posted on CD.com:

[pilferk]

I think we'll have to disagree on that one as a I do some work for a record label here in the UK and I know a couple of people who all agree(thouse I've asked). . Only the relevent royalties need to be paid.

If the song is altered then permission needs to be sought.

Reproduction of a track for a compilation and using a sample of a track does require permission

I can point you to a very good US copyright attorney who can defend you in any upcoming litigation (stateside, of course) if the label you're working for is adopting the above policy.

Copyright law is pretty cut and dry on this subject, so it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of law. You can not publish another authors copyrighted works without their permission. When it comes to music, if you're re-recording the song with intent to publish it, you need to get the music and lyrical authors permission to rerecord it (use his/her/their work....both the musical composition and the lyrical content). When it comes to using an exact sample of an ARTIST'S work, you need to get permission from the ARTIST (ie: the person(s) who performed the original recording) and then pay them royalties on it, in all likelyhood.

If you'd really like me to, I can PM you a substantial number of cases that will demonstrate the above. There's certainly ample case law on the subject.

Again, I'm not sure who you're talking to at work, but...contact a copyright attorney and they will tell you exactly what I have, above.

Edited February 20, 2006 by pilferk

[The Sandman]

tbh, I would have sent Buckethead to sign and get permission. MLK's family are there, and there is some guy in raincoat, a mike myers mask and wearing a KFC bucket on his head talking through a puppet. LOL.

[Grimo85]

tbh, I would have sent Buckethead to sign and get permission. MLK's family are there, and there is some guy in raincoat, a mike myers mask and wearing a KFC bucket on his head talking through a puppet. LOL.

I smell a movie....

Grimo.

[pilferk]

I think I'll have to respectfully disagree on that one as a I do some work for a record label here in the UK and I know a couple of people who all agree(thouse I've asked). . Only the relevent royalties need to be paid.

I await final word someone I've EMailed which I will PM you unpon receipt

If the song is altered then permission needs to be sought.

Reproduction of a track for a compilation and using a sample of a track does require permission

Actually, you're right and I was wrong. Compulsory License does hold sway.

However, from what I can tell, it looks like the composer DOES retain exclusive rights to play their song in public for profit. I had always thought (and was told) it was the opposite. Which means you can record the song (exactly, note for note perfect...any deviation would require copyright holder authorization as you said), you could never perform it in public at any concert other than a free one, have it played on the radio, or have any sort of licensing use of the song. That SEEMS to be what the law indicates, though it's rather odd in it's wording.

Go figure. Sorry about that!

Edited February 20, 2006 by pilferk

[SLG]

I think I'll have to respectfully disagree on that one as a I do some work for a record label here in the UK and I know a couple of people who all agree(thouse I've asked). . Only the relevent royalties need to be paid.

I await final word someone I've EMailed which I will PM you unpon receipt

If the song is altered then permission needs to be sought.

Reproduction of a track for a compilation and using a sample of a track does require permission

Actually, you're right and I was wrong. Compulsory License does hold sway.

However, from what I can tell, it looks like the composer DOES retain exclusive rights to play their song in public for profit. I had always thought (and was told) it was the opposite. Which means you can record the song (exactly, note for note perfect...any deviation would require copyright holder authorization as you said), you could never perform it in public at any concert other than a free one, have it played on the radio, or have any sort of licensing use of the song. That SEEMS to be what the law indicates, though it's rather odd in it's wording.

Go figure. Sorry about that!

Respect for admitting

Enough talk about laws! It sucks and makes my headache

Edited February 20, 2006 by SLG

[Charisteas]

Sounds fake.

It's the management, lawyers and the record companies job to secure the rights to use these samples. No AXL's, unless he manages himself now?

[SLG]

Sounds fake.

It's the management, lawyers and the record companies job to secure the rights to use these samples. No AXL's, unless he manages himself now?

Maybe they have been refused and he feels that going in person to present his case may sway things a bit

I'm guessing and speculating

[eschman]

Plausible, possible, don't know if I believe it.

[SLG]

Plausible, possible, don't know if I believe it.

Nor me....

[Fit To Burn]

Sounds a little far fetched. Madagascar was performed 4 years ago and may have been written well before that and he never got "approval" until now?

He wouldn't need it for a public performance (fair use) but WOULD need it for publishing them on a CD.

Kinda like any band can cover another band's stuff in concert....but couldn't put that same song on one of their CD's without permission from the original artist.

