Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tony "T" Tissot]

Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 12:12

Tim McCulloch wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 08:46 In contracts with the venue, it is usually called a "commercial use" clause.  It applies when the performance derives income outside of ticket sales, typically television/radio/pay per view broadcasting or video/film recording for non-archival use (i.e. selling a DVD or audio recording which includes that individual performance or inclusion of the performance in a theatrical release). OK, so consider this not-hypothetical situation. I recorded a show, multitracking console direct outs to my laptop. I did this mainly for archiving reasons but I knew that the band might wish to release bonus tracks. So three of these tracks were in fact used as bonus tracks on the recent reissues of the band's first two records, and they are advertised as "recorded live at that great club in DC." Now this club is independent (no Live Nation involvement) so this might be different than with what you're talking about, but if it WAS a LN venue, does this mean that I should not have even recorded it? -a

No (IMHO) for the CC / Live Nation "invention." That's a stretch far beyond the wording of their claimed invention.

But, as these are civil actions, LN / Clear Channel could (although incorrectly in my opinion) bring an action claiming infringement because you used their "method."

Inconceivable. That patent is as absurd (IMHO) as the famous "one-click" patent.

As far as the recording itself and the use of same, the agreement with anyone involved with the live performance would normally be spelled out in a contract like Tim mentioned, before or after the recording was done.

Ignoring the patent; Let's say you recorded it, the artists released your work without your knowledge or consent, or without a contract that specified same. You might conceivably have a course of action, as might anyone else associated with the recording, including the venue.

As for anyone else making a claim, it quickly devolves to a rat's nest of claims. "I placed the mics, and acted as the recording technician, no one ever paid me for that work," is a conceivable civil claim. As is a claim by the venue; "they used our facilities..."

- The counter-claim is that the artists already paid them for their work and all the fruits of that work.

- I only know of musicians making claims (successfully) in that regard. I have not found cases of techs or venues making these claims.. (no LexisNexis access)

Damages? The fruits of the infringement, i.e. revenues gained, would likely be the remedy.

[Charlie Zureki]

  Hello,

  I have a problem with LN, CC, or any other Venue getting an extra share of the Entertainment's income from recordings sold as Merch the night of the show.... whether the Act records and sells that night's performance or a previously recorded Studio recording.

  The Act OWNS that performance, and possibly all rights to the music and lyrics.  The Act also owns their own likeness.

  These Corporate owned Venues place this condition of selling the Performance as a condition for performing at their Venue.

  Sounds like extortion to me.

 
 During the production of a "Recorded Live" event, the small premium in pay for the "working" hands and Production Techs is, and always has been part of the compensation, probably starting with the first Televison Broadcasts. (As Mr.McCulloch posted, it's not very much of a bump)

 Also, I have seen an increase in the neglecting of posting the production staff in the credits of these live, Taped Events. These credits are not only a written acknowledgement of "Thanks", but, it can also be a measure of their work experience.

  I'd encourage young Entertainers and Acts to NOT agree to any condition via a contract that gives their rights to their performance away.

  Some of these Large Corporate Venue Owners already demonstrate too large a presence in whether an Act can achieve it's complete level of success.

 Hammer

 

[Joe Breher]

Charlie Zureki wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 15:09

Sounds like extortion to me.

I dunno - you accept whatever contract management can negotiate, or you walk. Where's the extortion?

[John Roberts {JR}]

James Drake wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 11:42

--clip--- what one person charges should be based on things like how many hours they work, theirs costs to do the job, their experience, going market rate etc. ---clip---- but to EXPECT more based on the results of your work, or the income generated for your client based on your work, is not fair. i think. by the same logic you should be paid less if you worked all day for a show where nobody turned up. watch the unions shout about that one.

If I hear you correctly the performer should only be paid for singing one time, and should not profit from the sale of copies.

Being paid based on results is the real world for business owners...  I don't get paid  for showing up, or working hard, or what I know. I get paid for what I accomplish.

Compensation that isn't based on results does not encourage better outcomes.

JR

PS I am not commenting on the CC patent... as an inventor I find that embarrassing. It looks more like the work of a lawyer than a design engineer.

It smells like bidness... like Willie Sutton said, that must be where the money is, or at least enough marginal revenue for them to pursue.

[Tim McCulloch]

Joe Breher wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 16:54

Charlie Zureki wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 15:09   Sounds like extortion to me.   I dunno - you accept whatever contract management can negotiate, or you walk. Where's the extortion?

The vertical integration... Live Nation own the venue (or manages it), is the concert promoter, and their Clear Channel brothers own the radio & TV stations and the outdoor billboard companies.  While not extortion in the traditional blackmail sense, they hold the vast majority of the cards.

We're not looking at the workers in this case, but the Artists.  If they don't want to comply with a venue's policies, they're off the tour, and that's the issue.  With Live Nation doing a significant chunk of tour promotion, it IS extortion if there is no viable alternative.

I'm a bit surprised you seem to see nothing wrong with monopolistic vertical integration.  That's what got the big movie studios/theaters broken apart 90 years ago.

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc

[Matt Collins]

Tony "T" Tissot wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 15:40

Ignoring the patent; Let's say you recorded it, the artists released your work without your knowledge or consent, or without a contract that specified same. You might conceivably have a course of action, as might anyone else associated with the recording, including the venue.

