Re: Copyright
- From: "RichL" <rpleavitt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:55:26 -0500
brianhughes45@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 11, 12:33 am, brianhughe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4687730/Dame-Vera-Lynn-takes-on-BNP-over-White-Cliffs-of-Dover.html
On Feb 10, 7:04 pm, hcbowman <hcbow...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:That was a hypothetical example. This isn't.
http://www.stlr.org/2008/10/john-mccain-and-the-music-makers/
So, AIUI, you could singHappyBirthdayat aKKKrally, Warner
Chappell would be paid through ASCAP/BMI, and everything would be
hunky dory?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? "Look at it from the rights owners
viewpoint".??? I sincerely hope that some sort of veto provision is
retained by the writer.
Just in case anyone thought that IP laws protected artistic
integrity....
Here's the thing. She didn't write the song, so she owns no rights with
respect to mechanical licensing . And it's not clear from the article
whether she owns the performance rights. If she did, she'd have
standing to sue (at least in the US; I don't know how UK laws differ).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Copyright
- From: Charmed Snark
- Re: Copyright
- From: brianhughes45
- Re: Copyright
- References:
- Copyright
- From: Paul P
- Re: Copyright
- From: hcbowman
- Re: Copyright
- From: brianhughes45
- Re: Copyright
- From: brianhughes45
- Copyright
- Prev by Date: Re: Schluper Schtar Trek
- Next by Date: Re: Superclamp
- Previous by thread: Re: Copyright
- Next by thread: Re: Copyright
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|