A band can record any song they please so long as the structure (Lyrics etc) of the track isn't changed and royalties are paid. To alter the structure or sample a pre recorded track would require permission

Not true. Doing so would violate copyright laws. They can record the song, and release it (ie publish it), ONLY IF THEY RECEIVE PERMISSION FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTIST (actually author(s)).

Dont believe me? Call a good copyright attorney and they'll corroborate.

Is it true that after so many years, like 25 I think, a song becomes public domain then and there would no copyright issues?

[SLG]

Sounds a little far fetched. Madagascar was performed 4 years ago and may have been written well before that and he never got "approval" until now?

He wouldn't need it for a public performance (fair use) but WOULD need it for publishing them on a CD.

Kinda like any band can cover another band's stuff in concert....but couldn't put that same song on one of their CD's without permission from the original artist.

A band can record any song they please so long as the structure (Lyrics etc) of the track isn't changed and royalties are paid. To alter the structure or sample a pre recorded track would require permission

Not true. Doing so would violate copyright laws. They can record the song, and release it (ie publish it), ONLY IF THEY RECEIVE PERMISSION FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTIST (actually author(s)).

Dont believe me? Call a good copyright attorney and they'll corroborate.

Is it true that after so many years, like 25 I think, a song becomes public domain then and there would no copyright issues?

Ask Michael Jackson and his 'friend' Paul McCartney

Edited February 20, 2006 by SLG

[Takeshi]

From the first time I heard madagascar I thought there might have been some problems getting permission from the King family to use the clip of his speech. It's common knowledge that MLK's kids are trying to milk every penny they can get from their fathers name. They ask for payment every time the "i have a dream" speech is shown, which means that kids in schools in poor neighborhoods can't get to watch it. There might be a chance that they won't allow Axl to use this clip because of some resentment ligering from "one in a million" but I'd say mostly that this issue is going to boil down to the size of the check that Axl's people will wave in front of them.

[brobot]

I think that's likely what's happened. Lawyers and management try to clear all the legalities of the sound clips, but are met with resistance on one or more. In comes the artist/icon himself to personally meet with those involved to sway them and up the amount of money involved. While in town, the biggest snowfall ever to hit NYC occurs, leaving him some free time to hit some bars and play some new music in private situations knowing that the whole trip is creating more buzz. Add to this the leaked songs, the concert dates being announced, appearances at the Korn and Victoria's Secret parties, and you can see that there is some planning along with him being happy that the time has finally come and making himself a little more accessible and enjoying his celebrity.

[Mateoson]

From the first time I heard madagascar I thought there might have been some problems getting permission from the King family to use the clip of his speech. It's common knowledge that MLK's kids are trying to milk every penny they can get from their fathers name. They ask for payment every time the "i have a dream" speech is shown, which means that kids in schools in poor neighborhoods can't get to watch it. There might be a chance that they won't allow Axl to use this clip because of some resentment ligering from "one in a million" but I'd say mostly that this issue is going to boil down to the size of the check that Axl's people will wave in front of them.

plus the fact that axl dropped the "N" bomb a few times... hopefully he's redeemed himself since then, but if I was the King family I'd give it the old "hell no".

[brobot]

Which leads one to speculate - what next? Things are obviously wrapped up as far as the bulk of the album goes, leaving him some free time. More public appearances, posting on a message board, complete tour dates, not just festival announcements? All could be likely. He states that he talked to Izzy recently, there are rumours of him meeting with Slash - who knows if that means anything, but I like the fact that no replacement for Buckethead has been announced and then you hear things like this - not to mention Slash's recent comments.

[justynius]

From the first time I heard madagascar I thought there might have been some problems getting permission from the King family to use the clip of his speech. It's common knowledge that MLK's kids are trying to milk every penny they can get from their fathers name. They ask for payment every time the "i have a dream" speech is shown, which means that kids in schools in poor neighborhoods can't get to watch it. There might be a chance that they won't allow Axl to use this clip because of some resentment ligering from "one in a million" but I'd say mostly that this issue is going to boil down to the size of the check that Axl's people will wave in front of them.

I agree - the perception of OIAM as racist would almost definitely cause some resistance on the part of the MLK kids. A personal assurance of the intentions directly from Axl might be the only way to get them to agree to allow GN'R to use the clip.

I think this rumor is BS, but it does make sense that Axl would need to be the one to deal with this in person.