jrny film- dsb

[Don]

I have to go with the majority here. DSB fits this movie perfectly. The audience this film is intended for have been listening to covers their whole life, it won't matter to them whether the title song is an original composition written for Arnel or a 28 year old hit from another singer and era.
The Philippines has around 5 people with international recognition. Pacman, Lea Salonga, Imelda Marcos, Charice and Arnel.
Let the guyl have his moment, he is is burning through his voice and has a short window to be iconified in his homeland. The majority of American and Japanese fans know that the song originated with a different singer, there's no attempt here to snow anyone over. I just heard DSB yesterday on the office radio. Everyone in the room knew that the singer was Steve Perry. No need to make it more than it is.

And Perry is still going to get paid a royalty for it's use along with any other Journey songs in the film that he co-wrote, unlike Pineda. As long as the writers of the music are properly compensated, I can't find an issue with any of it.

Well, yes, it may be fitting for the theme, but I don't think that's the point that some are trying to make. They can accomplish having a fitting title by other avenues. Using DSB in the title comes strictly from a marketing perspective, because it's their biggest song... everyone knows this song so it's all about recognition and draw, and not at all about what it really means or the history.

This might just be me, but personally, I believe in having some pride your art and not always just going for the dollars. I cringe every time I hear a commercial using The Who, because Pete keeps selling out. I can take one or two but everytime I turn around that guy has sold off another one. It just flattens the whole enjoyment of the art, in my opinion.

Perry was on board with Glee using two of Journey's songs and I thought the cast version of DSB was a hundred times worse than what the Sopranos used the song for.

I understand what you are saying but if The writer of the music agrees to it, isn't what he wants the most important factor. Believe me. With this movie being a video promotion of the song, I've got to believe something had to go across Perry's desk (just like Sopranos).
If he signed off on it, what else is there to argue about?

[stevew2]

I have to go with the majority here. DSB fits this movie perfectly. The audience this film is intended for have been listening to covers their whole life, it won't matter to them whether the title song is an original composition written for Arnel or a 28 year old hit from another singer and era.
The Philippines has around 5 people with international recognition. Pacman, Lea Salonga, Imelda Marcos, Charice and Arnel.
Let the guyl have his moment, he is is burning through his voice and has a short window to be iconified in his homeland. The majority of American and Japanese fans know that the song originated with a different singer, there's no attempt here to snow anyone over. I just heard DSB yesterday on the office radio. Everyone in the room knew that the singer was Steve Perry. No need to make it more than it is.

And Perry is still going to get paid a royalty for it's use along with any other Journey songs in the film that he co-wrote, unlike Pineda. As long as the writers of the music are properly compensated, I can't find an issue with any of it.

Well, yes, it may be fitting for the theme, but I don't think that's the point that some are trying to make. They can accomplish having a fitting title by other avenues. Using DSB in the title comes strictly from a marketing perspective, because it's their biggest song... everyone knows this song so it's all about recognition and draw, and not at all about what it really means or the history.

This might just be me, but personally, I believe in having some pride your art and not always just going for the dollars. I cringe every time I hear a commercial using The Who, because Pete keeps selling out. I can take one or two but everytime I turn around that guy has sold off another one. It just flattens the whole enjoyment of the art, in my opinion.

I agree Journey s done it before with anyway you want it, so what would stop them from whoring another song out to promote themselves to make money, thats what is all about, its not really so much an art form anymore

[bluejeangirl76]

I have to go with the majority here. DSB fits this movie perfectly. The audience this film is intended for have been listening to covers their whole life, it won't matter to them whether the title song is an original composition written for Arnel or a 28 year old hit from another singer and era.
The Philippines has around 5 people with international recognition. Pacman, Lea Salonga, Imelda Marcos, Charice and Arnel.
Let the guyl have his moment, he is is burning through his voice and has a short window to be iconified in his homeland. The majority of American and Japanese fans know that the song originated with a different singer, there's no attempt here to snow anyone over. I just heard DSB yesterday on the office radio. Everyone in the room knew that the singer was Steve Perry. No need to make it more than it is.

And Perry is still going to get paid a royalty for it's use along with any other Journey songs in the film that he co-wrote, unlike Pineda. As long as the writers of the music are properly compensated, I can't find an issue with any of it.

Well, yes, it may be fitting for the theme, but I don't think that's the point that some are trying to make. They can accomplish having a fitting title by other avenues. Using DSB in the title comes strictly from a marketing perspective, because it's their biggest song... everyone knows this song so it's all about recognition and draw, and not at all about what it really means or the history.

This might just be me, but personally, I believe in having some pride your art and not always just going for the dollars. I cringe every time I hear a commercial using The Who, because Pete keeps selling out. I can take one or two but everytime I turn around that guy has sold off another one. It just flattens the whole enjoyment of the art, in my opinion.

Perry was on board with Glee using two of Journey's songs and I thought the cast version of DSB was a hundred times worse than what the Sopranos used the song for.

I understand what you are saying but if The writer of the music agrees to it, isn't what he wants the most important factor. Believe me. With this movie being a video promotion of the song, I've got to believe something had to go across Perry's desk (just like Sopranos).
If he signed off on it, what else is there to argue about?

Yes... IF the writer agrees to it, I'm happy to shut up, roll my eyes and stay quiet.

But I'm going to refer back to what was said when the re-records for Revelation were done and being discussed... I can try to dig up the quote but lord only knows what thread that would have been in -

- but the effect of it was that just because they recorded those songs does not mean that someone is happy about it or that someone has any say in it.

If they're using the song, and you would assume they are, you should probably also assume they are using the version that appears on Revelation, not on Escape. I don't pretend to have any knowledge of what goes on with royalties, etc., so depending on what agreements are in place, if they use the versions of songs that are on Revelation, they would probably have to pay someone for the writing part of it only, and may not necessarily need permission. And being that they got away with re-recording all that matierial without a certainly party's blessing, it is my assumption that permission isn't needed if they are using that re-recorded material.

[portland]

I have to go with the majority here. DSB fits this movie perfectly. The audience this film is intended for have been listening to covers their whole life, it won't matter to them whether the title song is an original composition written for Arnel or a 28 year old hit from another singer and era.
The Philippines has around 5 people with international recognition. Pacman, Lea Salonga, Imelda Marcos, Charice and Arnel.
Let the guyl have his moment, he is is burning through his voice and has a short window to be iconified in his homeland. The majority of American and Japanese fans know that the song originated with a different singer, there's no attempt here to snow anyone over. I just heard DSB yesterday on the office radio. Everyone in the room knew that the singer was Steve Perry. No need to make it more than it is.

And Perry is still going to get paid a royalty for it's use along with any other Journey songs in the film that he co-wrote, unlike Pineda. As long as the writers of the music are properly compensated, I can't find an issue with any of it.

Well, yes, it may be fitting for the theme, but I don't think that's the point that some are trying to make. They can accomplish having a fitting title by other avenues. Using DSB in the title comes strictly from a marketing perspective, because it's their biggest song... everyone knows this song so it's all about recognition and draw, and not at all about what it really means or the history.

This might just be me, but personally, I believe in having some pride your art and not always just going for the dollars. I cringe every time I hear a commercial using The Who, because Pete keeps selling out. I can take one or two but everytime I turn around that guy has sold off another one. It just flattens the whole enjoyment of the art, in my opinion.

Perry was on board with Glee using two of Journey's songs and I thought the cast version of DSB was a hundred times worse than what the Sopranos used the song for.

I understand what you are saying but if The writer of the music agrees to it, isn't what he wants the most important factor. Believe me. With this movie being a video promotion of the song, I've got to believe something had to go across Perry's desk (just like Sopranos).
If he signed off on it, what else is there to argue about?

Yes... IF the writer agrees to it, I'm happy to shut up, roll my eyes and stay quiet.

But I'm going to refer back to what was said when the re-records for Revelation were done and being discussed... I can try to dig up the quote but lord only knows what thread that would have been in -

- but the effect of it was that just because they recorded those songs does not mean that someone is happy about it or that someone has any say in it.

