If Appetite for Democracy DVD gets released..

[Carne_asaDA]

Marc, How much do you know about the business side? If this DVD gets released, does Slash, Duff, Izzy, and Adler receive any $$ from it since the a lot of the material was written by them? There name would have to appear on the credits right?? Since those songs are registered as written by, (Rose/Stradlin/Hudson/Mckagen/Adler) in ASCAP right?

[DieselDaisy]

How the music industry works is, the old members will receive 'performance royalties' for their songs on a newgnr live dvd. Equally, Axl would have received some performance royalties for the GN'R songs on Live In Stoke. For Appetite era material, it is probably still filtered through that agreement by which Axl receives 25%, Steven 15%, the other three, 20%. It is much more simple with the Illusion credits as they are all demarcated (therefore Slash would receive a performance royalty from Civil War, but not, November Rain).

Edited April 4, 2013 by DieselDaisy

[dalsh327]

That also includes any time any of them play the songs live.

[recklessroad]

I don't think it would be performance royalties, I think it would be song writing royalties. I think royalties is for the people that are now performing the songs. Also its vert trick to get it out in the USA because the songwriters may have to agree on it.

[Carne_asaDA]

I don't think it would be performance royalties, I think it would be song writing royalties. I think royalties is for the people that are now performing the songs. Also its vert trick to get it out in the USA because the songwriters may have to agree on it.

In other words, Slash and Duff could BLOCK the release of the DVD by not signing off on it??

[dalsh327]

I don't think it would be performance royalties, I think it would be song writing royalties. I think royalties is for the people that are now performing the songs. Also its vert trick to get it out in the USA because the songwriters may have to agree on it.

In other words, Slash and Duff could BLOCK the release of the DVD by not signing off on it??

We know in the US, Slash couldn't release the entire "Made in Stoke" DVD, but I don't know why it was just an issue in the US, and not in other countries. I'm guessing the producers of Super Bowl didn't have Slash on the halftime DVD (if one exists).

I guess video has a different set of rules to it.

[DieselDaisy]

Perfomance Rights seems to be industry usage for a live recording.

Performance royalties in the music industry can include any of the following:

a performance of a song or composition – live, recorded or broadcast
a live performance by any musician
a performance by any musician through a recording on physical media
performance through the playing of recorded music
music performed through the web (digital transmissions)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_Royalty#Performance_royalties

I don't think it would be performance royalties, I think it would be song writing royalties. I think royalties is for the people that are now performing the songs. Also its vert trick to get it out in the USA because the songwriters may have to agree on it.

In other words, Slash and Duff could BLOCK the release of the DVD by not signing off on it??

Well Slash and Duff could begin civic proceedings with some, technical, chance of victory. A copyright usually gives someone an 'exclusive right' to license/deny license of their material to whoever they see fit; infringement of copyright risks legal action by the copyright holder. But seeing as Axl also co-owns the same 'exclusive right' to these songs it is a bit messy legally. I know Slash blocked the usage of WTTJ on Black Hawk Down, but, that involved the master recording, I couldn't see Slash instigating legal proceedings against performances by Axl as he may want to use performances also. So If a lawyer doesn't throw the case out because 'Rose' is also an author, he would certainly throw the case out once produced with a copy of Made in Stoke!

It is a bit of a fait accompli

I don't think it would be performance royalties, I think it would be song writing royalties. I think royalties is for the people that are now performing the songs. Also its vert trick to get it out in the USA because the songwriters may have to agree on it.

In other words, Slash and Duff could BLOCK the release of the DVD by not signing off on it??

We know in the US, Slash couldn't release the entire "Made in Stoke" DVD, but I don't know why it was just an issue in the US, and not in other countries. I'm guessing the producers of Super Bowl didn't have Slash on the halftime DVD (if one exists).

I guess video has a different set of rules to it.

This, I think, was to do with 'synchronisation rights'. In the US there are some messy laws involving the synchronisation of audio and video. I am not much of an expert on it but I will have a read up on it when I have some time. This doesn't apply to the UK, nor most other countries.

One interesting thing about Made in Stoke is, all of the GN'R songs chosen have a Slash songwriting credit (either as part of 'Guns N' Roses Music', or, individually). Now this probably has got nothing to do with Slash's decision to choose those songs - Slash probably just chose the songs he played the biggest role in - but, if Slash chose to cover, say, 'Estranged' (Rose) or 'You Could Be Mine' (Stradlin/Rose) he would need to seek a license from the copyright holder. For obvious reasons this may get a bit messy.

Edited April 4, 2013 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

Although there is Patience. Stradlin would have had to okay it.

[volcano62]

Slash and Duff losts many rights when they signed the name over.

It's like Nick Menza and Marty Friedman has no say whatsoever with Megadeth DVD's being released.

[James Bond]

Slash and Duff losts many rights when they signed the name over.

It's like Nick Menza and Marty Friedman has no say whatsoever with Megadeth DVD's being released.

Wouldn't that just apply to what Axl releases under the name though? Like, they can't block anything from being released under the name Guns N' Roses as they have no legal say in the matter.

Still, the songwriting royalties would still be theirs with however it was split up. Perhaps they lost some of those rights (or a percentage of them rather) but who knows.

[DieselDaisy]

Slash and Duff losts many rights when they signed the name over.

It's like Nick Menza and Marty Friedman has no say whatsoever with Megadeth DVD's being released.

