Monker wrote:
I don't think this is true. If it is, explain how Styx released the previously mentioned Styx DVD. Do you think he would let them if he had a choice?
I am not sure. But all songwriters must give permission for a synch license with their songs, which is issued when a song is married to video, whether it's playing in the background of a news broadcast, or even if a tribute band wants to put little 30 second video clips of them performing songs on video on their website... I don't know much about Styx or DDY or anything, but he HAD to have given permission for them to include his songs in the DVD - Money speaks volumes, I guess.
Unless there is something in the contracts from when Journey split with Perry, all they have to do is pay the songwriting fee and that's it. The problems with video comes with OLD video. Perry had to get ALL members permission to do the Houston DVD, even Steve Smith.
Actually, see above re how synch (video) licensing goes...Keep in mind it ONLY has to do with the song itself. The actual footage of the Houston concert was owned by either Sony or (less likely) MTV. I'm almost positive Sony owned the master video, so they wouldn't have to have gotten ANY permission to release the video itself (the "VIDEO MASTER"). They also owned the audio recording as well. They only thing they didn't own was the publishing rights to the songs. There may be some finer points I am missing, but that's pretty much the way the law works.
The thing with Journey is that Perry supposedly still has a vested interest in the band...So, in theory, he could stop ANY release the band wants to make. So, they do the deals that Herbie talked about in his interview...and there was probably some deal for this new one too..."Ok, I'll let them release a new DVD, if I can control all aspects of the '81 DVD..."
This is the gray area no one really knows much about at all. I thought Perry stated somewhere that he no longer had any interest in the band, like their partnership agreement was only for 5 years or something. In my original scenario, which precludes any contractual agreements between Perry and the band, my line of thinking was that Perry had to give permission for his songs to be on the Vegas DVD. At that point, money probably meant very little to Perry, so he's got the band by the balls...Here's what Herbie had to say about it:
Herbie Herbert from Matt Carty's Castles Burning Interview wrote: And, so Irving Azoff, god bless him, went to Perry, and talked Perry into letting them re-record and shoot the DVD that my company (Nocturne, which Herbie co-owns with Neal Schon) did in Vegas, as it turns out. The minute that was put in the books, I said 'oh my god, Irving made a deal!' I called Irving, and he says 'yup, yup, I made a deal. And, not only is he allowing that, but we're going to support it - the album and tour - with a VH-1 Behind the Music.' I said, 'He's going to cooperate and participate?' and he said 'yeah.' And I said 'Wow. Now don't ruin my night by telling me what you had to give - it will all come out in the wash. We're all gonna see what you had to give to get him to do that.' And it was that ultimate editorial control. And so, when all of these other guys have signed this agreement, and all you can get out of them is this homogenized, pasteurized pulp - nothing with substance, all candy-coated - that is the worst thing you can get them to say. The most damning and incriminating thing is 'By agreement I am not allowed to speak to those issues, or speak about those matters.
So apparently Perry gave permission to use the songs in exchange for complete editorial control over the VH1 Behind The Music episode. Whatever he may have gotten for the Dallas DVD, there's no telling, but I'm willing to be it had something to do with his share of the Houston DVD. Business is business, that's what lawyers are for, I guess.
Hey, thanks Fred and Deano for helping out with the quote thing!
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:04 am