|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Apr 15, 2021 22:31:19 GMT
There is also the sad case of Nic Jones folk singer, and many others such as the Watersons, The Copper Family, indeed the entire back catalogue of Bill Leader. Basically Nic Jone's recordings were owned by one David Bulmer, through his Celtic Music company. When Nic was driving home after a gig, ever the family man, he had a bad road crash which not only nearly killed him but stopped him performing for decades afterwards. However he needed an income. Bulmer categorically refused to release Nic's recordings to help to finance his recovery and he has sat on the master tapes for decades with them likely deteriorating over time. It is all well documented here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nic_JonesBut isn't that more to do with the contract you set yourself up with in the first place? Obviously if you are struggling to get known and maybe need cash then it must be tempting to sign whatever is put in front of you. But whatever you create is automatically yours until you sign it over, at this point selling the family silver to get a good lawyer to read it might prove to be a good long term investment? Some Carry on film actors often moaned that they got nothing for the endless repeats, but producer Peter Rodgers defending himself said they were offered two contracts..one was for a lump sum, the other was a lesser sum and a share out of any future residues. Most took the lump sum as they thought the films were ephemeral tat and who was to know that TV later would forever embrace the films to plug any hole in schedule. Dave Clark has often been depicted as a pop world control freak villain but you have to admire him for keeping in control of everything the band did even when he was poor himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Apr 16, 2021 10:16:02 GMT
The replies are very interesting, but aren't we getting away from my original point? I was talking of material that wasn't officially kept.
But I take the points that Paul made, and I don't suppose I can argue against it.
I suppose I'm basically saying, can't some way be found to preserve and make available material that will most likely never be seen again, and it seems putting it on the internet is a good way of doing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Apr 16, 2021 19:55:59 GMT
The replies are very interesting, but aren't we getting away from my original point? I was talking of material that wasn't officially kept. But I take the points that Paul made, and I don't suppose I can argue against it. I suppose I'm basically saying, can't some way be found to preserve and make available material that will most likely never be seen again, and it seems putting it on the internet is a good way of doing that. You can probably go to the BFI and view material? Not ideal for people who live a distance away and don't have much money... The problem with online is that it makes the content widely available in a way that's similar to it being used commercially. Rather than in a limited educational way. |
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Apr 16, 2021 20:25:05 GMT
The replies are very interesting, but aren't we getting away from my original point? I was talking of material that wasn't officially kept. But I take the points that Paul made, and I don't suppose I can argue against it. I suppose I'm basically saying, can't some way be found to preserve and make available material that will most likely never be seen again, and it seems putting it on the internet is a good way of doing that. You can probably go to the BFI and view material? Not ideal for people who live a distance away and don't have much money... The problem with online is that it makes the content widely available in a way that's similar to it being used commercially. Rather than in a limited educational way. Well, not if it wasn't officially kept. The problem (apologies if I repeat something I said earlier in another thread) is that you are all thinking if your own cases; so every one is right when it comes to their own examples. |
|
|
|
Post by Stuart Douglas on Apr 19, 2021 7:30:58 GMT
Some in the US believe that some archive content is in the public domain and they rely on ignorance to maintain that fiction. This ludicrous position allows the crooks of the Internet Archive to continue their widespread theft, and actually have the brass neck to accuse those who point this out of wanting to keep art from the poor (or some similar nonsense). |
|
|
|
Post by Stuart Douglas on Apr 19, 2021 7:41:00 GMT
There is also the sad case of Nic Jones folk singer, and many others such as the Watersons, The Copper Family, indeed the entire back catalogue of Bill Leader. Basically Nic Jone's recordings were owned by one David Bulmer, through his Celtic Music company. When Nic was driving home after a gig, ever the family man, he had a bad road crash which not only nearly killed him but stopped him performing for decades afterwards. However he needed an income. Bulmer categorically refused to release Nic's recordings to help to finance his recovery and he has sat on the master tapes for decades with them likely deteriorating over time. But isn't that more to do with the contract you set yourself up with in the first place? It's exactly to do with the contract - I love Nic Jones' music but the law is quite clear that the contracts Bill Leader had which Bulmer took over when Celtic Music bought the Trailer back catalogue are binding (see this press release following his win in court over Domino regarding their illegal re-release of the wonderful Bright Pheobus: celtic-music.co.uk/press/2018-12/Press_Release_Bright_Phoebus.pdf). All the artists involved signed the original contracts which assigned their albums to Trailer - nobody was forced to do so, and while Bulmer appears to many people (including me) to have behaved pretty poorly, he is legally in the right. |
|
