The use of musician's songs.
I've noticed that musicians tend to be protective of their work. It's completely understandable from their position. If I were them I wouldn't want to prostitute my work out to sell some stupid car or shoes. I read that Billy Corgan was offered some huge amount to use "Today" in a commercial and he wasn't sure what to do because "Today" is such a personal song for him. Or when Micheal Jackson sold the rights to The Beatles' "Revolution" to Nike or Reebok for a commercial. Pual McCartney became angry.
As I said it's perfectly understandable...but...
Other artists routinely have their worked altered or used in commercials or for some other purpose. I know I've seen famous paintings and sculptures in commercials. Often times they're used for some comedic value. Charictures are sometimes used from famous plays or movies to sell things as well. It seems that these artists don't have any say over how their art is being used. (Possibly because their dead.)
When it comes down to it though musicians are much more sensative that other artists at least it seems that way. It doesn't seem fair...
Re: The use of musician's songs.
Each artist - regardless of their genre - should be able to decide for themselves what their work is used for. Here a lot of music is used as background to programme previews with details of exactly what the music is so that people can go out and buy it - a commercial decidion. In commercials that often isn't the case; the music is played in the background with no attribution but, for some artists, it brings in a mass of cash.
Re: The use of musician's songs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jynxed hero
I've noticed that musicians tend to be protective of their work. It's completely understandable from their position. If I were them I wouldn't want to prostitute my work out to sell some stupid car or shoes. I read that Billy Corgan was offered some huge amount to use "Today" in a commercial and he wasn't sure what to do because "Today" is such a personal song for him. Or when Micheal Jackson sold the rights to The Beatles' "Revolution" to Nike or Reebok for a commercial. Pual McCartney became angry.
As I said it's perfectly understandable...but...
Other artists routinely have their worked altered or used in commercials or for some other purpose. I know I've seen famous paintings and sculptures in commercials. Often times they're used for some comedic value. Charictures are sometimes used from famous plays or movies to sell things as well. It seems that these artists don't have any say over how their art is being used. (Possibly because their dead.)
When it comes down to it though musicians are much more sensative that other artists at least it seems that way. It doesn't seem fair...
It's likely that the art you saw being used in commercials is in the public domain now, as current copyright law has a time limit (of a term I can't recall, but doesn't exceed 100 years, for sure).
Paul McCartney was peeved, and I guess I can understand it, but then again, he didn't have to sign away his publishing rights. OTOH, it's possible that if he didn't, the world wouldn't know who the Beatles are, because labels would have been reluctant to sign a deal with them. Dunno.
Re: The use of musician's songs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by funkatron
It's likely that the art you saw being used in commercials is in the public domain now, as current copyright law has a time limit (of a term I can't recall, but doesn't exceed 100 years, for sure).
Paul McCartney was peeved, and I guess I can understand it, but then again, he didn't have to sign away his publishing rights. OTOH, it's possible that if he didn't, the world wouldn't know who the Beatles are, because labels would have been reluctant to sign a deal with them. Dunno.
Legally I understand. I'm more just curious why others aren't as vocal about how their art is being used.
Re: The use of musician's songs.
Im sure if the, lets say painting, was being used to promote an item which was contrary to the intent of the work that they would be. "Revolution" was written to express a "counter-culture" opinion, not promote consumerism. I'm sure that if a piece of current "christian" art was going to be used to promote, oh lets say a pagan bookstore, they would have a fit whether the artist still held the copyright or not.
