Here we go again...Iron Maiden sued over the rights of 6 songs

I might be mis-remembering this...but doesn't Steve claim somewhere that (early in his career) he put all of his song ideas in an envelope, sealed it, and mailed it to himself. The idea being that the envelope would be date-stamped in the mail and, if left sealed, would establish his dated copyright?

Would be interesting to see that produced and ceremonially unsealed in court - depending on how the dates line up.

I think I'm remembering this from one of the official biographies. I'm away from my books at the moment, so not sure if it was the Mick Wall or G*rry B*sh*ll biography.
 
srfc said:
And how does any of that prove that Dennis wrote any of it?
Click to expand...

Please re-read my posts... :facepalm: also, please read what Wilcock has presented and add the following actions that could be taken by his lawyer:

1. Dennis presents 2 bootlegs: A rehearsal (we already know that this exists) & a gig (this exist also, however have not being wide spreaded)
2. In the rehearsal, the lyrics for, let's say, Iron Maiden, are different from the lyrics sung in the gig.
3. Imagine that the time between the rehearsal and the gig is one week.
4. Dennis claims that he wrote the lyrics in the time period between the rehearsal & the gig and Steve doesn't say, as soon as the case begins "No, I wrote the lyrics". Also he cannot present solid proof that he re-wrote the lyrics (this is a fact, because he surely doesn't have the original lyrics written by him).
5. There is no solid proof that Steve wrote the lyrics, however, whether we like it or not, there IS proof that Steve lifted lyrics from a Beckett song without crediting the other chaps (I can't remember the names at the moment and I'm too lazy to search them). Also there's proof that the lyrics did change.

Now, what does all of this makes you think? I'll tell you, it makes you think that Dennis COULD have written the lyrics and that Steve DIDN'T wrote them (after all he "lied" about the Hallowed lyrics).

This is the case that's being presented and once again, if someone claims something in a trial, it should present proof that what is being said is the truth, if not, thing could go very wrong.
 
Manic Gers said:
I might be mis-remembering this...but doesn't Steve claim somewhere that (early in his career) he put all of his song ideas in an envelope, sealed it, and mailed it to himself. The idea being that the envelope would be date-stamped in the mail and, if left sealed, would establish his dated copyright?

Would be interesting to see that produced and ceremonially unsealed in court - depending on how the dates line up.

I think I'm remembering this from one of the official biographies. I'm away from my books at the moment, so not sure if it was the Mick Wall or G*rry B*sh*ll biography.
Click to expand...

I do remember reading that somewhere. However, in this case, he should have send those lyrics everytime he arrives with the final version of a song, which would be kind of difficult sometime.

That being said, it would at least present some kind of proof that the lyrics were written at a certain point in time
 
I don't know about in the UK, but in North America, civil court isn't beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. It is settled by preponderance of evidence. That means a good amount of evidence needs to point in one direction or the other...not that you have to have the "smoking gun".
 
For the UK, civil courts requires a majority of evidence (at least 51% sure), then from criminal cases it's beyond reasonable doubt (at least 90% sure)
 
Luisma said:
4. Dennis claims that he wrote the lyrics in the time period between the rehearsal & the gig and Steve doesn't say, as soon as the case begins "No, I wrote the lyrics". Also he cannot present solid proof that he re-wrote the lyrics (this is a fact, because he surely doesn't have the original lyrics written by him).
5. There is no solid proof that Steve wrote the lyrics, however, whether we like it or not, there IS proof that Steve lifted lyrics from a Beckett song without crediting the other chaps (I can't remember the names at the moment and I'm too lazy to search them). Also there's proof that the lyrics did change.
Click to expand...
And what if Dennis can't provide solid proof that he wrote the lyrics either? It will just come down to a case of Steve's word against Dennis', right?
 
Luisma said:
I do remember reading that somewhere. However, in this case, he should have send those lyrics everytime he arrives with the final version of a song, which would be kind of difficult sometime.

