Discussion in 'Maiden Chat' started by fisherenterprises, Mar 9, 2010.
Probably, but that wasn't us...
They probably do not want McKay et al. to claim that x amount of money has been earned as a consequence of playing the song.
I bet the other co-writer of the Beckett song managed to get money from Steve and Dave without having to go to the High Court back in 2012 after that year's tour had started and that this was also the reason why the song, which had been rehearsed for the Maiden England tour, as Dave's setlist on IMTV showed, was not played.
An interesting read with some additional information from the guy who is suing Steve and Dave.
poor dave getting sued, I bet he had nothing to do with it.
He did in The Nomad...
Wonder if it was Dave or Steve who came up with that part of the song.
It was neither of them.
Have to say that Steve's not very good at this whole lifting bits out of other songs business. Rule number one is you never use bits from one song in more than one composition. It's just bad form, plus you draw more attention to yourself that way!
Steve can just sue Kai Hansen to gather the money to pay off Beckett
I generally approve of suing Kai Hansen.
It was Brian Quinn and Bob Barton.
This is all incorrect. [EDIT: under U.S. law.]
The venue must pay the author for the songs performed.
Since Quinn and his promotor probably wanted a 50/50 split with Steve (judging that the guy said that Quinn would be making a couple hundred quid per performance), they simply dropped it, which is a good choice, since Quinn is author of 7% of HBTN at most.
Are you saying in the US you need permission to perform songs live? e.g. a cover band needs permission, which can be refused. I'm not sure if that's correct. I'm pretty sure this is covered under the licence the venue holds. All those bands out there doing covers live aren't asking permissions. And I don't think that's illegal, including in the US. CDs, digital releases, streaming, etc -- that's a different story.
Yes. The writer of a musical work has the exclusive right to public performances of that work, and you cannot, consistent with copyright law, publicly perform a song without the permission of the songwriter.
Right. A license is permission. That is typically how the permission is obtained: the venue gets permission via a blanket license, obtained from collection societies like ASCAP and BMI, who in turn get permission from many, many songwriters to license their works in this manner.
The problem for Iron Maiden here is that, if Mr. Quinn was not credited as an author of the musical work, he presumably hasn't registered with the copyright societies to license the rights to the lyrics at issue. (Not sure if he has a publishing company -- maybe he has a deal with McKay.) If not, then Iron Maiden's performance of those lyrics may not be covered by the blanket license obtained by the venue.
I haven't studied the case carefully, but it seems to me like the real dispute here is between Quinn and Barton, and Harris/Maiden are caught in the middle. Barton presumably already gave Maiden permission to perform and release sound recordings of HBTN, and Maiden presumably were entitled to rely on that permission because Barton was a co-author of Life's Shadow. Quinn was credited as a co-author of Life's Shadow, evidently, but with only a 25% split. According to the article I read, Quinn claims he really wrote 90% of the song. That's probably wrong, but he did seem to write the key passage used in HBTN. Unless the lawyers for Harris/Maiden were completely incompetent, the license from Barton should be sufficient to permit their continued use/performance of the song.
The reason Hallowed is not in the current setlist may be due to the venues, some of whom may be balking at permitting performance of the song if the permission issue has not been 100% resolved under the laws of each venue's jurisdiction.
As far as I'm aware (UK), venues pay an organisation for a licence, and this organisation distributes money from licences to its members (artists/record companies etc).
Reading Quinn's words, it felt to me he made a big deal out of the fact that he wanted others to know he wrote this stuff. I read pride. I know everyone is focused on money, but is it really unlikely that the man would ask for a co-credit in these songs? That will also have to do with money of course. But this is more. A credit would fit better to artistic pride. Later generations will know better what is the matter. A Matter of Life and Shadow.
Yes it is a thing of pride, but he is asking for too much. He wants rights to about 50% of the song while he really wrote about 7%. And that is why the IM camp won't have it and are taking it to the court.
Separate names with a comma.