FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSDIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Jackson has to share song credit ????

 


gurram533
Michael Jackson didn’t do it his way after all. Hours after the pop singer’s first posthumous single ‘This Is It’ was released amid


great hype on Monday, it emerged that the tune had originally been recorded 18 years ago by an obscure Puerto Rican singer.

Moreover, the co-author of that tune, ‘My Way’ songwriter Paul Anka, threatened to sue Jackson’s estate for proper credit and his share of royalties. The administrators of the estate quickly acknowledged Anka’s claims and granted him 50% of the copyright, a potentially massive payday for the 68-year-old Canadian crooner.

And an equally massive loss for the estate.

“They realize it’s a mistake, they realize it’s my song, they realize it’s my production of his vocal in my studio and I am getting 50% of the whole project, actually, which is fair,” Anka said in a video posted on a gossip website.

The song dates back to 1983, when it was known as ‘I Never Heard’ — a co-write between Jackson and Anka — and intended for inclusion on an Anka album.

But the pair fell out, Jackson took the master tapes and Anka got them back. The song was eventually released in 1991 after Anka placed it with an unknown Latin singer named Sa-Fire.

Both ‘I Never Heard’ and ‘This Is It’ share the same vocal and piano line, although the latter track boasts new overdubs from Michael Jackson’s brothers.

But ‘This Is It’ had been promoted as a new Jackson recording, one of a multitude of unreleased recordings likely to come out in the next few years. It was released online around the world nearly four months after the singer died in Los Angeles of a prescription drug overdose at the age of 50.
deanhills
Looks as though Anka got lucky. It obviously was a "goof" that turned out completely in Anka's favour. Can imagine that whatever Michael Jackson had done with the production, while he had still been alive, would have improved it. He is excellent with improvisations.
Da Rossa
50% of the copyright? Come on. I'll challenge him to produce a decent hit himself, today. Won't sell 1/10000 of what he can do with MJ's help.

With such a ridiculous pretension, I begin to think conspiratorily, that he is sympathetic to the child who got "abused". They wanna f$%¨#¨$# up MJ's memory, and take a lil cash along with it.
ocalhoun
Da Rossa wrote:
50% of the copyright? Come on. I'll challenge him to produce a decent hit himself, today. Won't sell 1/10000 of what he can do with MJ's help.

Sales aren't how you calculate ownership of a copyright.
The only consideration is who did what percentage of the creative work, regardless of how well or poorly it sells afterward, and regardless of which person's inputs likely caused more sales.

If I co-authored a song with someone like Jackson now, I would still be entitled to half, despite the fact that people would only be buying it for his name on the album, and not care about mine at all.

Given that this case involves not only failing to pay the co-author, but also plagiarism, Jackson's estate should be glad he settled for 50%, which is, in my estimate a fair compromise.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
50% of the copyright? Come on. I'll challenge him to produce a decent hit himself, today. Won't sell 1/10000 of what he can do with MJ's help.

Sales aren't how you calculate ownership of a copyright.
The only consideration is who did what percentage of the creative work, regardless of how well or poorly it sells afterward, and regardless of which person's inputs likely caused more sales.

If I co-authored a song with someone like Jackson now, I would still be entitled to half, despite the fact that people would only be buying it for his name on the album, and not care about mine at all.

Given that this case involves not only failing to pay the co-author, but also plagiarism, Jackson's estate should be glad he settled for 50%, which is, in my estimate a fair compromise.
Amazing how this legal action will now be responsible for increasing sales of both Anka and Jackson's records. All one has to do is check on Yahoo and Google and Anka (who had previously been almost forgotten) had received one of the most visited searches yesterday.
Da Rossa
Quote:
Sales aren't how you calculate ownership of a copyright.
Yeáh, I misexpressed myself. I was just saying that, apparently, he's got no "moral juice" to have 50%.

Quote:
Given that this case involves not only failing to pay the co-author, but also plagiarism, Jackson's estate should be glad he settled for 50%, which is, in my estimate a fair compromise.
That's new information for me, because I had in mind that the 18 year-old song was in fact written by Jackson, but performed by that lady. Thanks for the update.
ocalhoun
Da Rossa wrote:

Quote:
Given that this case involves not only failing to pay the co-author, but also plagiarism, Jackson's estate should be glad he settled for 50%, which is, in my estimate a fair compromise.
That's new information for me, because I had in mind that the 18 year-old song was in fact written by Jackson, but performed by that lady. Thanks for the update.

Well, any time something is published and attributed to the wrong person, it could be construed very badly in court, and retribution might not stop at just fixing the money situation back to where it should be, because some people get very upset about having someone else claim their work.
Da Rossa
Tell me about it. I got freaked when I learnt about the possibility that people were taking the content of my site (see my signiture) to sell in the college. Even badder would be someone claim to be the author.

But I might be mistaken about what I've seen on the news.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
Tell me about it. I got freaked when I learnt about the possibility that people were taking the content of my site (see my signiture) to sell in the college. Even badder would be someone claim to be the author.

But I might be mistaken about what I've seen on the news.
I had a look at your Website and even though I can't understand the language, I notice that you have not put anything with regard to Copyright in your Website. Perhaps you need to mark each and every Website page on your Website with the following:

Copyright © 2009 Da Rossa

You can link the "Copyright" above to a Copyright Web page which sets out detailed terms and conditions of using the information in your Website. You can choose your own wording, but it can be something to the equivalent of:
Quote:
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
All materials contained in this Website are protected by the Brazilian Copyright Law and Internet Law and none of the materials may be reproduced either in full or part without the written permission of the author. For further information regarding permissions please contact Da Rossa (e-mail address).
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps you need to mark each and every Website page on your Website with the following:

Any 'artistic' work, including web pages is automatically protected by copyright law in favor of the person who wrote it.

The only things such statements help with are:
-Proving that you were, indeed, the original author.
-Discouraging plagiarism before it happens.
-Clarifying who the copyright owner is in the case of multi-author pages, bought and sold copyrights, or syndication.
Related topics

What your favorite song and why?
War! Liberals vs Conservatives. Who would win?
What's your CD cv ?
Looking for a Theme Song
I wrote a song and recorded it with my Band

Share Market
Confucious and a few random thoughts
Confucious and a few random thoughts
The Shoe Song
Share you ''DID YOU KNOW'' Facts

The most MEANINGFUL song
Michael Jackson (New Album ?)
Tropic Thunder No. 1 boxoffice movie this week
100 frihbucks for one song
A good English song , I like it
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.