Movie About Jimi Hendrix... Won't Use Any Jimi Hendrix Music Due To Licensing Issues
from the purple-haze dept
Ah, the insanity of music licensing. There's apparently a biopic of Jimi Hendrix being made, starring Andre Benjamin (better known as Andre 3000 from Outkast) in the leading role. Of course, with a Hendrix biography, you'd think that the real star would be the music -- but in this case, there won't be any original Jimi Hendrix music in the entire movie, because Hendrix's estate has said that it won't license songs unless it has some sort of say in the production. The producers don't want that, so they didn't even ask to license the music. The film, instead, will make do with new versions of cover songs that Hendrix did along the way.This is, in many ways, ridiculous. Part of the point of recording and retelling our cultural heritage is the use of the actual music that made it happen. Even the Hendrix estate finds the moviemakers' position confusing (though, it doesn't indicate if it would license the songs without creative say in the flick). Part of the problem is the ridiculous setup of music licensing today. You can do a cover song with compulsory licenses (i.e., without permission), but that's only for audio. Doing video gets you into sync licenses and other issues that require permission. And this is what you get in a society that locks up culture: a movie about Jimi Hendrix that features exactly none of his original music.
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: andre 3000, biopic, jimi hendrix, licensing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And, as usual, by 'pirates' I mean 'ordinary people unencumbered by an artificial system of scarcity'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He covered them, there is no 'Hendrix original', and it will still potentially feature most of his biggest hits. (e.g. All along the watchtower, Hey Joe, Born under a bad sign, the national anthem..)
Maybe they looked at the tracklist they wanted and realized there was no need for estate bias in the production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did I read this right?
My head hurts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did I read this right?
Would you describe that feeling as...sort of a purple haze, or thereabouts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did I read this right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did I read this right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Did I read this right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically, THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO SHARE. They don't have to allow the music to get used. It's their music, they can do what they want with it.
What is a shame here is that people trying to do a biopic are apparently not willing to come to terms with the rights holder of the music (and those most interested in making sure the story is told right).
I suspect we will get a competing, much more complete biopic sometime in the future. That is the nature of competition. Quit trying to force people into doing things they don't want to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can see it now: "The Official Biography of Abraham Lincoln, as approved by the noted historians at Sony Music"
Err, copyright is force. So you're saying they should be able to use the music without permission?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Our law does not consider suppression of criticism as a proper use of the copyright monopoly.
�... for purposes such as criticism... is not an infringement of copyright.�
Suppressing criticism is an abuse of the copyright monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In order to keep from infringing your copyright, I must necessarily have my rights infringed. In order to respect your copyrights, I must necessarily disrespect my own rights. In order for you to even have a copyright, I must give up my rights. Copyright is infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, so you're saying a movie about a real person may not be entirely accurate? I am shocked! Shocked!
Geez. Also, "friendly to the Hendrix history", is ridiculous. How did he die again? Oh, that's right, he OD'd So, to make things "friendly to the Hendrix history", I'm sure the family might want to change that to "he smelled a flower and dropped dead" or something. Sorry, but makings things friendly is a stupid reason to hold something up. And even the majority of "based on a true story" movies have a nice amount of creative story telling. I wouldn't expect any different of a biopic.
"Basically, THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO SHARE. They don't have to allow the music to get used. It's their music, they can do what they want with it."
I see, so they don't have to share but if they feel like sharing, the people involved in the movies production suddenly are obligated to share their creative production? And this makes sense to you? One group doesn't have to do anything it doesn't want to, but the other group does. And you wonder why people laugh at you and your like. Hint, it's because of your blatant hypocrisy. You make demands of others that you refuse to do yourself first.
"I suspect we will get a competing, much more complete biopic sometime in the future."
No fucking shit sherlock. Heck, I have a dvd already that is essentially a bio of Jimi Hendrix. Complete with a great scene featuring Little Richard who appears to be wired to the gills. And that dvd isn't a biopic, so much as interviews with people who actually knew him and then photos and whatnot of Jimi, as well as performances done by him.
"That is the nature of competition."
So what you're saying is competition is all well and great when you can dictate to others what they can or can't do, but the moment it's free reign, as in legitimate competition, well fuck that. Someone best put a stop to it, right?
"Quit trying to force people into doing things they don't want to do."
Can you point to who is being forced to do something in this? I read the article. No mention of forcing anyone to do anything. Just an article stating it's ridiculous that because one group now wants creative control to some extant in a movie about Jimi Hendrix, and is being refused the opportunity to do so, they are withholding his music from being used in a biopic about him.
No forcing at all. However, it could be interpreted that the ones being forced (or attempted to be forced) to do anything are the ones involved in the creation of the movie. They're being told, "You want to use his music, do this or fuck off!"
God man, your type seriously grasp at straws to try and paint Mike and others here as the bad guys. Seriously though, show us who's being forced to do what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Err...how does one "own" music? The music in question was performed/recorded/written/whatever (someone tell me which verb to use, please!) by Jimi Hendrix. Not his family. How can these people "own" music? If Jimi had walked up to me years ago and performed his music in front of me, does he still "own" it? Do I, having heard it?
If you want to get technical, music is an idea, knowledge. The knowledge of arranging musical notes and/or lyrics in a specific order. We don't grant copyright or ownership status over recipes (arranging ingredients in a specific order). We don't say that my Aunt Martha thought up and wrote down a recipe for chocolate cake, therefore, even if prepared and baked in front of me, she somehow still retains "ownership" of the idea and is solely entitled to prepare it.
So...rebuttal please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright is not for such purposes as to enforce a particular viewpoint being expressed.
