long term. It's expensive to make records. At some point people have to get paid to do it, and I don't think touring and merch is the only solution.
The idea that he'd end up doing dishes because he didn't give stuff away for free is wierd to me as well. To me if he does end up like that, it's going to be because its costs a ton of money to make a professional sounding record, and was then expected to give that away for free.
Axl's vocals on Back In The Saddle are damn good, especially for those that are fans of the Use Your Illusion-era voice.
Now there's something we agree on 
It's pretty killer to me. The "riding high" section just blows me away every time!
Read between the lines. Absolute NOBODIES intentionally are difficult with the goose that lays the golden egg (Baz), just cause? I don't believe an ounce of Baz's story, at least the way he puts it. I believe the band did exactly that, but not in Baz's context.
I'll grant that there's always two sides to the story, and it's mind numbing to me that someone who likes being a muso enough to get as good on guitar as someone like Johny Chromatic is, would then, show disinterest in the project. So I expect that there was some kind of communication break down. That's why i'm not calling the musicians bad guys either. But I will say that I see Baz's point, that he doesn't have enough money to fund 5 people alone at every step of the process, and that the wheels need to keep turning on production.
They have to eat too, and need to be in an active band. It's not a "band". It's not [insert band name] featuring Sebastian Bach on vocals. It's the Sebastian Bach band. It's Baz solo. It's HIS job to come up with songs. It's HIS job to come up with that stuff. He surrounded himself by hired musicians, yet scratched his head when they wanted money. They're session players. It's what they do for a living.
I agree that session players have a right to earn a living too. But the whole point of his add was that he no longer wants to play with session players. He wants to find people to form a *real* band with, where they share the risk, because he can't afford to fund it the session way anymore. That's not unreasonable. Also, I question if they are just session players in the pure sence of it anyway, Baz made a lot of effort when I met him to get us to meet the band too, and some of them have song writing credits on the album and stuff.
As for it being Baz's sole responsibility to write the songs. He isn't a guitarist, of course he needs other writers to co-write.
Re: Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment
So in one case you agree but in the next you don't when both are the same thing? You cant have it both ways. One minute you accept bootlegs, then you don't. Take a stand.
Oh, and I can go sing Paper Planes at some club and not pay for the honor. You're blurring lines that were already blurred to begin with, and doing so to defend one guy who deletes fan videos. Youtube allows content to be deleted because of these lines. They are forced into sitting on both sides of the fence. They need record labels to support them, yet need fans to add content. If Baz goes after them, they will laugh in his face and ask him to produce copyright proof of the vids in existence. He is able to bypass this by just going after fans.
I'll take the stance that 99.9% of artists take. You take the stance that .1% of artists take. I think you can guess which side succeeds and which side fails.
Re: Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment
??? As anyone can see by reading back, I have made it clear since page 1, that I disagree with his methods. Im not defending him; Im not on the fence. However that doesn't mean he is in the wrong as far as his legal rights go.
I think he is a fool to act in such as way just because he can BUT, that's just it. He can. The law as it stands protects him. As far as the legal system is concerned he is well within his rights..."I don't like it anymore than you men" but Im not going to ignore the facts and truth of the matter because of personal emotions towards the guy. Is it a bad idea to conduct yourself the way he does? Yes. Am I going to allow that to deter me from enjoying his music? No... Why should I miss out just because the guy is an ass, if I happen to enjoy some of his music?
I personally think that all established artists in today's industry should be working of Trent Reznors business model adapted to their business entity.
Still though I won't ignore the facts. Its his right to deal with his business any way he sees fit, and also he is well within his rights to do so.
Re: Sebastian Bachs Finest Moment
Not everyone loves youtube or sees it as free promotion. Baz is certainly not alone on that front. Howard Stern hates it when people put up clips of his show on youtube and has threatened to take legal action. Saturday Night Live, HBO, etc. pull clips down all the time. It's their god given right. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but they're not necessarily doing anything wrong.
