Stupidity Of Licensing Demands Means The Wrecking Crew Can't Help Sell More Music With Documentary
from the this-makes-no-sense dept
A couple years ago, we wrote about a panel discussion with a couple of music documentary filmmakers, who discussed the ridiculousness of trying to clear the samples used in their films, even though the works almost certainly could only lead to increased music sales. The NY Times recently had a similar story, as a documentary movie about the group of studio musicians known as "The Wrecking Crew," who performed on a ton of the biggest musical hits ever, has been sitting around, finished but unreleased for over four years because of the impossibility of clearing the music in the film. Even though the music was all performed by The Wrecking Crew, whose members would love to see the film out there, the copyrights are held by a variety of entities, including the various major labels.The article notes that the labels are so desperate for extra cash, that they're asking much more than they have in the past for licensing fees. But that's incredibly, stupidly, short-sighted. Getting a documentary like this out in the world could only serve to increase demand for a bunch of those songs, which would open up all sorts of opportunities to make some more money. But the labels can't seem to see past today in any of their activities.
Separately, as the article notes, the filmmaker could try to rely on fair use... except that the cost of actually defending a lawsuit (even if the lawsuit is bogus) could be quite prohibitive, especially since he's already spent a ton of his life's savings on the movie itself. And I thought copyright was supposed to encourage ways to get the music out there...
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: licensing, samples, the wrecking crew
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about the trolls that speak from the perspective of the greedy corporate copyright holders?
Any takers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
It takes very creative interpretation of the laws in order to be such an incredibly dickish, short-sighted, extortionist bastard without having done anything illegal.
As we all know, creative people are know as "artists"
Therefore, these "Artistic Lawyers" are blocking the "hippy artists" from getting anything with their penniless problems--no pay, no play!
/expert-troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
"We have to change more money up front because people will only download the music for free. Thus we really won't get more sales."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You thought so
Its SUPPOSED to, the constitution says its supposed to, congress is tasked with making it so.
But in reality, it now only serves to permanently lock up culture for the benefit of a very few at the expense of the entire public. Fair use has been relegated to a "defense after lawsuit filed" instead of what it was intended to be: an EXCEPTION.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You thought so
Promoting progress doesn't mean a free license to re-do other people's music. Is that really progress, or just more standing still?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You thought so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You thought so
Wow you actually said that. Ok.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
I assume an actual government website should be sufficient even for you.
"Promoting progress doesn't mean a free license to re-do other people's music. Is that really progress, or just more standing still?"
Except they didnt "re-do other peoples music." If they had, had they done an actual REMAKE of each song, there is already statutory fixed costs for that that would have been FAR cheaper.
They only used PARTS of the song to illustrate the history of the actual musicians who made those songs. Thats defacto fair use right there.
But they want significantly more money for using these snippets than would cost if they redid the ENTIRE song as a cover song. Its absurd. And so are you for asserting the garbage you did in this post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You thought so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You thought so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You thought so
Oh god, it's defacto nothing you pill head. You are worse than Mike is calling fair use on everything.
Look, let's try to make it simple. Your argument is that copyright law is suppose to do something - so when I ask you to point out EXACTLY where this means that you should be able to license others people's music at a low rate and use it without concern, and you point generally to copyright law.
WTF? I can find a copy of the law by myself. I am asking you to explain your deluded notions, point to where the law specifically says "you must license your work cheaply", and I will even go further to say where in copyright law it says "you must license to others" at all. It doesn't.
Between that and fair use, I would say you have some CAPITAL issues to address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You thought so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You thought so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You thought so
The movie is not being made, nobody wins. Yeah, I'd call that standing still. Well done, rightsholders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You thought so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Getting a documentary like this out in the world could only serve to increase demand for a bunch of those songs"
No clear - would the documentary actually get a wide enough viewership to really mean anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This point should be moot. If it does get the viewership it is bound to help, and if it doesn't it will not cause any damage to the original work so there would be no harm the the copyright holder. The labels should look at it as a no-lose situation, instead they look at it as a money grab, their problem is that in this case there appears to be no money to grab, so instead of a no-lose situation it becomes a lose/lose situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We all know that when someone copies something, the person who owns the thing that was copied loses money - it comes right out of their bank account! This is why it's considered stealing.
Now, these dirty, dirty, pirates - umm, I mean filmmakers - will be making money on these copies, all while the legitimate lawyers and corporations are actively losing money - so they need to charge double the amount they're losing just to break even!
Plus, as only a dirty un-american communist hippy type would do this for free, they have to make a profit - and as Congress had decreed that each copy is worth $150,000 each, even 10 million dollars is a bargain!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*clap*
*clap*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actual sales generated is not a measurement that decides what the rights to something costs. Many uses of a musical piece might not lead to huge amounts of sales for the original artist.
There is no relationship. Anyone thinking your comment is insightful really isn't thinking too hard, are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Many uses of a musical piece might not lead to huge amounts of sales for the original artist.
Of course the original artist don't get huge sales for many uses of their works, it goes to the labels. Even when the artist isn't under contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice dodge. Try "original artists or those they have sold the rights to".
Now, address the issue - why allow free use of material that MIGHT drive a few sales, when you can charge a reasonable license fee and allow the documentary creators to take the risk instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some might call it "give it away and pray".
Even if the license was $100 a song, giving it away for free would be a risk. Would the license at $100 make more than the sales driven by this work?
Further, you have to remember that the documentary makers are not working to sell music - they are working to monetize their documentary and make money from it. They aren't working to sell music, it MIGHT be a side effect, but there is absolutely no guarantee.
Those who hold the rights have no reason to take the risk. They have a product that is in demand, and they can license it for what the market will bear. Basic free enterprise. If the film makers feel they are going to make a lot of money with their movie, they can afford to license it - at their risk. They can pay the money and hope they make it back.
if they don't think it is worth it, then they can just say "nevermind" and not finish the project.
There is little loss for the rights holders - they still hold the rights, they can still sell them on to others, and they are likely still selling recorded copies of their music regardless. The loss of the potential incremental sales from this documentary is not a big deal, and certainly at least as mythical and unproven as losses from piracy. How many sales did they lose by not licensing? Show me how you figure that one out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your point is invalidated by this statement. Charging more money than a documentary likely would, or even COULD bring in is not a "a reasonable license fee".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
but they are NOT GETTING the millions of dollars are they - they are getting nothing.
They are just acting like the proverbial dog in a manger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are hopping Steven Spielberg will license that music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1 - a few sales
2 - $ licensing deal
3 - non-release, non-issue.
Remember, it's the film makers that WANT to use the music, not the rights holder seeking to get it exposed. Giving the rights to the music for free to anyone walking in the door hoping that they generate you some sales seems pretty silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so leak it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so leak it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After 4 years? Probably not. Now which parties have fiscally prevented the release of that documentary for 4 years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Composers or Performers
Performers are often hired to play (especially studio musicians (read The Wrecking Crew).
Hired performers probably don't have the right to copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sucks when you can't even document your own Father's history as a musician and share it with people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am an Artist and have no issues with someone using my music for a TV Show, Movie, or INDIE Content.I am INDIE and I own my Art and no one else will ever own it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shortsighted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wrong way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Standing In The Shadows of Motown' for one.
I guess
1) You need to get the label or labels onside from the beginning.
2) You can bypass recording copyright by re-performing the classic songs, EXACTLY as they did in the Motown film.
Finally, yes THe Wrecking Crew were session musicians who were paid a straight fee and never held any rights (performance or otherwise) for the recordings they played on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to Kickstart more Public Domain / CC0 Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Director
[ link to this | view in chronology ]