Frank Zappa's Wife Continues To Claim Cover Bands Can't Play His Music (Even Though They Can)

from the someone-teach-her-copyright-law dept

Wed, Apr 15th 2009 8:40am — Mike Masnick

We recently posted about Frank Zappa's early recognition of where the music industry was heading, with fans taping and sharing music. That story got a lot of attention, but we'd forgotten how incredibly protective Frank's widow Gail has become of Zappa's own music. In the past, she's tried (and failed) to stop a music festival of Zappa's music called Zappanale, and Karl alerts us to the fact that she's been going around threatening any cover band who doesn't agree to pay up. This is, as any copyright lawyer will tell you, ridiculous. So long as the venue where the music is being played has paid its blanket licensing fee, then anyone can play whatever music they want there. Many musicians (and their widows, apparently) falsely believe that copyright allows you to completely control all uses of your work, but that's simply not true. And, it's a shame that Zappa's "legacy" is being treated this way, whereby people are being told that simply playing and sharing Zappa's music is somehow illegal without first paying up to the Zappa family.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, cover bands, frank zappa, gail zappa

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

pegr, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:51am

With regard to Gail...
Dumb All Over
(A little ugly on the side...)

//Zappa fans get that joke. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tgeigs, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:54am

Pshhh
You'd be angry too if your last name was Zappa...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:55am

Come on, talk about something more interesting and more important.

You have been hinting at your health thoughts for over 2 years. Well, what are they?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:55am

health care thoughts, that is
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 9:16am

Re: Pshhh
I'd be more angry if my last name were Zappa. If it was, then it would mean that it had been changed to my current name at some point, so I wouldn't care too much. If it were, then it would still be my last name, and that would cause anger. Just so you know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clay, 15 Apr 2009 @ 9:25am

Don't worry Mrs. Zappa
No one wants to play his crappy music anyways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DynamoHummm, 15 Apr 2009 @ 9:26am

Re:
Speak for yourself!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DynamicHummer, 15 Apr 2009 @ 9:28am

Re: Don't worry Mrs. Zappa
No one is ABLE to play his "crappy" music anyways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lulz, 15 Apr 2009 @ 9:42am

Copyright Question
Can someone knowledgeable about copyright tell me:
If a person is dead, is torrenting their music legal? I mean, c'mon, they're dead. Family shouldn't leech off their success.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 9:49am

I wonder, if Frank Zappa's widow died, who gets paid then? How long does the chain of greed get? Idiots all of em!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Nasser, 15 Apr 2009 @ 9:50am

interesting interview
There was an interview recently on NPR with Mrs. Zappa. It was interesting to hear her take on the issue. Her stance is that Frank Zappa was extremely particular about how his music was performed (true) and she wants to ensure that this very difficult music is only being performed by those that are capable of doing it justice.

I disagree with the use of copyright law to enforce this, and I have my suspicions that her motives are not quite so pure. However, it still was interesting to hear her perspective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 9:51am

Re: Copyright Question
Um, no. Copyrights pass on in the deceased estate and last a specific number of years - I believe it is 50-100 - after a person's death.

As for family's "leeching" off of someone's success? Trolltastic, dude. I suppose that you think that all property of the deceased should become public and families should get nothing. Land, possessions, stocks, etc. If you truly believe that, you are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ConceptJunkie (profile), 15 Apr 2009 @ 10:05am

Re: interesting interview
I wonder if she makes Dweezil pay...

I was delighted a few years ago to see that eMusic carried a big chunk of FZ's catalog. I'm glad I got what I wanted because they disappeared some time since.

I wonder if Mrs. Zappa is more interested in the seeing that letter of the law is followed or preserving her husband's legacy because she seems to doing a poor job of both.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eponymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 10:15am

Man
Mrs. Zappa's view of the situation leaves very little room for a true artist who may want to interpret and expand upon her hubby's music. Some Beck-esque savant may have ideas on how to fiddle with his original arrangements to make something truly awe-inspiring, but as she sees the law, this can only be done after paying an admission price. Talk about Onerous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 15 Apr 2009 @ 10:21am

Once again
Once again for all those in the cheap seats and the corporate scum like Weird Harold:

COPYRIGHT IS NOT ABSOLUTE!!!

say it with me, say it proud.

COPYRIGHT IS NOT ABSOLUTE!!!

You have a LIMITED rights for a LIMITED TIME (though thats getting absurd now) to exploit your work. People are using the copyright sledgehammer WAY too much these days, and it has the effect of everyone being afraid of doing ANYTHING for fear of being sued. And you are getting absurd ideas about the extent of copyright coverage, like people thinking you cant take a picture of them because their person is "copyright." Sorry, wrong, you cant copyright a human being. You can copyright a specific image taken of a human being, but you cant copyright the PERSON such that it prevents pictures being taken. Thats not copyright, thats privacy and is covered under different laws (harassment, civil rights, etc)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 10:45am

Re: Re: Copyright Question
I (not lulz) don't think musicians should be able to coast off work they did twenty years ago; I certainly don't think that their descendants, who had little to nothing to do with the production of that work to begin with, should continue to coast off of it (to the detriment of the public) for 50 - 100 years after the guy died. I'll grant a certain amount of respect for the artist themselves, but their descendents are leeches, especially when they pull shit like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 15 Apr 2009 @ 10:50am

Frank Zappa for President!

His wife, not so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 15 Apr 2009 @ 10:51am

Gail, you are what you is....
Oh no.

Anybody who thinks this makes sense must be 200 years old. Shit, call any vegetable on the phone and even they can tell you this is stupid. I just think Gail misses her Daddy, Daddy, Daddy and wants to keep herself in the limelight. Sure, Frank was a gross man, but he was also a genius. He truly understood the value of freedom of music, and taping, and I think he would have said that "It's a good thing we get paid to do this".

The mental Kung Fu which is necessary to convince yourself that bands who appreciate Zappa should have to pay every time they play his underground freak-out music just gets me into a Lather. Jeezus, the torture never stops! It's just plain old ridiculous. Gail, you should just shut your mouth. It's not like if Dweez, Ahmet, and Moon don't get their royalty checks from the bands they will wind up workin' in the gas station or anything...

If you think I'm the slime that wants to disregard Zappa's legacy and deny his family what's rightfully theirs, then you're wrong. What you need to realize is that copyright is a 50/50 deal; the owner has rights and so does the public.

Gail, I think you need to wake up and stop these filthy habits. You need to realize that the world of music is a huge ocean that is open to all who wish to sail her. Frank sailed that ocean and enjoyed the inspiration that he got from those who sailed before him.

Gail, the ocean is the ultimate solution. This effort is making the Zappa family come off a bunch of flakes. The bogus pomp with which you pursue your questionable gain is not really ever going to pay off, so stop now while you have the chance.

This note isn't meant to be mean-spirited, it's just a token of my extreme displeasure with your slamming of your late husband's good name. Don't try to be harder than your husband darlin', it ain't gonna work.

Gail, go outside now. Go to your front yard and see where he used to cut the grass, and ask yourself...

Up there where he is now... Do you really think he needs another deposit to his heavenly bank account?

CBMHB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 10:57am

Re: interesting interview
I'm glad you brought this up, I heard most of the interview and was thinking the same thing.

I agree with what she is doing, but not how she is doing it.

I usually don't know much details about the articles posted here, but since hearing that interview it sounds like Gail isn't using this to 'make a quick buck', but rather keep Frank's music inline with how he felt about it when he was alive, he was crazy about how he wanted things to be played/sound.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Joe the Zapphead, 15 Apr 2009 @ 11:39am

Re: interesting interview
Frank was also concerned for his family's continued financial well-being and communicated that to Gail before he died. That's part of why the ZFT keep releasing records, which is great for us fans. Not sure Frank would have minded her getting all the cash she could out of his legacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Joe the Zappahead, 15 Apr 2009 @ 11:41am

Re: Gail, you are what you is....
Nice job CBMHB!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Billy, 15 Apr 2009 @ 12:01pm

the Mountain
Sounds like someone's got some Lumpy Gravy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 12:43pm

Seems Reasonable
Someone who has lived off the creativity of someone else, wants to continue to reap those rewards even after the innovators death.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 12:53pm

So who is worse? Gail or Yoko?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 1:03pm

don't worry
she can't live forever
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David (profile), 15 Apr 2009 @ 1:17pm

Copyright terms
Here are the rules.

# For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. In the case of a joint work, copyright lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For anonymous and pseudonymous works and works made for hire, copyright lasts 95 years from the year of first publication or 120 years from the year of creation, whichever ends first.

# For works created but not published or registered before January 1, 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years, but it will not expire earlier than December 31, 2002. If the work is published before December 31, 2002, copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

# For pre-1978 works still in their original or renewal term of copyright, copyright is extended to 95 years from the date that copyright was originally secured.

