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

matic22 said:
It seems that McKay was just suing on all fronts and seeing what sticks.
Click to expand...

Since the initial settlement was quite a sum McKay could just put forward investment from that and sue Maiden on all fronts. He is turning defaming Harris/Murray into a business and people here actually support him by depicting Maiden guys as ultimate morale thing that should be punished for this mischief, while they don't question Dennis who doesn't have a clue about Iron Maiden's fame and yet he was a performing rock artist back in the day when Maiden co-headlined the biggest rock and roll event in the world with Queen.
 
Luisma said:
Ok. So you don not understand that that's the whole point of the case? If he is credited and is proven that he should have credited Wilcock he would have to pay a handsomely sum of money.

Oh and by the way, in a trial it doesn't matter you prove that you have written 10000 songs, you have to prove you wrote the one's that are being challenged or at least, as I have said before, present reasonable doubt that (in this case) Wilcock DID NOT wrote them... Let me ilustrate you further:

When Hallowed came into the light (it was played in the soundcheck before Maiden played under the moniker Genghis Khan) Steve had presumably written 15 songs by himself and at least 6 songs with other people (Di'Anno & Murray), however, he "presumably" lifted lyrics (which means he wasn't able to write the song completely by himself) from a song he didn't write although he has been credited as the only writer of it.

As you can see, the whole matter presents a reasonable doubt that maybe he didn't write ALL the lyrics to a song in which he is credited as the sole writer. It doesn't matter if it is two lines or a whole verse, is just means that you didn't write the entire song
Click to expand...

Interesting. It sounds like you are saying Steve is guilty until proven innocent. Should not the burden of proof be on Willcock to prove that he did write the songs? Even if you establish reasonable doubt that Steve wrote them, it seems to me that’s not nearly the same as establishing that Willcock was the one who did. Also, I’d imagine the laws around this to be different from country to country.
 
mckindog said:
Interesting. It sounds like you are saying Steve is guilty until proven innocent. Should not the burden of proof be on Willcock to prove that he did write the songs? Even if you establish reasonable doubt that Steve wrote them, it seems to me that’s not nearly the same as establishing that Willcock was the one who did. Also, I’d imagine the laws around this to be different from country to country.
Click to expand...

No mate! That's not what I meant. As I said in an earlier post, IF Steve says he wrote the lyrics (as an affirmation) in his defence, he should provide a proof. If not, the burden of the proof is on Wilcock side... That's way he submited the named "Wilock Works" which, by the way, I think is what we lawyers call "fabricated proof".

Also, what I'm saying is that because of what happened with Hallowed, Steve could be perceived by the judge as someone who is willing to "lie" about who wrote the lyrics of a song... In my experience, judges do take into account those kind of things even when they shouldn't
 
Why is nobody citing what's happened in previous songwriting copyright cases instead of all this speculation? I thought the Hallowed "case" never went to court? It can't, therefore, be wheeled out in respect to Steve's honesty. Luisma, you said you're a lawyer; is this not correct?
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Why is nobody citing what's happened in previous songwriting copyright cases instead of all this speculation? I thought the Hallowed "case" never went to court? It can't, therefore, be wheeled out in respect to Steve's honesty. Luisma, you said you're a lawyer; is this not correct?
Click to expand...

Hello there. Well, see, even if it never went to court it is a precedent that does not make look Steve well and those kind of things (even if they deny it) are considered by judges when judging a person.

I cannot cite what has happened in other cases because it would take me awhile to do the research
 
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'm sure it's not in "Run to the Hills" (the Mick Wall book) but I haven't read the other one. But I'm aware that this is an acknowledged cheap way of getting a copyright.
phantomoftheicarus said:
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)
Click to expand...
I think the official terms are "on the balance of probabilities" for civil cases and "beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal ones. Not sure if intellectual property has additional bells and whistles though.
 
Luisma said:
Hello there. Well, see, even if it never went to court it is a precedent that does not make look Steve well and those kind of things (even if they deny it) are considered by judges when judging a person.
Click to expand...
And what are they going to cite? The out-of-court settlement is basically undiclosed & secret.
Luisma said:
I cannot cite what has happened in other cases because it would take me awhile to do the research
Click to expand...
Have a look online at the Procol Harem & Bobby Valentino songwriting copyright cases that happened in the UK. The evidence brought in these cases was pretty flimy; none of the stuff anyone is talking about here with bootlegs & dated envelopes. It basically did come down to word against word. And the "wee guy" won in both those cases. This is what people should be reading to get an idea of how this case might go in court.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8176352.stm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Valentino_(British_musician)#Legal_actions

Black Abyss Babe said:
I'm sure it's not in "Run to the Hills" (the Mick Wall book) but I haven't read the other one. But I'm aware that this is an acknowledged cheap way of getting a copyright.
Click to expand...
This doesn't establish copyright. This establishes the date of copyright.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
And what are they going to cite? The out-of-court settlement is basically undiclosed & secret.

Have a look online at the Procol Harem & Bobby Valentino songwriting copyright cases that happened in the UK. The evidence brought in these cases was pretty flimy; none of the stuff anyone is talking about here with bootlegs & dated envelopes. It basically did come down to word against word. And the "wee guy" won in both those cases. This is what people should be reading to get an idea of how this case might go in court.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8176352.stm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Valentino_(British_musician)#Legal_actions

This doesn't establish copyright. This establishes the date of copyright.
Click to expand...

He doesn't cite the case, but the thing (in this case the Hallowed) issue is IN his head and does affect his judgement... Do I explain myself?

Thanks for the cases, will read them when I have the time.

I believe you have read both of them. If so, can you basically resume why the "wee guy" won?
 
Forostar said:
Have not read it either. Just an assumption:

He was the organ player.

Not sure if that was the real reason for victory but his playing was very important in that song.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm could be that, I mean, that his playing is basically the base of the song or something
 
Sorry, this is kinda surprising: have you never heard of Procol Harum? This is probably one of the most famous songwriting copyright cases in UK legal history.
 
Last edited:
As a layman I don't think Beckett case has anything to do because it's rather clear - 1974 release credits and Harris confession he did think of Beckett lyrics while writing HBTN. That establishes who's the copyright owner of those lyrics and who used them in an illegitimate manner.

I think the "works" are fabricated in order to force the settlement out of court. In court, Maiden camp might attack the fabrication but if Harris takes a stand and gets the question whether he wrote the lyrics he's credited on, under oath, it might get bad.

Ultimately I just want to know did Maiden reach out to Wilcock back in the first half of 1980s and the details of the hypothetical offer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top