Money for old rope???

[TheGreek]

Remember the 70s and the Punk movement??? When bands were adamant that they would never "sell out"?? 

 

There are currently adverts on the TV featuring samples by both The Jam and The Sex Pistols - probably the two most vocal against "selling out"....

 

My question: are tracks from 30-40 years ago which don't generate an income "fair game" for adverts and the like??? 

 

Integrity -v- income....

[Lozz196]

I can`t remember details but if I recall correctly I think after a specified period (determined at time of registering or something) music can be used irrespective of the artist? I may have this wrong though. 

[gjones]

4 minutes ago, Lozz196 said:

I can`t remember details but if I recall correctly I think after a specified period (determined at time of registering or something) music can be used irrespective of the artist? I may have this wrong though. 

 

I checked with Google AI and it said that copyright generally lasts for the life of the last surviving author plus 70 years.

 

Up until 2013 it was protected for 50 years. Then Paul McCartney said......'Hold on a minute!' and Keith Richards said  'Oi mate!'.

 

 

[thodrik]

I'm a big fan of The Cult and every time I hear She Sells Sanctuary on a coffee advert, a car advert, holiday advert, adverts for  podcasts, adverts for tv shows, adverts about musical streaming sites, adverts about headphones or adverts about the merits of advertising, my first reaction is one of 'good stuff, Billy Duffy and Ian Astbury got paid again'.

 

 

[ian61]

1 hour ago, Lozz196 said:

music can be used irrespective of the artist?

Which is an important point. Tons of old music now being used in TV ads flogging stuff to 'young people'. Cant think of one non Hip Hop style tune from a current artist being used.

[fretmeister]

I don't think it's an integrity issue at all.

 

The world has changed. Hardly any bands make good money anymore and everyone has to eat.

[Wombat]

Cliff Richard is a vocal protagonist of the 70 year thing as a fair bit of his catalogue will expire soon so ‘stop’ his income. You can go down all the ‘his music is crap’, ‘he’s rich so what’ etc avenues but imo you should have copyright for your lifetime at least. I guess Jimi H’s family must be bricking it!

[chris_b]

It's not an integrity issue in 2025.

 

It was a bunch of kids talking bollocks in the 1970's.

[Dad3353]

I've never really understood why anyone should get paid for stuff they did years ago, and has already earned from concerts and disks sold, just because it has become popular or useful for somebody else. Not a popular view amongst musicians, I'll admit, but I can't somehow see its justification. Other people invent or create many things during their lifetime, but don't get a regular income from it. It's an odd system, to me. 

Edited August 28 by Dad3353

[wateroftyne]

1 minute ago, Dad3353 said:

I've never really understood why anyone should get paid for stuff they did years ago, and has already earned from concerts and disks sold, just because it has become popular or useful for somebody else. Not a popular view amongst musicians, I'll admit, but I can't somehow see its justification. Other people invent or create many things during their lifetime, but don't get a regular income from it. It's an odd system, to me. 

Most musicians don’t get a significant chunk of cash every time they create new music.

[Owen]

2 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

Other people invent or create many things during their lifetime, but don't get a regular income from it. 

If it is copyrighted, they do. You can bet that pharmaceutical companies don't say "no worries everyone, crack on using our stuff, it is a gift because that is who we are"

Choose any large industry you want and insert it in to that sentence. 

 

Yes, writing a song which is a hit might only take 30 minutes. But the work to get to that point is not trivial. 

[chris_b]

11 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

I've never really understood why anyone should get paid for stuff they did years ago, and has already earned from concerts and disks sold, just because it has become popular or useful for somebody else. Not a popular view amongst musicians, I'll admit, but I can't somehow see its justification. Other people invent or create many things during their lifetime, but don't get a regular income from it. It's an odd system, to me.

 

I'm surprised and disappointed that a musician should think that way.

 

If people are using your music, even 50 years later, to sell their products then the music should also be earning for the creators. If a scientist discovers something and patents the idea he earns from that. Music is no different. 

[Hellzero]

14 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

Most musicians don’t get a significant chunk of cash every time they create new music.

If Mozart was still alive he would agree, and it's been the same for almost any classical musician considered now geniuses, but not back then as most of them were always short on money, except a very few, like Rossini.

 

So every penny generated by some kind of recognition is more than welcome for an artist ... when he's alive.

 

For the record Vincent van Gogh officially only sold one painting (La Vigne Rouge) while alive...

[BigRedX]

27 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

I've never really understood why anyone should get paid for stuff they did years ago, and has already earned from concerts and disks sold, just because it has become popular or useful for somebody else. Not a popular view amongst musicians, I'll admit, but I can't somehow see its justification. Other people invent or create many things during their lifetime, but don't get a regular income from it. It's an odd system, to me. 

 

As I've said before how do you establish the monetary value of a piece of music? There are songs on my current band's forthcoming album that I have been working on over the last 40 years, and others that were written from start to finish in a single 3 hour practice session.

[Dan Dare]

14 hours ago, TheGreek said:

Integrity -v- income....

 

All very well to have high principles if you can afford them, but most of us have to make a living. Talk of "selling out" is usually uttered by those who don't have to worry about where their next penny is coming from. The equation of time/effort invested vs. income received works out heavily against most musicians (and artists generally). I made sure I always kept a day job, so I could pick and choose what I played.

 

Fair play to anyone who manages to make a living out of art of any kind. Sure, I think stuff like Tracy Emin's unmade bed and similar is tripe, but she and people like her have beaten the odds and actually made a decent living out of art, so fair play to them.

Edited August 29 by Dan Dare

[Maude]

4 hours ago, TheGreek said:

Remember the 70s and the Punk movement??? When bands were adamant that they would never "sell out"?? 

 

There are currently adverts on the TV featuring samples by both The Jam and The Sex Pistols - probably the two most vocal against "selling out"....

 

My question: are tracks from 30-40 years ago which don't generate an income "fair game" for adverts and the like??? 

 

Integrity -v- income....

Is the song by The Jam on the advert 'Helicopter' by Bloc Party? 

Admittedly the first part of the opening riff is a complete rip off of 'Set The House Ablaze' by The Jam 

[Jean-Luc Pickguard]

I'm waiting for Glen Campbell's Galveston to be re-recorded to advertise heartburn medication

 

 

[Jackroadkill]

I'm old fashioned in this respect - you use it, you pay for it.

[neepheid]

Bloody hell, could this thread not be a review of The Inevitable Teaspoons album instead?  Got my hopes up there