Well it depends on who owns the recording.

Charlie Zureki wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 16:09

The Act OWNS that performance, and possibly all rights to the music and lyrics.  The Act also owns their own likeness.   These Corporate owned Venues place this condition of selling the Performance as a condition for performing at their Venue.   Sounds like extortion to me.

As long as they didn't sign it away in advance.

[Tony "T" Tissot]

Matt Collins wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 18:51

Tony "T" Tissot wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 15:40 Ignoring the patent; Let's say you recorded it, the artists released your work without your knowledge or consent, or without a contract that specified same. You might conceivably have a course of action, as might anyone else associated with the recording, including the venue. Well it depends on who owns the recording.

Ergo: "conceivably" (emphasis from original quote).

BTW "Own(ership)" requires a specific use.

[KeithBroughton]

Quote:

I don't get paid for showing up, or working hard, or what I know. I get paid for what I accomplish.

So a union hand sets up mics for a live performance at a certain rate of pay. That performance happens to get recorded. And what, exactly, has the hand "accomplished" to get more money? At the end of the day, as previously posted, it probably doesn't amount to all that much money to just pay it but it is an interesting point.

Quote:

The revenue potential for such events increases the value of the work provided

It's like saying that the assembly workers in a car plant should be paid more if the sale of that particular vehicle is high and the manufacturer is making a higher profit.

Quote:

You're free to devalue your own worth

No one is suggesting that the work be devalued. The point here is increasing the value for the same work.

[Larry Robbins]

KeithBroughton wrote on Fri, 26 November 2010 06:31

Quote:  I don't get paid for showing up, or working hard, or what I know. I get paid for what I accomplish. So a union hand sets up mics for a live performance at a certain rate of pay. That performance happens to get recorded. And what, exactly, has the hand "accomplished" to get more money? At the end of the day, as previously posted, it probably doesn't amount to all that much money to just pay it but it is an interesting point. Quote: The revenue potential for such events increases the value of the work provided It's like saying that the assembly workers in a car plant should be paid more if the sale of that particular vehicle is high and the manufacturer is making a higher profit. Quote: You're free to devalue your own worth No one is suggesting that the work be devalued. The point here is increasing the value for the same work.

I bring a set of skills to work.  I deploy these to the best of my ability on a job.  At times, I do work that utilizes and challenges my skill set, and other times, I simply show up and follow direction doing simple tasks.  Compensation varies significantly - not always following the skill level brought to bear.
This is typical in union labor.
In a freelance marketplace, a worker is free to set minimum pay requirements, and to lower the threshold when needed...
I think most people would like to be paid "as much as the market will bear".

This was discussed in a LAB thread: http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?t=rview&th=357 64&rid=6639.

[Charlie Zureki]

KeithBroughton wrote on Fri, 26 November 2010 05:31

Quote:  I don't get paid for showing up, or working hard, or what I know. I get paid for what I accomplish. So a union hand sets up mics for a live performance at a certain rate of pay. That performance happens to get recorded. And what, exactly, has the hand "accomplished" to get more money? At the end of the day, as previously posted, it probably doesn't amount to all that much money to just pay it but it is an interesting point. Quote: The revenue potential for such events increases the value of the work provided It's like saying that the assembly workers in a car plant should be paid more if the sale of that particular vehicle is high and the manufacturer is making a higher profit. Quote: You're free to devalue your own worth No one is suggesting that the work be devalued. The point here is increasing the value for the same work.

   Keith,

   After reading your responses, it's clear that you don't understand where and when these agreements for a pay premium originated.

   Before Recording Technologies and Broadcasting were invented... everything was a "live" performance.  When Recording Technologies and Broadcasting were developed and implemented, there was a undelying fear as to how these new Technologies would affect those (Actors, Musicians, Techicians, Hands, Venues, Producers, etc...)  that made their living in the Entertainment Arts.

   EVERYONE (Actors, Hands, Technicians, Producers, Makeup, Wardrobe,etc..)  involved, being worried of the unknown, insisted on a bump in pay to off-set the possibility that the technologies may (would) take away, or lessen the amount of work they were getting.

   Putting a live performance on the Radio or Televison reaches more people ...and may lessen the ability to sell tickets to live performances at a traditional Venue.

   When the Recording Technologies became reliable, it was easy (and less labor costs) to replay or re-Broadcast, (re-Project in the case of Movies) these recordings. Again, these Actors, Technicians, Hands, Producers, etc.. were sitting out, not being needed, while those that controlled (or owned) the performance made money.

   In the case of these premiums, the Stagehand's premium was small in comparison to Actors, or the Producer's bump.(and was the least of their concerns)

They continue these premiums, especially in "Live to Tape", or Televised events because of the possibility of the WORKING hand accidentally or intentionally being Video taped or Filmed.

 These Hands that work on these Events, have basically given up any right to residuals, and have given permission to use their likeness in the Recording.

  While you say this Premium may be an unjustified, added cost; to the Producers of the Event, it's a small amount of money, less paperwork, and less possible legal wrangling if specific footage (scenes) may be used.

  Hammer
 
   

   


   

   

[ProSoundWeb Community]