If they're using the song, and you would assume they are, you should probably also assume they are using the version that appears on Revelation, not on Escape. I don't pretend to have any knowledge of what goes on with royalties, etc., so depending on what agreements are in place, if they use the versions of songs that are on Revelation, they would probably have to pay someone for the writing part of it only, and may not necessarily need permission. And being that they got away with re-recording all that matierial without a certainly party's blessing, it is my assumption that permission isn't needed if they are using that re-recorded material.

Very well said and I agree....not that it matters

[Red13JoePa]

they got away with re-recording all that matierial without a certainly party's blessing

This is like me saying you "got away with" changing the color scheme in your own house.

[Don]

I have to go with the majority here. DSB fits this movie perfectly. The audience this film is intended for have been listening to covers their whole life, it won't matter to them whether the title song is an original composition written for Arnel or a 28 year old hit from another singer and era.
The Philippines has around 5 people with international recognition. Pacman, Lea Salonga, Imelda Marcos, Charice and Arnel.
Let the guyl have his moment, he is is burning through his voice and has a short window to be iconified in his homeland. The majority of American and Japanese fans know that the song originated with a different singer, there's no attempt here to snow anyone over. I just heard DSB yesterday on the office radio. Everyone in the room knew that the singer was Steve Perry. No need to make it more than it is.

And Perry is still going to get paid a royalty for it's use along with any other Journey songs in the film that he co-wrote, unlike Pineda. As long as the writers of the music are properly compensated, I can't find an issue with any of it.

Well, yes, it may be fitting for the theme, but I don't think that's the point that some are trying to make. They can accomplish having a fitting title by other avenues. Using DSB in the title comes strictly from a marketing perspective, because it's their biggest song... everyone knows this song so it's all about recognition and draw, and not at all about what it really means or the history.

This might just be me, but personally, I believe in having some pride your art and not always just going for the dollars. I cringe every time I hear a commercial using The Who, because Pete keeps selling out. I can take one or two but everytime I turn around that guy has sold off another one. It just flattens the whole enjoyment of the art, in my opinion.

Perry was on board with Glee using two of Journey's songs and I thought the cast version of DSB was a hundred times worse than what the Sopranos used the song for.

I understand what you are saying but if The writer of the music agrees to it, isn't what he wants the most important factor. Believe me. With this movie being a video promotion of the song, I've got to believe something had to go across Perry's desk (just like Sopranos).
If he signed off on it, what else is there to argue about?

Yes... IF the writer agrees to it, I'm happy to shut up, roll my eyes and stay quiet.

But I'm going to refer back to what was said when the re-records for Revelation were done and being discussed... I can try to dig up the quote but lord only knows what thread that would have been in -

- but the effect of it was that just because they recorded those songs does not mean that someone is happy about it or that someone has any say in it.

If they're using the song, and you would assume they are, you should probably also assume they are using the version that appears on Revelation, not on Escape. I don't pretend to have any knowledge of what goes on with royalties, etc., so depending on what agreements are in place, if they use the versions of songs that are on Revelation, they would probably have to pay someone for the writing part of it only, and may not necessarily need permission. And being that they got away with re-recording all that matierial without a certainly party's blessing, it is my assumption that permission isn't needed if they are using that re-recorded material.

Video copyright is different from audio copyright. You can do an audio cover of a song I wrote without my permission, as long as you don't alter the words noticeably and you pay me in advance for each disc pressed (not sold, pressed). To use something I wrote in a video presentation requires my permission, regardless who is singing it. To Perry, Journey's re-records are considered Derivative Work
(A work derived from another work, such as a translation, musical arrangement, sound recording, or motion picture version)and permission is still required, just like anyone else wanting to use the song in a movie or TV Show.

Journey did the re-records to get a killer royalty rate from Wal-Mart, it didn't give them free reign to use the songs however they wanted to with no regard to the rights of the songwriters or publishers of the original versions.
If it was that easy, everyone would do it. Movie and TV producers would hire their own musicians and circumvent copyright entirely to avoid paying royalties.

[*Laura]

they got away with re-recording all that matierial without a certainly party's blessing

This is like me saying you "got away with" changing the color scheme in your own house.

I think that in this particular case it's more like changing the original paint in a 18th century castle that was perfectly preserved and didn't need any changing. It's almost blasphemious (is that a word?lol) to alter an original work of art/monument as long as it really doesn't need restauration...History should stay untouched.

I think I need to lay down now.

[Rockindeano]

I think I need to lay down now.

After the way you just shoved a giant tree stump up JoePa's asshole, you deserve the rest.

Dude, she owned you on that.- MLP

[Red13JoePa]

I think I need to lay down now.

After the way you just shoved a giant tree stump up JoePa's asshole, you deserve the rest.

Dude, she owned you on that.- MLP

No.
No.
No.
No, she didn't.
She was as melodramatically blubbery about those old songs as he is.
Let me guess, the "heat tiles peeled off of" her face as she typed that.

[Rockindeano]

I think I need to lay down now.

After the way you just shoved a giant tree stump up JoePa's asshole, you deserve the rest.

Dude, she owned you on that.- MLP

No.
No.
No.
No, she didn't.
She was as melodramatically blubbery about those old songs as he is.
Let me guess, the "heat tiles peeled off of" her face as she typed that.

No, she did own you and you know it.- MLP

[Red13JoePa]

Go back to Togus!!!!!!!

[Rockindeano]

Go back to Togus!!!!!!!

WTF is TOGUS? -MLP

[*Laura]

I think I need to lay down now.

After the way you just shoved a giant tree stump up JoePa's asshole, you deserve the rest.

Dude, she owned you on that.- MLP

No.
No.
No.
No, she didn't.
She was as melodramatically blubbery about those old songs as he is.
Let me guess, the "heat tiles peeled off of" her face as she typed that.

Sorry, 13...It's not your lucky day.

[Red13JoePa]

After what I've seen, it's amazing the day has come when you two would align again.
But then, a pro-Kinnison agenda unites many I guess.

[portland]

After what I've seen, it's amazing the day has come when you two would align again.
But then, a pro-Kinnison agenda unites many I guess.

Yes it's a good day around here....and this makes me SMILE

[*Laura]

After what I've seen, it's amazing the day has come when you two would align again.
But then, the obvious truth unites many I guess.

Fixed it for you. lol

[Rockindeano]

Laura, not trying to be mean, but you look like you have wooden chickletts. Too perfect. So??

[Don]

Laura, not trying to be mean, but you look like you have wooden chickletts. Too perfect. So??

Transylvanians are not really considered Euros, are they?

[Rhiannon]

Video copyright is different from audio copyright. You can do an audio cover of a song I wrote without my permission, as long as you don't alter the words noticeably and you pay me in advance for each disc pressed (not sold, pressed). To use something I wrote in a video presentation requires my permission, regardless who is singing it.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. As someone who sees at least 50 IPR forms coming and going every week, I can state that is absolutely false.
You MUST have permission, with proof, if you do not hold the rights to the song.

[Rockindeano]

Laura, not trying to be mean, but you look like you have wooden chickletts. Too perfect. So??

Transylvanians are not really considered Euros, are they?

Hell yes they are. What, are they fuckin Asians? Dude, last time I checked, Romania was in that shithole Europe. Laura looks like she bathes at least and her grill looks good, unlike 99% of other sweating stinky slimy Euros.

[*Laura]

Laura, not trying to be mean, but you look like you have wooden chickletts. Too perfect. So??

I'll consider that a compliment. They are all mine. The only ones missing are the wisdom teeth...that's why I'm on MR.
In all seriousness, my Dad is 60+ and he has ALL his teeth, untouched and white too. Guess it's good genes. And non-smelly armpits either. LOL

[*Laura]

Laura looks like she bathes at least

Sometimes.

