Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2018 - 1:27 PM   
 By:   Peter Greenhill   (Member)

An ambitious crowdfunding campaign to fund a concert of the complete Moonraker score by a 100+ orchestra+choir in UK next January.



https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/james-bond-moonraker-concert/x/9925939#/

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2018 - 4:34 PM   
 By:   RynoSmithers   (Member)

Man. That would be incredible to hear. I can't get myself to England for it though, unfortunately. But I hope it succeeds!

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 8, 2018 - 4:43 PM   
 By:   jfallon   (Member)

Love how it states “will NOT be recorded”. What a tease.

 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 6:13 AM   
 By:   townerbarry   (Member)

They better ask Mrs. Barry...I smell a lawsuit.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 7:23 AM   
 By:   JB Fan   (Member)


They better ask Mrs. Barry...I smell a lawsuit.

Better say - EON (and maybe EMI). Seems that THEY could be main problem, not Mrs. Barry.
She can (and in 99,999% - will) refuse only for their request for using Mr. Barry original manuscripts, in case if they will not do transcription by ear (as Nic Raine did with Mr. Moses and how James wanted to do with his re-recording campaign).

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 8:17 AM   
 By:   governor   (Member)

The problem is more vast and not related to the John Barry estate. (about the rerecording, if I am not mistaken).

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 8:39 AM   
 By:   villagardens553   (Member)

Well, wonderful if it can be pulled off. Living in mid-America I'm not really the target audience for this. I was fortunate enough that an October, 2004 London trip with my family planned months before coincidentally coincided with the brief Brighton Rock run.

Contributors to these forums have often referred to Laurie Barry being unwilling to assists in any John Barry projects.
Is that an unfair characterization? I honestly don't know. What is the source(s) for this? Reminds me a lot of the late Gail Zappa and her attitude towards others dealing with Frank's music.

 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 8:43 AM   
 By:   davefg   (Member)

The problem is more vast and not related to the John Barry estate.

And they are? I presume he's got a licence to show the film from the studio / EON and they know it is a live to film production?

Out of curiosity has anyone here actually bought tickets yet?

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 9:07 AM   
 By:   governor   (Member)

I presume he's got a licence to show the film from the studio / EON and they know it is a live to film production?

why not asking the organiser himself ?

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 11:28 AM   
 By:   mortenbond   (Member)

Well, I tried to post a reply here. It was quite comprehensive and then got lost when i pressed the "Post message". I hate this site. But enough about that. I will try to repeat what I remember writing.

A Moonraker concert would be great!!! A recording would be even better!!!!

There seems to be grave misunderstanding or fear out there. As a lawyer with a keen interest in international copyright law -let me make something abundantly clear: NO ONE can stop ANY ONE from performing and releasing any musical work. It is a matter of free speech!!

You know - the very reason NATO was formed, we opposed Hitler, the Soviet Union etc!!! Eon, Disney or the "all-menacing" Mrs. Barry cannot do anything about that. Except trying to dissuade anyone with lawyers sending legal threats. But listen - there is NO LEGAL PRECENDENT from any court in all the world that says you cannot perform and release the work of Barry - or Bacharach, The Beatles, Williams etc. The law is simply not with the composers on this. They are rightfully entitled to their royalties. But that`s it!

Back in the day there was a whole industry of recording artists performing and releasing works composed by others. But today it seems Mr. James Last, Mantovani, Ferrante & Teichner, Percy Faith and Geoff Love all emmigrated to a planet far, far away - called Spotify, and they all started using the name Dominick Hauser. I jest!

My point is - there are all those cover versions on Spotify, Amazon and even on what used to be called "CDs". All perfectly legal. And of course there is no legal difference in performing and recording - and releasing - the title track from "Goldfinger" and "Teasing the Korean" (Donald Trump actually does a very good version of the latter these days!).

When will those creative people out there with no legal expertise finally wake up and not let themselves be bullied. The three Ps!! Perform, Publish and Put a finger to them!

 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 12:10 PM   
 By:   davefg   (Member)



There seems to be grave misunderstanding or fear out there. As a lawyer with a keen interest in international copyright law -let me make something abundantly clear: NO ONE can stop ANY ONE from performing and releasing any musical work. It is a matter of free speech!!



So why was the re-recording of Moonraker cancelled then?

 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 12:12 PM   
 By:   Stephen Woolston   (Member)



There seems to be grave misunderstanding or fear out there. As a lawyer with a keen interest in international copyright law -let me make something abundantly clear: NO ONE can stop ANY ONE from performing and releasing any musical work. It is a matter of free speech!!



