On this year's list, there's the book "Breakfast at Tiffany’s," the movie "Vertigo," and the song "Johnny B. Goode."
There's also plenty of junk that few people care about, that might be snapped up and repurposed and given some amusing new life.
But it does seem right that Chuck Berry still gets the royalties from his song that has never fallen out of popularity in all this time.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१८ टिप्पण्या:
Trivia Q: What lyric was changed and why?
From the song he stole from Johnnie Johnson you mean? Ever notice all his hits are written in keys for piano? That he gets royalties guaranteed by copyright law is ironic.
If drug companies only get a few yrs for drugs that cost millions...why should "creative" folks get an open ended guarantee?
RE: "Johnny B. Goode"-- it doesn't seem right to me that the copyrights should go on pretty much forever. If Chuck had known his copyrights to the recording, the music, and the lyrics would expire in, say, 17 years, he might have created more masterpieces, and he'd still have earned a lot of money from JBG.
Also, other performers might have taken the song in interesting new directions. Back when there were lots of "standard" songs, sometimes of indeterminate authorship, performers endlessly re-interpreted them. Consider "Cotton-Eyed Joe" (Rednex v. Nina Simone) or "See See Rider" (Ma Rainey v. The Animals.
My misconceptions: For some reason I thought that works copyrighted pre-1978 were still subject to the old laws. I also thought it was 70 years period, not 70 years after the death of the author. That seems a bit much. The first seemed fair protecting a source of revenue for the life of the artist, but 70 years after death is a bit excessive. And why do corporate works get another generation?
@damikesc: Drugs: because those are actually needed to save people's lives, therefore, their generic adoption is much more weighted in the public interest? Certain lifesaving drugs don't get completely developed because the market isn't large enough, leaving the people who could be saved shit out of luck. And no, I don't think those would suddenly be developed if exclusivity were extended, unless some kingpf of deal were struck for niche markets. (It would likely matter to you too if you or a loved one should ever be unfortunate enough to get sick with an unpopular disease.)
In literature, there comes a point when the character belongs more to the public than to the author. Gatsby, Scarlet O'Hara, Holden Caulfield should be allowed to roam free and fight zombies.
Chuck Berry is dead, so he isn't getting anything. Which is the problem with copyright vultures.
Chuck Berry is dead?? who knew
I am pretty sure that Mark Twain's characters are all still protected by copyright and his estate enforces that right. I can't imagine what purpose that serves.
I did read a novel where Twain himself was a character though. It was some kind of riverboad world.
I think all fair minded people are agreed that oil executives make too much money and that their money should be taken from them and distributed to those more in need. Thus so with singers and songwriters. If there's ever been a case of "you didn't build that", songwriting is such a case. All songwriters build upon the harmonic convergences of their predecessors, yet they're the ones who get to cash the royalty checks. This is especially true of pop music where so many rhythms and beats are laid down by anonymous black performers and exploited by clever whites....,..How much is too much? Paul McCartney is worth a billion dollars, and I'm sure Bruce Springsteen and Bowie are not far behind. I'd like to make a fair minded suggestion. The royalties to their music should pass from their hands after 28 years. The royalties should then pass to a charitable trust which would be used to establish music conservatories in black neighborhoods and award scholarships to worthy students. The trust could be administered by such incorruptible worthies as Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, and Suge Knight. Under such conditions I'm sure mist singers and songwriters wouldn't mind a reduction of their income stream. In fact, many socially conscious songwriters like Dylan will write protest songs against the current inequitable royalty systems.
tim in vermont said "I am pretty sure that Mark Twain's characters are all still protected by copyright and his estate enforces that right."
A lot of Twain's work, if possibly not all, is out of copyright:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/53
"I did read a novel where Twain himself was a character though. It was some kind of riverboa[t] world."
That would be P.J. Farmer's Riverworld series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld
Chuck Berry is not dead. I'd be a bit more knowledgeable about my facts before, you know, claiming them to be true.
Johnnie Johnson did get ripped off.
Tank, what is the answer?
colored boy replaced by country boy....
Answered it meownself
If the idea is that I'm supposed to be shocked that these "ancient" works are still copyrighted, it doesn't work with me. I'm not offended or surprised that the creators of these works or their heirs are still profiting from them. I am surprised that Mark Twain's works are still copyrighted, if that's so.
The last volumes of Oman's Penninsular War and Fortescue's British Armyl.
All the rest of H.P.Lovecraft's works.
Twain was a character in P.J.Farmers Riverworld books.
RecChief,
Ever notice all his hits are written in keys for piano?
No, I hadn't. I am not sure what you mean by "keys for piano," except that it generally means flats rather than sharps. A pianist who can't play in any key whatsoever is a bit weak, IMO, though pianists haven't the capo option.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
RecChief,
Ever notice all his hits are written in keys for piano?
No, I hadn't. I am not sure what you mean by "keys for piano," except that it generally means flats rather than sharps. A pianist who can't play in any key whatsoever is a bit weak, IMO, though pianists haven't the capo option.
What I meant was that the songs were all in flats. They were obviously written on a piano, by a piano player, not a guitarist.
RecChief said...
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
RecChief,
Ever notice all his hits are written in keys for piano?
No, I hadn't. I am not sure what you mean by "keys for piano," except that it generally means flats rather than sharps. A pianist who can't play in any key whatsoever is a bit weak, IMO, though pianists haven't the capo option.
What I meant was that the songs were all in flats. They were obviously written on a piano, by a piano player, not a guitarist.
I'm with MDT on this. I play piano, mostly, and though I'd rather not play in B major or F-sharp minor, I can do it.
What's with "all flats"? The easiest guitar keys are G major and E minor. B-flat, E-flat, F, and A-flat are pretty normal on piano, but not easier than C, G, A, or D...nor, as MDT suggests, should they be to a competent pianist.
I take Chuck Berry as a genius. That man can sing, play, and entertain.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा