Michael Bolton Corrects Eva Cassidy's Faulty Recording of "Fields Of Gold"

[reckless]

It's not her song, It's Sting's. But I think they probably did have to get permission to use her version. Again, i guess it depends on how much they needed the money, or they wanted her name circulated out there in the public.

Jeff Buckley's mother has been releasing unfinished track after unfinished track of her son's music for years to keep his memory alive. BUt many people think she also needs the money and knows that his fans will keep buying them all.

Whether the estate gave permission would have depended on whether it retained the mechanical rights to the recorded performance or if those rights (and the associated rights to use her name, voice, and likeness) were given to the record company that released the album. If the rights were sold to the record company, it would have had to approve the use of the recording for Bolton's version.

Music licensing is one of the most complex areas of copyright law. There are different rights in the song (i.e., the music and lyrics) and the performance. And, in the performance, there are special licensing requirements for use in other recordings (samples, soundtracks) and other media (TV, films, video games). On top of that, there are separate rights under most state laws regarding the use of a person's name, likeness, or voice without their permission. It can be a real quagmire.

It must actually be hard for composers not to use tidbits of other compositions without even realizing it. Given that allusions to other works are an accepted part of literature and other forms of entertainment such as movies and tv, it's a wonder that it's only the music business that gets into at this level of detail. Similarly, in the art world, "in the style of" is an accepted part of creativity, and I can't recall any painter suing another one because someone copied their style, or colour palette, or subject matter etc.

Anyone know of another art form that faces the same legal scrutiny as music?

One of the things about music that makes it unusual from a legal standpoint is that there is not a very well-established body of law about things that you would expect to be in a work. For instance, if someone is going to make a film about George Washington, it could be expected that the film might depict Washington crossing the Delaware. So it would be difficult for the maker of a prior film or a writer of a book claiming that the film violatde a copyright to point to that scene and say it proves the earlier work was copied. I suspect a lot of musicians would say that there are certain musical phrases that come up over and over and that certain notes just work well together. But that doesn't create the same kind of

What was most odd about the My Sweet Lord case was that the court held that George Harrison violated the copyright for My Sweet Lord, but did it unintentionally, i.e., it held that he had almost certainly heard the song and, when he wrote My Sweet Lord, the combination of notes sounded right because they were in his subconscious.

[Veronika]

What was most odd about the My Sweet Lord case was that the court held that George Harrison violated the copyright for He's So Fine, but did it unintentionally, i.e., it held that he had almost certainly heard the song and, when he wrote My Sweet Lord, the combination of notes sounded right because they were in his subconscious.

Do you mean this instead? And if that's true, Ringo was accused of doing that sort of thing all of the time when he was with the Beatles.

[genevieve]

Anyone know of another art form that faces the same legal scrutiny as music?

A 12- year leagal battle has finally been settled between a photographer and the artist who created a well-known set of public artworks in my neighborhood. The photographer took a picture of the "Broadway Steps" to use in a commercially -sold photo.

http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/20...yright-lawsuit

http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/20...nuing-to-fight

If you read the comments in the first link, many (most?) people think the artist who created the original work is a complete jerk for suing to preserve his copyright, but there are some insightful comments about copyright law. The article about the settlement was just posted today, so I think all of the comments are pro-photographer/anti-artist and even anti-the publc art in question (which I think is awesome).

[aliceanne]

Well, skaters don't own any rights to their performances. That's why they can't make any money off of their videotaped performances and can't put together compilations of their work.

I wonder how fair that is.

[genevieve]

If they hired a choreographer, there's nothing for them to "own" about their performance

After I graduated from college and was auditioning dance pieces around town, my mom kept pestering me to audition a solo that my advisor had set on me in my senior year. She refused to understand why I didn't not have the right to submit it as my work. I could have gotten permission from my advisor and auditioned it as her work and worked out a payment arrangement, but the point was to have my work accepted, not just to perform.

[manleywoman]

Well, skaters don't own any rights to their performances. That's why they can't make any money off of their videotaped performances and can't put together compilations of their work.

I wonder how fair that is.

If they hired a choreographer, there's nothing for them to "own" about their performance

INteresting. So unless a skater/dancer does it themselves, they don't own it? Didn't know that.

Another famous case is the 2009 Obama poster by Shepard Fairy, where he used a photographed owned by the Associated Press. It was a surprise to many that he won/settled the case.

[genevieve]

INteresting. So unless a skater/dancer does it themselves, they don't own it? Didn't know that.

I don't know about skaters - but I'm guessing broadcasting rights trump performance rights, if that makes sense.

But commissioning choreography can take many forms. Terms of a commission can be performance-specific (you may perform this work at this specific time and place, no more), or the work can be purchased by the performer(s), to use in their reportory at any time they want, and they can make $$ off it - but I would assume they always need to credit the choreographer properly and not pass it off as their own. There are also issues about whether the choreographer retains the right to set that work on others (if they are being commissioned to create a work for the purchaser) and/or perform it themselves.

Add in issues of music rights and it gets really crazy. In the '90s a Seattle dance collective commissioned a work, set entirely to Jimi Hendrix's music, from BeBe Miller. I believe it was an existing dance work, but at that time the Hendrix family had just gotten back the rights to Jimi's music and were being extremely particular about licensing. All parties came to an agreement, and the piece was performed with lots of great press for all parties (the Hendrix family is local, so there was lots of support for them).

Fast forward 9 months, and the dance company had been invited to show this work at Bumbershoot, a huge festival held each Labor Day. A few days before the festival, the Hendrix family took action, stating that the license to use Jimi's music was only granted for the original weekend of performances. The dance group tried to come to a new agreement, but the Hendrix's would not budge. So the group performed the work in complete silence, except for 2 sections that featured live performances by Jimi Hendrix of other peoples' sings. It was an amazing performance, because the timing, often based on the music, was perfect.

I don't blame the Hendrixes - as I said, they had just gotten the rights back and were very sensitive about the potential for licensing abuse. But I felt terrible for the dance company - a very small group - who had shelled out thousands and thousands of dollars for a commission from a nationally renowned choreographer and paid the licensing to the family for what they thought were perpetual music rights - and suddenly the entire commission was worthless. Lesson learned, the hard way.

[PeterG]

If I may summarize all of your thoughts...

"What Would Bolton Do?"

[mpal2]

If I may summarize all of your thoughts...

"What Would Bolton Do?"

I prefer the real thing.

Now in German or Japanese