Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

April 25, 2024, 02:33:17 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Music Licensing issues and stuff like that

Started by vrailaine, November 13, 2012, 08:12:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

vrailaine

Okay, this probably isn't much of a topic, but I was just watching Superstar: the Karen Carpenter Story  and it's a real shame that it's not available in higher quality. Not really sure what he was thinking making it when it was going to be so easy for her family to kill it off though.

That led my mind into thinking about how Charles Burnett's career was seriously damaged by not licensing any of the music for Killer of Sheep, resulting in it only getting to appear and festivals and things like that back when it came out, lingering in obscurity for decades.
It seems remarkably unlikely that neither of them would have been aware of the issues that would occur from leaving themselves so vulnerable to the law. I guess it could have been a calculated risk from Haynes and either ignorance or not really caring about the film getting a release from Burnett.


Anyways, I'm looking for examples of where a song (or whatever) had to be changed in a film after its release due to legal threats from the owners of whatever was used that seriously impacted the film (eg. some really appropriate song having to be removed from a scene, libellous comments, whatever).

Petey Pate

The upcoming Hendrix biopic (featuring OutKast's Andre 3000 as the title role), will feature none of his music due to licensing issues.  Seems kind of redundant.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/andre-3000-covers-beatles-muddy-waters-songs-for-jimi-hendrix-biopic-20120703

Not a film, but I was going to license a cover version of 'You Give A Little Love' (AKA "that song from Bugsy Malone") by electropop trio Moira Stewart to Company Pictures for Skins to play as the last song over the closing credits in the first series of the show.  However, Paul Williams (who composed the song) put the kibosh on it as he was about to earn a shitload of money from it by licensing it to a Coca Cola commercial during the Superbowl instead, and didn't want anything ruining its chances there.  The cunt.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: vrailaine on November 13, 2012, 08:12:26 PM.... Superstar: the Karen Carpenter Story  and it's a real shame that it's not available in higher quality. Not really sure what he was thinking making it when it was going to be so easy for her family to kill it off though....

What was he thinking of? Publicity and notoriety is a good bet.
   
The film got a lot of attention straight away because it was widely reported that Haynes hadn't got permission to use either the music or Barbie dolls. In the case of the later, although a lot of people say that Mattel are partly behind the reasons why the film can't be shown, or would have been, Haynes (IIRC) said there was never a problem with them.

The publicity from the legal issue did help Haynes establish his reputation, so if he was banking on legal troubles, it was well played.

Also, I feel it's not out of the realm of belief that Haynes also took the step for artistic reasons. There was never, ever going to be a way where he could use the music legally – so why not just do it?

Quote from: vrailaine on November 13, 2012, 08:12:26 PM...That led my mind into thinking about how Charles Burnett's career was seriously damaged by not licensing any of the music for Killer of Sheep, resulting in it only getting to appear and festivals and things like that back when it came out, lingering in obscurity for decades...

I'm not sure that it did damage Burnett's career – it's not a narrative that I've really heard, at any rate.

Killer of Sheep was Burnett's film school thesis – I don't think it was ever intended to be shown publicly, hence the use of music.

Quote from: Petey Pate on November 14, 2012, 12:46:02 PM
The upcoming Hendrix biopic (featuring OutKast's Andre 3000 as the title role), will feature none of his music due to licensing issues.  Seems kind of redundant...

On the other hand, quite a few biopics aren't too bothered about that – who wants boring old Johnny Cash vocals when you can have Joaquin Phoenix grandstanding badly?

That said, it's a real shame Hendrix's music won't be used but from stuff I've heard previously (e.g. Devo not being allowed to include the video for R U Experienced? on the DVD release of The Complete Truth About De-Evolution), I'm suspect it may have been a non-starter.

kaprisky

The Wrecking Crew - a documentary about session musicians who played on a load of 60s hits. 132 music cues but not all of them cleared, therefore no commercial release as of yet.

Kenneth Anger took a novel approach to using music in his film Rabbit's Moon by not only not getting permission to use an Andy Arthurs song in the 1979 version but by also using said song that nobody could identify until a few years ago. The film saw the light of day on VHS and both versions were on DVD too.




Feralkid

When I worked in film sales there were various music licensing horror stories.  There was one apparently great US documentary which could have been the next Hoop Dreams had its subject, who gets a phone call of massive importance at one point, not had the theme from Rocky as a ringtone.

My own experiences of this usually came down to various short films managing to secure a great piece of music but only having it cleared for festivals.  There's a charming gay short from the late 90's called Friend of Dorothy.  In the festival circuit version the end credits use Judy Garland's version of Get Happy.  It elevates the film, a lot.  Alas the version which got distributed had to replace that with a generic music cue.

It happens. 

Michael Mann apparently really wanted Pink Floyd's Comfortably Numb for the climax of Thief but couldn't afford the rights.  The music for that sequence as it is now remains very Floydy though...

vrailaine

Quote from: Petey Pate on November 14, 2012, 12:46:02 PM
The upcoming Hendrix biopic (featuring OutKast's Andre 3000 as the title role), will feature none of his music due to licensing issues.  Seems kind of redundant.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/andre-3000-covers-beatles-muddy-waters-songs-for-jimi-hendrix-biopic-20120703
Bubba Ho Tep has a similar kind of thing.


