Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Do The Studios Know Their Shows?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
21 replies to this topic

#21 of 22 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,337 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted March 16 2011 - 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Peter Rohlfs 

According to IMDB "In Search Of" was hosted by Nimoy 1976-1982.  Would the research done for those shows about 29-35 years ago still be relevent?


I'm guessing it would be a mixed bag. I saw In Search Of... reruns on the Sci-Fi Channel (?) maybe 10 or 15 years ago and one featured the Titanic and wondered if its final resting place would ever be found (I think it was discovered about 2 and a half decades ago) but I'm sure many episodes would still be as up to date as they were 35 years ago.



#22 of 22 OFFLINE   Stephen Wight

Stephen Wight

    Second Unit



  • 479 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 2005
  • Real Name:Stephen

Posted March 17 2011 - 01:35 PM




Originally Posted by Neil Brock 




     What does that have to do with anything? The expense of clearing music has to do with paying the publishers and writers. Who performs it means nothing. A Beatles song is a Beatles song whether its The Beatles performing it or Uncle Joe. Who is singing doesn't change the rights issues one iota.




Then why do the studios even resort to using covers? Wouldn't they be better off using the original songs, if the rights holders get paid,regardless of who sings the song?




Originally Posted by Mike*SC 

There are so many variables in music clearance, it's impossible to make any such blanket assumption (unless the song and performance are in the public domain, which makes it easy).  There are really no set rules -- the rights owner can ask for any amount he feels like at that minute, or outright refuse rights at any price.  It doesn't have to be consistent; he can demand five times as much for one project as he does on another.  Think about what you'd do if you owned the only orange tree in the country.  You could charge whatever you wanted for oranges, and sure, some people might well opt to eat apples instead, but for anybody desperate for an orange, you could set your price at whim.  You might sell it to the pretty girl for half what you sell it to the rich geezer for, just because you felt like it.

Again, one key is how the original contracts were drawn up.  For any show made before this millennium, certainly nobody anticipated the various sorts of rights a show might need for then-unimagined means of distribution.  But it's quite possible that 1975 Show A, which featured live musical acts, happened to luck out by contractually securing wider rights than 1975 Show B, which used needle-drops established by the boilerplate contract of the day, which granted only broadcast rights.  These things happen all the time, and in a case like this, Show A doesn't even have to clear the music (it was cleared 36 years ago), while Show B has to negotiate anew and play catch-up.

The point is, never assume that any two examples are alike.  They may seem to be, superficially.  But without knowing the specifics, these assumptions are no more than guesswork.



Thanks for your explanation. I just thought that,with live performances,the rights were doubled,so to speak,snce the artist is shown singing the song. Again, I'm no music rights expert.