Might be a bit more than that, but that's the gist, at least in the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 1:35pm

Re: Once again
Love it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nelson Cruz (profile), 15 Apr 2009 @ 2:22pm

Re: Re: Copyright Question
Anonymous Coward, the families do "leech" of works that where made long ago, and that they themselves had nothing to do with creating. The families of architects, engineers, construction works, etc, don't get any money when someone resells or rents the buildings they made, much less control who can buy, use or demolish those buildings.

That the families get some sort of economic right to creative works (some percentage of profits made from them), I can understand. There is a certain "moral argument" (more of an emotional one) that can be made for it. But total control on who can sell, perform, adapt, make derivative works, etc; that I cannot agree with. What moral right do Gail Zappa or Yoko Ono have to control the uses of their dead husbands' works? The creators are dead. Their works are part of our collective culture. They should belong just as much to you as to the creators' families (at least as far as control is concerned)! And this should apply just as much to Zappa, as to Mozart, Shakespeare or Aristotle.

Instead of suing everybody, the families should just be proud that people haven't forgotten the works of their husbands/fathers/mothers/etc, and in fact love them so much that they want to perform them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 15 Apr 2009 @ 5:07pm

Re: Re: Copyright Question
Idiot? Copyrights aren't really property. If you truly believe they are, then you're a self-indentured twit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 15 Apr 2009 @ 5:07pm

Re: Re: Copyright Question
Idiot? Copyrights aren't really property. If you truly believe they are, then you're a self-indentured twit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lulz, 16 Apr 2009 @ 4:33am

Re: Re: Copyright Question
I never said anything about land, dude. Chill. I wasn't trolling, it was a legit opinion. I was talking about the copyright, not the physical and monetary property of the deceased. Dolt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
horowizard, 16 Apr 2009 @ 3:07pm

Re:
Anonymous Coward, I can not believe you are actually that stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bear, 17 Apr 2009 @ 12:57pm

strictly from commercial
Great googly moogly!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2009 @ 10:07am

Re: Gail, you are what you is....
very nice conceptual continuity in this post
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Argarmnesh, 2 May 2009 @ 11:04pm

zappa
Zappa blows anyway...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2009 @ 12:25am

I don't think anyone should get paid for anything.
That way we could jam all day dude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SK, 12 Mar 2010 @ 1:20am

wait a minute
the musician side of me goes "fuck Gail and let the music be ours" and at the same time my personal side goes;
"If I were married/related to some genius that I truely love and admire, on top of having a very personal, intimate relationship with, and if I knew how much his/her creations meant to him/her, YES I'd be very picky and protective about those creations from somebody OTHER THAN the person you love, let alone goddamn public." that's like having random people quote from the conversations with your girlfriend.

the bottom line is that none of us here is or was married/related to the geniuses on the level of Zappa/Lennon, hence our lack of understanding as to what they are/were going thru.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duce (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 7:38am

Frank really doesn't need Gail's help
So if Gail can attempt to sue folks for covering Zappa tunes does that mean the grandchildren of those composers and musicians Frank "borrowed" from can now harass the Zappa legal mafia? Frank used so many other composers work both verbatim covers and some very obvious "borrowing" of rythmic and melodic structures. Lets see...there is Ravels Bolero...Stairway to Heaven...Whipping Post...countless examples of "borrowing" from Edgard Varèse, Anton Webern and a host other 20th century composers. Frank was always honest about his influences and payed them great respect.

Frank Zappa was a highly origional composer and musician with out a single doubt, but like every great person they stand on the shoulders of giants. I dont really see that Gail Zappa is standing on Frank's shoulders...maybe his coat tails though. If Gail were a bigger person both intelectually and philosophically, she would take positive and generous actions to bring Franks music to more people. Despite the nepotism associated whith "Zappa Plays Zappa", it is just what Franks music needs to remain a living growing artistic expression. Who knows, maybe people outside the Zappa gene pool can actually bring somthing new to Franks music? Disrespectful you think? I doubt Frank would disagree if he had a say right now.

None the less, Gail and the ZFT will never be able to undo or even uphold the Zappa legacy. Frank allready did all that work years ago and he didnt need Gails help then and his legend doesn't need her help now.

Thank you very much Frank!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cleetus, 24 Apr 2016 @ 6:04am

Pay to Play
Doesn't matter now, does it? She's dead too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]