Yeah, I meant to include a bit of a disclaimer about being unsure as to whether Burnett had any kind of commercial aspirations for his film considering it was a school project and all. It just seemed ambitious enough to think that he'd have at least considered it though.
Never read anything about it doing much for his career.

Would there be any reasons for Todd Haynes to have not admitted that was his objective by now?


Yeah though, thanks guys, each post has been pretty interesting to me. Not really sure why.


Mad Men pissed away $250k on Tomorrow Never Knows earlier this year, any other examples of songs costing films or shows an absolute fortune?

NoSleep

Quote from: Ignatius_S on November 14, 2012, 01:21:27 PM

On the other hand, quite a few biopics aren't too bothered about that – who wants boring old Johnny Cash vocals when you can have Joaquin Phoenix grandstanding badly?

That said, it's a real shame Hendrix's music won't be used but from stuff I've heard previously (e.g. Devo not being allowed to include the video for R U Experienced? on the DVD release of The Complete Truth About De-Evolution), I'm suspect it may have been a non-starter.


This won't simply be cover versions of Hendrix tunes. I believe the film isn't permitted to use Hendrix compositions at all.

NoSleep

There's the case of Robert Fripp successfully suing the makers of Emmanuelle for ripping off (as in copying) King Crimson's music from Lark's Tongues In Aspic.

El Unicornio, mang

They could just have him performing 'All Along the Watchtower' throughout the film (as long as Bob Dylan is fine with it)

Subtle Mocking

Not quite a movie, but still relevant to the subject of changed music for copyright reasons. WWF Wrestlemania VI on the Wrestlemania Anthology DVD set. Dusty Rhodes comes down the aisle to face 'Macho Man' Randy Savage, although his theme music isn't his usual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68onZSLvY-g

What's the deal with Beatles songs being used in films these days then?

I always thought that they flat-out refused to allow any tracks to be used, but in the last few years I've noticed a few of their songs cropping up in Hollywood fare.

Thinking of "Baby You're A Rich Man" being used over the end credits of The Social Network, and "I'm Looking Through You" being used over the opening credits of that Gervais film Ghost Town.
(I know "Twist & Shout" was famously used in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but Lennon-McCartney didn't write that).

And I've never watched Mad Men so I didn't know about them shelling out a fortune to use "Tomorrow Never Knows".

What's changed? Have the licensing agreements changed or something? Or have they just weakened (or become even more money-hungry?) Anyone know the story?  I'm never quite sure how these licensing issues work.

El Unicornio, mang

Does it have anything to do with Michael Jackson dying in 2009 perhaps?

Well, yeah, I did wonder if it that might've had something to do with it, but Ghost Town was released in 2008..

Dead kate moss

Yes I always had respect for the fact you couldn't buy a Beatles track, though Wacko Jacko relaxed some licensing didn't he, and I believe McCartney gives less of a shit now. Shame. I understand that Wes Anderson was unaware of their hard-to-gettability and had daftly written some part of one of his films around one of their songs or something. Hope that's specific enough for you. I also heard that there was to be an eight minute scene in Almost Famous where everyone 'really got into' Stairway To Heaven, which was either scuppered when the rights proved impossible or someone convinced Cameron Crowe it was a really stupid idea for a scene.

Rolf Lundgren

Was the Beatles' licensing thing only for original versions? I remember the Philips adverts from, I'm going to guess early 2000s, which used to play a cover version of Getting Better.

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: Dead kate moss on November 15, 2012, 10:48:55 PM
Yes I always had respect for the fact you couldn't buy a Beatles track, though Wacko Jacko relaxed some licensing didn't he, and I believe McCartney gives less of a shit now. Shame. I understand that Wes Anderson was unaware of their hard-to-gettability and had daftly written some part of one of his films around one of their songs or something. Hope that's specific enough for you. I also heard that there was to be an eight minute scene in Almost Famous where everyone 'really got into' Stairway To Heaven, which was either scuppered when the rights proved impossible or someone convinced Cameron Crowe it was a really stupid idea for a scene.

It's here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hI-JRI4rqU

Although there's a big silence where the song is supposed to be so you'll have to cue it up to play the song with it. It's actually a pretty good scene, but would have slowed the film down quite a bit anyway.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Beep Cleep Chimney on November 15, 2012, 10:35:52 PM....I always thought that they flat-out refused to allow any tracks to be used, but in the last few years I've noticed a few of their songs cropping up in Hollywood fare....

No, Beatles music could be licensed (IIRC, a track was used in Only Fools & Horses, which had to be replaced for the home media released), but it was very difficult.

I don't think Jackson dying has anything to do with how the music is licensed - he did a deal with Sony, where he basically sold a large stake in the rights to he owned for ready cash (I can't remember the figure I heard that The Beatles catalogue generated per day, but I do remember thinking if you sold some or all of the rights away, your finances were well and truly screwed).