[Since 78]

I have to go with the majority here. DSB fits this movie perfectly. The audience this film is intended for have been listening to covers their whole life, it won't matter to them whether the title song is an original composition written for Arnel or a 28 year old hit from another singer and era.
The Philippines has around 5 people with international recognition. Pacman, Lea Salonga, Imelda Marcos, Charice and Arnel.
Let the guyl have his moment, he is is burning through his voice and has a short window to be iconified in his homeland. The majority of American and Japanese fans know that the song originated with a different singer, there's no attempt here to snow anyone over. I just heard DSB yesterday on the office radio. Everyone in the room knew that the singer was Steve Perry. No need to make it more than it is.

And Perry is still going to get paid a royalty for it's use along with any other Journey songs in the film that he co-wrote, unlike Pineda. As long as the writers of the music are properly compensated, I can't find an issue with any of it.

Well, yes, it may be fitting for the theme, but I don't think that's the point that some are trying to make. They can accomplish having a fitting title by other avenues. Using DSB in the title comes strictly from a marketing perspective, because it's their biggest song... everyone knows this song so it's all about recognition and draw, and not at all about what it really means or the history.

This might just be me, but personally, I believe in having some pride your art and not always just going for the dollars. I cringe every time I hear a commercial using The Who, because Pete keeps selling out. I can take one or two but everytime I turn around that guy has sold off another one. It just flattens the whole enjoyment of the art, in my opinion.

I agree Journey s done it before with anyway you want it, so what would stop them from whoring another song out to promote themselves to make money, thats what is all about, its not really so much an art form anymore

Why did we not have this discussion when DSB came out in the Sopranos? No one that I remember said that Perry was "whoring" out the song. The song belongs to the Band (Perry included) so why the double standard. At least its about a Band Member.

[Don]

Video copyright is different from audio copyright. You can do an audio cover of a song I wrote without my permission, as long as you don't alter the words noticeably and you pay me in advance for each disc pressed (not sold, pressed). To use something I wrote in a video presentation requires my permission, regardless who is singing it.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. As someone who sees at least 50 IPR forms coming and going every week, I can state that is absolutely false.
You MUST have permission, with proof, if you do not hold the rights to the song.

I disagree. As long as a Notice of Intention to Obtain Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Sound Recordings has been filed, you are good to go. Once a song has been commercially released by an artist, that artist's song may be re-recorded and released by anyone who chooses to do so. This holds true, provided that the melody/lyric isn't substantially altered in the "cover" version, and that they pay proper fees/royalties directly to the song's copyright holder. You also don't have to send the notice to all the copyright holders, one is sufficient, it just has to be sent at least thirty days before you plan on distributing the record and via certified mail to show that it was received.
Of course, providing audio samples, and printing lyrics on the CD sleeve require different licensing.
If i do everything required, get everything signed, give the copyright holder their copies, I'm sure I can cover the song, I can't be denied.
If we go by your interpretation, Perry could have easily stopped the re-records. Unless things have changed over the last two or three years, I don't think he could do anything, (as far as an audio cover is concerned).

Maybe we're talking two different things here.

[Rhiannon]

Video copyright is different from audio copyright. You can do an audio cover of a song I wrote without my permission, as long as you don't alter the words noticeably and you pay me in advance for each disc pressed (not sold, pressed). To use something I wrote in a video presentation requires my permission, regardless who is singing it.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. As someone who sees at least 50 IPR forms coming and going every week, I can state that is absolutely false.
You MUST have permission, with proof, if you do not hold the rights to the song.

I disagree. As long as a Notice of Intention to Obtain Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Sound Recordings has been filed, you are good to go. Once a song has been commercially released by an artist, that artist's song may be re-recorded and released by anyone who chooses to do so. This holds true, provided that the melody/lyric isn't substantially altered in the "cover" version, and that they pay proper fees/royalties directly to the song's copyright holder.

The intellectual rights don't always belong to the artist. You must have permission from whomever owns them. Be it an artist, writers, labels, or other entity. If you don't believe me I'd be happy to send you the contracts, without which a disc absolutely may not go to press or even have the glass master stamped. You must have secured or be actively pursuing the song publishing rights from the publisher or from a mechanical rights clearing house to fill out the IPR form. With 'cover tunes' you might be thinking of the ownership (IPR) of the performance of the song (master recording), which does lie with the person who is covering it.