That you support the use of copyright for such censorship says a lot about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With the family in control, it could be a far-less-complete biopic. Or a fairy-story-pic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's the problem. Hendrix has been dead over 40 years, yet his "estate" (whoever that is) is holding our culture hostage and will be for another 60 years at least. (yes, OUR culture, Hendrix didn't exist in a vacuum).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't make a Vietnam-war documentary without paying royalties to the estates of the long dead musicians who wrote their music as a protest against the establishment in the first place! Funny how that turned out, isn't it?
The thing about "documentaries" produced under the watchful eyes of the copyright holders, is that they inevitably turn out whitewashed, scrubbed clean of actual history. Elvis turns out slim and clean. Malcolm X ends up liking white people. When the time comes, Schwarzenegger's bio will contain no steroids, nor any embarrassing bits from "Pumping Iron".
You are right though: with support of the law, they basically own the music, the history, and dead-man-Hendrix himself. Legal though, doesn't make it right. Everyone should have the right to record and interpret history, not just the people who think they own it. Let's hope things change. Things have to change; the current state of it all is perverted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's the problem right there. It's part of the culture yet it's their's and they can stop it from being shared?
Copyright was not unreasonable in the US once. It recognized it's own point and limitations were time-reasonable. Under that regime, the baby-boomers youth-culture would not be locked up and it's a crime against humanity that it is locked up under this regime.
The generation whose youth culture is at issue are around retirement age. That their culture cannot be freely reflected in artistic expression that explores that time period and/or its icons makes a sham of copyright. In the US it is for the advancement of the arts and sciences, not for locking down culture to this insane extent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He was a drug addict and womaniser who died ridiculously young due to his wild lifestyle. His reputation comes completely, 100%, from his music.
If they're worried about his reputation, why won't they allow the use of the thing that made his reputation?
"It's their music, they can do what they want with it."
It shouldn't be. They didn't make it. They didn't write it. They didn't contribute to it. Why should they be in custody of it and profit from it?
"What is a shame here is that people trying to do a biopic are apparently not willing to come to terms with the rights holder of the music (and those most interested in making sure the story is told right)."
Define "right". I consider the right way to tell the story to be the TRUTH, no matter how embarrassing it might be. You seem to consider the "right" way to be to lie about it. Liars in defence of copyright holders, what a surprise...
"That is the nature of competition."
...and this is one of the stupidest things you've ever said, considering that removing competition is the entire basis of the copyright you're defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder what Hendrix would do?
At least Hendrix fans now get to find out how stupid copyright is. The list is growing. The movie will do good there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder what Hendrix would do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder what Hendrix would do?
If you can use a cover license for other peoples songs, then why not use it for Hendrix's own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its funny how people think that control would automatically make it better or more accurate not just more arbitrary. Making a film is a different thing entirely from looking after an estate.
Maybe the film will turn out shite but that shouldn't stop them trying and having a chance to do it their way. No one else should be stopped either from competing with it. You seem to advocate only approved competition which is not really competition.
Control could for instance be removing stuff they are not comfortable with - he was hardly an angel eh?
If its not accurate, reviewers will slate it all over anyway if claiming to be a biography. You shouldn't slate something before it made!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now I'll probably be sued for copyright infringement for posting this...
As Pepe Le Peu said... "Le Sigh."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IN AMERICA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In reality, Jimi Hendrix wrote and performed his songs. If you can't depict that without paying someone a lot of money, that's a violation of free speech in my opinion. It's not like they're shooting a movie about the Doors and wanting to use Jimi's music. It's relevant to the project and, in my opinion, fair use. A project like this would only drive music sales for the estate. You're declining free advertising and, arguably, curtailing the adding of value to the music by letting people have a more emotional connection when they see the circumstances of its origin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is, of course, one of the dumber things here. If they're just concerned how the movie will alter peoples' perceptions of his music and thus sales of said music, they're barking up the wrong tree. There will be many, many people who will watch the movie for Andre or other reasons who have never heard Hendrix's music before (as, for example, my first introduction to The Doors' catalogue was Oliver Stone's biopic). However he's portrayed in the movie, the music speaks for itself.
Otherwise, what they're admitting is that they're not interested in the truth. They don't want to support any film that doesn't present a bland, whitewashed version of history that glosses over the man's many flaws (which were what made him an interesting enough character to film in the first place). That's pretty sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why in my day....we also had those disks and.....nevermind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tempest in a Teakettle
So, I'm calling tempest in a teakettle here. (Even though I agree with Mike's basic argument that the existing licensing structure is stupider than stupid.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's one:
No /s/ here. Totally serious. No one can stop you from making a piece of art--they can only come for you after the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstar:_The_Karen_Carpenter_Story
http://video.google.com/vid eoplay?docid=622130510713940545
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, the new boss is worse than the old boss, and it's too funny. There are no monsters under the bed, and when we're done with Dotcom my sleeping giant artist friends are coming for you, Chubby Chicken Little Pirate slimeball weasel Mikey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We won't get fooled again. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Wrecking Crew
Music Film Is Delayed by Fees for Songs
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/movies/wrecking-crew-film-focuses-on-session-players.html?_ r=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Wrecking Crew
Fsck these greedy bastards. Now they're going and splitting up the family. Didn't that MAFIAA learn anything from Brando and Pacino's mafia? "You never go against the family"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hendrix family ruins projects they are involved with...
In every case, when the Hendrix estate was involved, they managed to get the projects scrapped, delayed, or otherwise ruined. I had a friend that did a life size bronze sculpture of Jimi for his grave, the Hendrix estate totally screwed him over,broke their contract, and managed to confiscate the sculpture. I am sure if you asked these guys, they would agree with the filmmakers decision to proceed without interference from the family.
That being said, it is a pity they didnt use his music in the film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]