Mellotronists

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 chris.dale@... wrote:

> To add to Martin's comments:
>
> The potential Sony lawsuit would have been expensive to defend, which is why
> the producer would have given Julian this advice. A lawyer would have
> charged a lot because it has the potential to be a high profile case and
> possibly make the lawyer (in)famous.
>
> It wouldn't have anything to do with the Beatles because they couldn't
> purchase the copyright in the first place even if they wanted to.
>
> The copyright would be owned by the anonymous guitar player, and the "rights
> to mechanical reproduction" would be owned by whoever holds the original
> master tape the guitar was recorded to (not subsequent copies of that tape).
>
> In order for a copyright to be purchased, one needs written legal permission
> from *both* these parties. If it can't be secured (which is the case here),
> then the copyright can't be purchased to prevent others from using it.
>
> Chris



unless, as i am sure the case is here, it was performed as
a "work for hire" thus relinquishing any and all rights to
the performance to the person/party/etc doing the hiring.
[though i am not actually a land shark and any legal advice
should be referred to competent counsel]

jeffrey d coulter, esq.
[the formal definition of "esq" can be used by a landownder]




> > Hi again...
> >
> > I remember Julian Cope talking about that Mk.2 Spanish Guitar sound...
> > He wanted to use it on a song he was recording... but his producer
> > thought he had sampled it off the "White Album". When Julian told him
> > that he got it off the Mk.2, the producer told him NOT to use it...
> > because he figured that the Beatles purchased the copyright to the
> > sound so that nobody could use it again!
> >
> > Go Figure...
> >
> > J.P.
> >
> > MicroTron 001
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>