1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Beckett Connection

Discussion in 'Maiden Chat' started by fisherenterprises, Mar 9, 2010.

  1. CriedWhenBrucieLeft

    CriedWhenBrucieLeft Ancient Mariner

    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.
  2. Perun

    Perun Climbing like a monkey Staff Member

    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.
  3. GhostofCain

    GhostofCain Ancient Mariner

    Is Maiden taking it to court or McKay as a result of Maiden not wanting to pay them/give them a songwriting credit? According to all information, the people being sued are Steve, Dave, their publishers and Bob Barton?
  4. Perun

    Perun Climbing like a monkey Staff Member

    I don't know who is taking who to court here, but McKay said that if the Maiden camp does not accept his offer, he would take it to court. So at least they knew he would, unless he simply assumed they should, as he simply assumed Steve should know what Quinn wrote.
  5. Cornfed Hick

    Cornfed Hick Electric Eye

    No, because no one cares. I'm sure many small venues like bars and pubs don't have licenses, and are technically infringing copyrights, but no one cares, because the amount of money at stake for a small-time covers band (no offense to anyone who may be in a covers band) would be so small. For larger venues and more lucrative acts, you can bet they check clearances for any cover songs in the setlist.
  6. Spectralmusic

    Spectralmusic Prowler

    Regarding someone's earlier comment here, yes it is a very fishy situation
  7. Lampwick 43

    Lampwick 43 Arriving Somewhere But Not Here

    Speaking of fish, @fisherenterprises really needs to make a comeback with his current thoughts on the whole matter..
  8. LooseCannon

    LooseCannon Yorktown-class aircraft carrier Staff Member

    If he's been subpoenaed, he may not be able to, or he might have been advised against posting publicly by his solicitor.
  9. Correct.
    LooseCannon likes this.
  10. LooseCannon

    LooseCannon Yorktown-class aircraft carrier Staff Member

    Suffice to say we'll only find out more as this situation plays out in court. Obviously I hope there's a resolution that leaves all parties pleased.
  11. Black Abyss Babe

    Black Abyss Babe Ocean soul

  12. All bands are influenced by others, no ones completely original, even The Beatles. With the Becket stuff, I think it was more an influence and nod to em, rather than a rip off, like when they used the Purple riff on that No Prayer track....
  13. Zare

    Zare Dream of broken citadels

    Edit for clarity. What Deep Purple song do you hear on No Prayer? It's not like they haven't picked on the style (WTRRD on the latest album), I just can't pinpoint the song.
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2017
  14. They briefly use the riff to perfect strangers, I forget the track, can anyone help? Definitely the no prayer album.
  15. Forostar

    Forostar Conjure the Death Star again

  16. Zare

    Zare Dream of broken citadels

    Mother Russia perhaps?
  17. Magnus

    Magnus Ancient Mariner

    I guess you might mean Fear is the Key - but it's on Fear of the Dark, not No prayer
    harrisdevot likes this.
  18. It might be run silent, run deep I'm thinking of
  19. Rob Liano

    Rob Liano Prowler

    Okay, I know I'm late to this party but this is pretty simple copyright law. If Quinn owns 25% of the song (regardless of if it's actually 50% and thanks to the new registration being 75/25), and Harris settled/paid Barton, then Quinn is owed money because he owns that 25%. Now, does Maiden owe him or does Barton? That's unclear.

    Secondly, if Barton gave Maiden permission to play the song live, that's all they need to play it live (this according to US copyright law). Similar case, Sting gave P Diddy permission to remake Every Breath You Take and Andy Summers (if I recall correctly it was him) wanted to sue when he heard the rap version, but he couldn't because they only needed one songwriter's permission, and that was Sting. Another example, Tate splits from Queensryche and forms another band yet both he and Queensryche can play our favourite songs live, because they each own co-write credits. If you recall the dispute was about using the name Queensryche, but not about songs.

    As an observation, if this Barton fellow rushed to get the song copy-written before or while pursuing legal action, I'm inclined to believe Quinn is the one being honest and is a 50% owner.

    Lastly, it doesn't matter who wrote what (words or music), two songwriters each get a 50/50 split. If I added one sentence to your finished song, we split it 50/50 unless we have an agreement or contract that said differently BEFORE we write it. If I allow a third writer to contribute to that same song (without telling you), it's now split 33% each, because again, you only need one songwriter's permission.

    Hope that helps!
    matic22, Forostar and Black Bart like this.
  20. matic22

    matic22 H is shorter for God.

    If they are going by the US law I'm afraid that
    Wacken 2016 was probably the last performance of Hallowed ever, because Steve is too stubborn to give 66% of rights away.

    But the song is probably registred in UK, so we would need somebody to tell how the copyright law works there, since US laws tend to be quite different to the UK ones, because I believe that in Europe, words and music are registred seperately (at least when I registered songs they were, with 33/67 split).
    IWishIHadAdriansDT300 likes this.

Share This Page