So why was the re-recording of Moonraker cancelled then?


I'm not a lawyer, but the reason this is being staged as a CONCERT and not a RECORDING is that a recording would be blocked. That's what the organisers say.

 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 12:15 PM   
 By:   davefg   (Member)



There seems to be grave misunderstanding or fear out there. As a lawyer with a keen interest in international copyright law -let me make something abundantly clear: NO ONE can stop ANY ONE from performing and releasing any musical work. It is a matter of free speech!!



So why was the re-recording of Moonraker cancelled then?


I'm not a lawyer, but the reason this is being staged as a CONCERT and not a RECORDING is that a recording would be blocked. That's what the organisers say.


Yes I understand that, however the post above states "NO ONE can stop ANY ONE from performing and releasing any musical work". I interpreted that statement to mean a physical release.

 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 12:27 PM   
 By:   Doug Raynes   (Member)



There seems to be grave misunderstanding or fear out there. As a lawyer with a keen interest in international copyright law -let me make something abundantly clear: NO ONE can stop ANY ONE from performing and releasing any musical work. It is a matter of free speech!!


So why was the re-recording of Moonraker cancelled then?


I'm not a lawyer, but the reason this is being staged as a CONCERT and not a RECORDING is that a recording would be blocked. That's what the organisers say.




James Fitzpatrick didn't say his planned recording had been blocked. As said above, I doubt that anyone could do that. It's worth re-posting exactly what he did say: "Certain rights issues have been raised which might mean protracted negotiations with the companies involved which may well go beyond the end of the project".

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 12:32 PM   
 By:   mortenbond   (Member)



There seems to be grave misunderstanding or fear out there. As a lawyer with a keen interest in international copyright law -let me make something abundantly clear: NO ONE can stop ANY ONE from performing and releasing any musical work. It is a matter of free speech!!



So why was the re-recording of Moonraker cancelled then?


I'm not a lawyer, but the reason this is being staged as a CONCERT and not a RECORDING is that a recording would be blocked. That's what the organisers say.


It’s just fear. Read what JamesFitz writes on the Moonraker recording Kickstarter post. Lawyers saying «no» on behalf of their clients in order to control the money stream. In order to publish a performance you need the approval of the performer. So if you perform yourself or have an agreement with the performer - you can publish. That is why no one can publish original Beatles performances without approval - it being on CD or in a film. But cover versions are all right if you have an agreement with the cover artists. Or are one yourself.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 12:42 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

Here's some information on Copyright Basics for Musicians, from the law firm of Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell, PC.

"Cover songs reflect the limited exclusivity provided by copyright. The original copyright owner has an exclusive right to publish or release the first sound recording of a song. After that, all other performers have the right to cut their own version of the song.

"To release a cover version of a song, a musician must pay the compulsory or government-set rate for use of the song. Known as mechanical rights, the payment gives the musician the right to use the music in its own sound recording or master. Cover songs can be released on CDs or digital downloads. The statutory right to make a cover song does not extend to movie soundtracks, video games or other audiovisual works. For these uses, a license must be obtained from the copyright holder."

http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/entertainment/music-copyright.html


Another writer expands on the point made in bold above:

"The mechanical license was introduced in 1909 because Congress feared that record companies could monopolize songs. It applies only to non-dramatic musical works. Thus it excludes the score of an opera or a musical ballet."

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 1:10 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

Some further information from ASCAP:

Dramatic (or “Grand”) and Nondramatic Performances/Rights

ASCAP members grant to ASCAP only the right to license nondramatic performances of their copyrighted musical works. Thus, an ASCAP license does not authorize dramatic performances of our members' works. "Dramatic" (often referred to as "grand") rights in musical works are licensed by the composer or publisher, or other licensing agent for the work. Traditionally, in dramatic works, the main motivation is the telling of a story and the music serves to enhance the plot. This was thought to increase the economic value of the music, leading the rightsholders of the music to conclude that they could derive greater benefit if they controlled the licensing of the works themselves.

Copyright law does not define the terms "dramatic" or "nondramatic." As a result, rightsholders, music users and occasionally the federal courts must attempt to draw the line between "dramatic" and "nondramatic" performances. That line is often unclear and depends on the facts pertaining to a particular performance. As a general rule a dramatic performance usually involves using the work to tell a story or as part of a story or plot. Thus, when songs are employed as part of a dramatic production - a Broadway musical such as Hamilton or in a ballet such as Twyla Tharp's "Nine Sinatra Songs", for example - the performances of the music are dramatic and are beyond the scope of an ASCAP license. In addition, excerpts of musicals accompanied by dialogue, pantomime, dance, stage action, or visual representation of the work from which the music is taken, and incorporating a live or recorded performance of a song into a story or plot - even though the composition was not originally written for a musical play - would also result in a dramatic performance of the song.