There are ways around covering songs and making the discs and selling them. But they're on the fly, typically in-house functions of someone who possesses the means of duplication rather than replication... and is very risky but typically swept under the rug.

[Rhiannon]

Maybe we're talking two different things here.

I think you're talking about the rights to the audio itself, and I'm talking about copyright/reproduction laws.

[kgdjpubs]

Video copyright is different from audio copyright. You can do an audio cover of a song I wrote without my permission, as long as you don't alter the words noticeably and you pay me in advance for each disc pressed (not sold, pressed). To use something I wrote in a video presentation requires my permission, regardless who is singing it.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. As someone who sees at least 50 IPR forms coming and going every week, I can state that is absolutely false.
You MUST have permission, with proof, if you do not hold the rights to the song.

I disagree. As long as a Notice of Intention to Obtain Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Sound Recordings has been filed, you are good to go. Once a song has been commercially released by an artist, that artist's song may be re-recorded and released by anyone who chooses to do so. This holds true, provided that the melody/lyric isn't substantially altered in the "cover" version, and that they pay proper fees/royalties directly to the song's copyright holder.

The intellectual rights don't always belong to the artist. You must have permission from whomever owns them. Be it an artist, writers, labels, or other entity. If you don't believe me I'd be happy to send you the contracts, without which a disc absolutely may not go to press or even have the glass master stamped. You must have secured or be actively pursuing the song publishing rights from the publisher or from a mechanical rights clearing house to fill out the IPR form. With 'cover tunes' you might be thinking of the ownership (IPR) of the performance of the song (master recording), which does lie with the person who is covering it.

There are ways around covering songs and making the discs and selling them. But they're on the fly, typically in-house functions of someone who possesses the means of duplication rather than replication... and is very risky but typically swept under the rug.

so how does this work when you have bands selling live soundboard recordings at gigs (ie Rob Thomas) and throwing covers in the set??

[Rhiannon]

so how does this work when you have bands selling live soundboard recordings at gigs (ie Rob Thomas) and throwing covers in the set??

See above about audio rights vs. copyright/publishing rights.

[kgdjpubs]

so how does this work when you have bands selling live soundboard recordings at gigs (ie Rob Thomas) and throwing covers in the set??

See above about audio rights vs. copyright/publishing rights.

so theory says you are going to have unauthorized and/or illegal recordings being sold sooner or later as far as copyright/publishing goes, especially the way some bands will throw something spontaneously in the set for kicks.

[Don]

Video copyright is different from audio copyright. You can do an audio cover of a song I wrote without my permission, as long as you don't alter the words noticeably and you pay me in advance for each disc pressed (not sold, pressed). To use something I wrote in a video presentation requires my permission, regardless who is singing it.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. As someone who sees at least 50 IPR forms coming and going every week, I can state that is absolutely false.
You MUST have permission, with proof, if you do not hold the rights to the song.

I disagree. As long as a Notice of Intention to Obtain Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Sound Recordings has been filed, you are good to go. Once a song has been commercially released by an artist, that artist's song may be re-recorded and released by anyone who chooses to do so. This holds true, provided that the melody/lyric isn't substantially altered in the "cover" version, and that they pay proper fees/royalties directly to the song's copyright holder.

The intellectual rights don't always belong to the artist. You must have permission from whomever owns them. Be it an artist, writers, labels, or other entity. If you don't believe me I'd be happy to send you the contracts, without which a disc absolutely may not go to press or even have the glass master stamped. You must have secured or be actively pursuing the song publishing rights from the publisher or from a mechanical rights clearing house to fill out the IPR form. With 'cover tunes' you might be thinking of the ownership (IPR) of the performance of the song (master recording), which does lie with the person who is covering it.

There are ways around covering songs and making the discs and selling them. But they're on the fly, typically in-house functions of someone who possesses the means of duplication rather than replication... and is very risky but typically swept under the rug.

I agree with what you are saying to a point. I'm saying if you do all the paperwork, and the obligatory things that they all make you do, they can't just tell you "No, you can't cover our song".