The Beckett Connection

CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
It was neither of them.
Click to expand...
Goddamn.

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!
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
You don't have to pay anyone to even perform covers live, so I fail to see how this could possibly be any different in this case. They could go out there & play the Beckett song; the copyright holder, as far as I'm aware, is not in a position to stop this.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
This is all incorrect. [EDIT: under U.S. law.]
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Are you saying in the US you need permission to perform songs live?
Click to expand...
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.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
I'm pretty sure this is covered under the licence the venue holds.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
See: www.prsformusic.com
 
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.
 
Forostar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
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.
Click to expand...
Brigantium said:
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).
See: www.prsformusic.com
Click to expand...
So at the most there's not really a specific permission (you say "blanket license", Cornfed), right? In the UK (from what Brigs is saying), I'm assuming, you're just checking if the band is registered, not whether every single song you're going to perform a cover of is specifically covered by the arrangement? Yes/no? Is that actually happening in pubs & clubs? It doesn't sound even faintly likely that a pub that holds a live music license (which they would acquire from a local authority i.e. their local council) would be asking a band what specific bands & songs they were covering. I just don't think this is a requirement, legally or otherwise. Therefore, the original copyright holder is not in a legal position to stop performances of individual songs. Are the Iron Maidens going to stop performing this song?

Cornfed's spoiler comment probably makes this most sense in this specific case at the present time.
 
Again, I think Maiden are the wrong people to sue here. It's a dispute between Quinn and Barton, and I think that involving Maiden or Steve and Dave in this reeks of a publicity thing. So the Maiden camp is right to take this to court, because, bottom line, they're asked to pay twice if they only have to do it once (and it's not important here whether Quinn is in it for the money or not - his lawyer is doing all this). It's not their fault Barton is cheating out Quinn, and no words of Quinn's lawyer that Steve "should know" make it that. Maybe ultimately, it would be fair if Quinn received a credit on future Maiden re-releases, but the way I understand it, this is not the focal issue here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top