By contrast, when a singer sings songs from several Broadway musicals, a medley of songs from one particular play, or a medley of unrelated songs as part of a concert, revue or cabaret show, those are "nondramatic" public performances.

The "nondramatic" public performances of musical compositions that ASCAP licenses on behalf of its members include, for example, recordings of songs that are broadcast on radio (other than an entire - or substantially complete - recording of a dramatico-musical work), songs or background music performed as part of a movie or other television program, or live or recorded performance of musical compositions in a bar, restaurant, hotel, store or other place open to the public.

***

Whenever there is doubt as to whether specific performances of musical works might be considered to be dramatic or nondramatic, ASCAP encourages the music user to contact the rightsholders directly to get their view. If the rightsholders are of the view that the performances are dramatic, they will decide whether or not to license the performances directly (or at all). In some instances, ASCAP's members may wish to license the performances directly even if they are not clearly dramatic performances. The rights ASCAP obtains from its members are nonexclusive, so that members retain the right to license directly performances of their works whether or not they are dramatic in nature. Information as to the rightsholders of works in the ASCAP repertory can be obtained from the ASCAP ACE database: www.ascap.com/ace.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 1:13 PM   
 By:   mortenbond   (Member)

Here's some information on Copyright Basics for Musicians, from the law firm of Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell, PC.

"Cover songs reflect the limited exclusivity provided by copyright. The original copyright owner has an exclusive right to publish or release the first sound recording of a song. After that, all other performers have the right to cut their own version of the song.

"To release a cover version of a song, a musician must pay the compulsory or government-set rate for use of the song. Known as mechanical rights, the payment gives the musician the right to use the music in its own sound recording or master. Cover songs can be released on CDs or digital downloads. The statutory right to make a cover song does not extend to movie soundtracks, video games or other audiovisual works. For these uses, a license must be obtained from the copyright holder."

http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/entertainment/music-copyright.html


Another writer expands on the point made in bold above:

"The mechanical license was introduced in 1909 because Congress feared that record companies could monopolize songs. It applies only to non-dramatic musical works. Thus it excludes the score of an opera or a musical ballet."


Exactly!!! But the limitation pertainig to staturory rights is US law. It differs from country to country. And does not exclude performing and publishing on CD or downloads. In the US or elsewere.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 1:37 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

Exactly!!! But the limitation pertaining to statutory rights is US law. It differs from country to country. And does not exclude performing and publishing on CD or downloads. In the US or elsewhere.


Live public performance is a different circumstance. But the right to cover a movie score and publish it on CD in the U.S. seems to be a matter of negotiation between the cover artist and the copyright holder.

Outside of the U.S., perhaps, no negotiation may be required, and the mere payment of standard royalty rates would allow someone to cover and release a CD of a movie score. But then it would seem that that recording would be pretty much of a "gray market" release in the U.S. market--one that complies with foreign copyright laws but not U.S. copyright laws.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 9, 2018 - 2:03 PM   
 By:   mortenbond   (Member)

Exactly!!! But the limitation pertaining to statutory rights is US law. It differs from country to country. And does not exclude performing and publishing on CD or downloads. In the US or elsewhere.


Live public performance is a different circumstance. But the right to cover a movie score and publish it on CD in the U.S. seems to be a matter of negotiation between the cover artist and the copyright holder.

Outside of the U.S., perhaps, no negotiation may be required, and the mere payment of standard royalty rates would allow someone to cover and release a CD of a movie score. But then it would seem that that recording would be pretty much of a "gray market" release in the U.S. market--one that complies with foreign copyright laws but not U.S. copyright laws.


Its not really as muddled as that. In the US it comes down to wether the original work is "non-dramatic". As you state, Congress applied the mechanical rights (rights for everyone to cover a song) to songs not being a crucial part of telling the story - like with opera or musicals. A film score is often an integral part of telling a story - but in most cases it is not. A musical like Annie - yes! A Bond dilm like Moonraker - no! As the ASCAP states - they can license background music from films and TV programs. Because the music is not sufficiently part of telling the story as is the case in a musical. There might be fine line with films like Annie - but in the case of Bond there is not. Barry scores for Bond are legally "non-dramatic" in US law and free for all to perform and publish - if you pay the royalty fee.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2018 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.