That being said, it would at least present some kind of proof that the lyrics were written at a certain point in time
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be rather shaky - and highly dependent on dates and contents. I'll have to look up the quote tonight. A good excuse to read some Maiden books again! :bigsmile:
 
Black Wizard said:
And what if Dennis can't provide solid proof that he wrote the lyrics either? It will just come down to a case of Steve's word against Dennis', right?
Click to expand...

Exactly. However, according to what can be read here: https://www.metaltalk.rocks/iron-maiden-sued-over-six-songs

Dennis Willcock’s original lyrics to these five songs are included in an Annexe to the court documents

So it seems that he has presented somewhat a proof (although I wouldn't consider it solid without seeing what exactly is that he has presented)
 
Oh ffs, go and read Denis' lyrics for V1 and Gibraltar and tell me Prowler, Charlotte etc. were not written by the same person.
Should be bloody obvious the lyrics on the first two albums are written by four different people at least, no?
 
The court documents claim that "The Willcock Works were original literary works" and that "Mr Willcock was the author and first owner of the copyright in the Willcock Works (in the case of Prodigal Son, jointly with Mr Harris)."
Click to expand...

This is not the way things work. Copyright is copyright you don't automatically get a copyright if and when you write a line of text. First legal copyright for that songs is on the debut album because it's a major label album and that's what the royalty system takes into account. If someone claims that copyright is bogus then he should present the proof. Until the "Willcock Works" is proven to be authentic there is no proof.
 
Nothing more about the stupidest lawsuit ever, Hallowed part III? The Terry Slesser one.

It seems that McKay was just suing on all fronts and seeing what sticks.
 
Zare said:
This is not the way things work. Copyright is copyright you don't automatically get a copyright if and when you write a line of text. First legal copyright for that songs is on the debut album because it's a major label album and that's what the royalty system takes into account. If someone claims that copyright is bogus then he should present the proof. Until the "Willcock Works" is proven to be authentic there is no proof.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with you... BTW the "Willcock Works" sounds like bollocks but let's see where it goes...

Also, if there's an exact or almost line(s) in the final version of the song (the ones in IM & Killers) that Dennis "wrote" then there's a case... If not he'll get beaten into a pulp by Maiden's legal team
 
Magnus said:
Should be bloody obvious the lyrics on the first two albums are written by four different people at least, no?
Click to expand...

Yes and I think Dennis did write those lyrics but I don't like the McKay involvement and the fact it took Willcock so long to act. What I believe is that they paid Willcock under the counter but McKay told him that's not a legal compensation and they can sue them for huge damage. Also there is no way for court to dig out the truth that easily because a piece of paper cannot be dated with needed precision I do believe. Hence the McKay attacks on Steve. This whole case, when evidence is looked from an objective, justice is blind angle, is very shaky. He needs to paint Harris and Murray as thiefs so that doubt will prevail at court, the court cannot prove that Willcock works came to be before IM debut but since Harris/Murray are painted as persons who could do it, why wouldn't they. And so you have a stigma around Maiden and potentially many more cases that'll try to dig some money out of them.
 
Zare said:
Yes and I think Dennis did write those lyrics but I don't like the McKay involvement and the fact it took Willcock so long to act. What I believe is that they paid Willcock under the counter but McKay told him that's not a legal compensation and they can sue them for huge damage. Also there is no way for court to dig out the truth that easily because a piece of paper cannot be dated with needed precision I do believe. Hence the McKay attacks on Steve. This whole case, when evidence is looked from an objective, justice is blind angle, is very shaky. He needs to paint Harris and Murray as thiefs so that doubt will prevail at court, the court cannot prove that Willcock works came to be before IM debut but since Harris/Murray are painted as persons who could do it, why wouldn't they. And so you have a stigma around Maiden and potentially many more cases that'll try to dig some money out of them.
Click to expand...
I don't like McKay's approach at all, and if the person posting as him on Blabbermouth is indeed McKay, he isn't doing Dennis any favour in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top