When Slash and Duff signed the 1992 Partnership Agreement, they did not sign over their copyrights.

[volcano62]

Slash and Duff losts many rights when they signed the name over.

It's like Nick Menza and Marty Friedman has no say whatsoever with Megadeth DVD's being released.

Wouldn't that just apply to what Axl releases under the name though? Like, they can't block anything from being released under the name Guns N' Roses as they have no legal say in the matter.

Still, the songwriting royalties would still be theirs with however it was split up. Perhaps they lost some of those rights (or a percentage of them rather) but who knows.

Right... im not really sure as I'm far from being a lawyer.

All I know before coming back to Megadeth, Ellefson tried his hardest to sue mustaine unccessfully.

From Wiki:

Ellefson and Mustaine had a severe legal disagreement over royalties and rights to Megadeth's name and back catalog resulting in Ellefson filing an unsuccessful lawsuit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ellefson#Feud_with_Mustaine

[James Bond]

Oh I'm far from being a lawyer too.

I was just under the assumption that it applied to what was released under the name. I assume the label has some type of rights too since Greatest Hits was released despite both Axl and Slash and co. trying to stop it. As far as the royalties, who knows. The most interesting royalty related thing from the past few years was how Slash's DVD could not be fully released in the States but was fine everywhere else.

[volcano62]

The most interesting royalty related thing from the past few years was how Slash's DVD could not be fully released in the States but was fine everywhere else.

So what did the US get? The DVD minus the GNR songs?

[James Bond]

The US just got a double liver album with a bonus DVD (five songs from the performance - Ghost, Cali, Beggars, Been There Lately, and Starlight) and an interview. The weird thing is the double live album has the full set, Guns songs included. No idea how that worked out. The full DVD itself was Region Free so it wasn't like I was stopped from getting it anyways. Very weird scenario.

[DieselDaisy]

As I said, It is to do with the US laws on 'synchronisation royalties':

[James Bond]

For my own curiosity, why does it differ between CDs (which has the full show) and DVDs?

[volcano62]

I'd like to know also

[DieselDaisy]

Well this quote is from wikipedia, but, you may want to read the whole article as copyright law is very complex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalties

Synchronization royalties

In the UK and elsewhere, with the exception of the US, there is apparently no legal prohibition to the combination of audio and visual images and no explicit statutory right for the collection of synch royalties. In the US, however, the Copyright Act defines the audiovisual format as that of combining images with music for use in machines but there is no explicit rate set such as the "compulsory royalty rate" for copying music but there are instances of courts implying the synchronization right,^[54] fuller version at^[55] but even so, it is an amorphous colloquial commercial term of acceptance.

Synchronization royalties("synch licenses") are paid for the use of copyrighted music in (largely) audiovisual productions, such as in DVDs, movies, and advertisements. Music used in news tracks are also synch licenses. Synchronization can extend to live media performances, such as plays and live theatre. They become extremely important for new media - the usage of music in the form of mp3, wav, flac files and for usage in webcasts, embedded media in microchips (e.g. karaoke), etc. but the legal conventions are yet to be drawn.

Synchronization royalties are due to the composer/song-writer or his/her publisher. They are strictly contractual in nature and vary greatly in amount depending on the subjective importance of the music, the mode of production and the media used. The royalty payable is that of mutual acceptance but is conditioned by industry practice.

It is useful to note in this connection the concept of the "needle drop" (now laser drop) in that the synch royalty becomes payable every time the needle drops 'on the record player' in a public performance. All openings and closings, every cut to advertisements, every cut back from ads, all re-runs shown by every TV company, in every country in the world generates a "synchro", although a single payment may be renegotiable in advance.^[56]

There is a category of royalty free music in the field of synchronization. This refers to the use of music in a "library" for which a one-time royalty has been negotiated. It is an alternative to needle-drop negotiation.

In terms of numbers, royalties can range from, say. $500–2000 for a "festival-use license" to $250,000 or more for a movie film score. For low-budget films, which are deemed less than $2 million, the royalties range from 3%–6%^[57] or could be per song per usage.

Slash/the dvd company could have fought the thing and obtained a sync license but instead, they just took the easy way out and simply trimmed the DVD for the US market.

[Dariablue]

That also includes any time any of them play the songs live.

What? I don't think that makes sense.

[Nosaj Thing]

Slash and Duff signed the name over, not their contributions to the band. They still own what they created when they were in real Guns N' Roses.

I'm not 100% sure about this but anyone can perform whatever they want live, the issue is when they record it and sell it.

[machinegunner]

Slash and Duff signed the name over, not their contributions to the band. They still own what they created when they were in real Guns N' Roses.

I'm not 100% sure about this but anyone can perform whatever they want live, the issue is when they record it and sell it.

a. the owner of an artist's name grants licences for the use of recordings under that name

b. then royalties must be paid to whoever was a contributing writer.

[John Bonham]

The most interesting royalty related thing from the past few years was how Slash's DVD could not be fully released in the States but was fine everywhere else.

So what did the US get? The DVD minus the GNR songs?

Yes. That's exactly what we got.

The US just got a double liver album with a bonus DVD (five songs from the performance - Ghost, Cali, Beggars, Been There Lately, and Starlight) and an interview. The weird thing is the double live album has the full set, Guns songs included. No idea how that worked out. Very weird scenario.

As DD keeps pointing out, it has to do with synch rights -- audio synched-up to moving images. There is a separate set of rules when you are presenting a product that way.