A friend of mine was involved in licensing Beatles music for a documentary (which I don't think will ever see the light of day) - from what they said, the license holders were incredibly difficult to die with and it sounded like they were a load of unscrupulous bastards.

El Unicornio, mang

There was 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' used in Withnail and I in 1986 (which also features two Hendrix songs, full circle and all that), although that was due to Harrison helping fund/produce it.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Rolf Lundgren on November 15, 2012, 10:53:11 PM
Was the Beatles' licensing thing only for original versions? I remember the Philips adverts from, I'm going to guess early 2000s, which used to play a cover version of Getting Better.

Pretty sure I heard using cover versions was a lot easier.

Quote from: Dead kate moss on November 15, 2012, 10:48:55 PM...I understand that Wes Anderson was unaware of their hard-to-gettability and had daftly written some part of one of his films around one of their songs or something....

That would have been for The Royal Tenenbaums - Anderson used the same musical supervisor as his previous films and the guy knows what he's doing. IIRC, Harrison was very ill and this complicated negotiations (which were complicated enough at the best of times). End result was getting Mark Mothersburgh to cover Hey Jude, which is a win in my book... but I'm pretty biased.

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: Ignatius_S on November 15, 2012, 11:06:03 PM
Pretty sure I heard using cover versions was a lot easier.


Yep, cover versions usually aren't a problem. They even sometimes get a band to make a version which sounds almost identical, so casual viewers don't know the difference. Also, it's different for releasing just on audio format (CD, download, etc), anyone can record a cover of any song they like without permission, you just need to make sure they get credit/royalties.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: vrailaine on November 15, 2012, 07:26:11 PM
Yeah, I meant to include a bit of a disclaimer about being unsure as to whether Burnett had any kind of commercial aspirations for his film considering it was a school project and all. It just seemed ambitious enough to think that he'd have at least considered it though.
Never read anything about it doing much for his career....
It was a long time in the making, so at some point, he may have well thought 'This could do well', but it could have been a long way done the road. Also, Burnett may have saw the film had potential as a showreel, rather a commercial product - to give an example, one of the directors of Man Bites Dog told me that they did the film as a promo of what they could do on no money, in the hope of getting noticed, rather than making the film to make money.

Killer of Sheep's reputation as an underground classic and I think it enhanced Burnett's reputation, rather than damaged it. By the time it was finished, Hollywood was moving increasing towards 'high concept' films and I can't see Burnett would have fitted into. Also, he always strikes me as very principled artist, which again, is going to present problems.

Quote from: vrailaine on November 15, 2012, 07:26:11 PM...Would there be any reasons for Todd Haynes to have not admitted that was his objective by now?...

There's a lot of mystique I feel that's attached to the film now - Haynes talking in certain ways about it might strip some of that away. Also, if there was a cynical motive he owned up, I suspect some opinion would turn against it. Besides, where would be the fun in discussing it!

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on November 15, 2012, 11:09:17 PM
Yep, cover versions usually aren't a problem. They even sometimes get a band to make a version which sounds almost identical, so casual viewers don't know the difference. Also, it's different for releasing just on audio format (CD, download, etc), anyone can record a cover of any song they like without permission, you just need to make sure they get credit/royalties.

Ah, good point about the audio format.

vrailaine

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on November 15, 2012, 10:55:07 PM
It's here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hI-JRI4rqU

Although there's a big silence where the song is supposed to be so you'll have to cue it up to play the song with it. It's actually a pretty good scene, but would have slowed the film down quite a bit anyway.
Jesus, that's the kind of thing that would have made me incredibly uncomfortably watching it with someone. Musicals make me shiver when the people burst into song, that would induce a panic attack.

Don_Preston


Dead kate moss

I'm currently playing the scene alongside This Corrosion by Sisters Of Mercy. It's great, she says 'when does it start?' just before the drums come in. Any other 8 minute-ish songs that work/don't work?

SteveDave

Quote from: Dead kate moss on November 16, 2012, 11:31:05 AM
I'm currently playing the scene alongside This Corrosion by Sisters Of Mercy. It's great, she says 'when does it start?' just before the drums come in. Any other 8 minute-ish songs that work/don't work?

Would "Heroin" work?

Panbaams

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on November 15, 2012, 11:09:17 PM
Yep, cover versions usually aren't a problem. They even sometimes get a band to make a version which sounds almost identical, so casual viewers don't know the difference.

... Hence Sleeper sing "Atomic" in Trainspotting, rather than Blondie.

Back on the Beatles, wasn't it harder to get music when Neil Aspinall was running Apple, and it's relaxed since he retired in 2007? I think technically it's always been  possible to license a Beatles song, but is so prohibitively expensive and with conditions attached that hardly anyone bothers.

SquidlyDiddly

Interesting mention of Hendrix and Withnail. The estate's rule, one of them anyway, is that his music should not be used in anything that glorifies drug taking. Think Bruce Robinson was amused by this on Withnail commentary.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: vrailaine on November 15, 2012, 07:26:11 PM....Mad Men pissed away $250k on Tomorrow Never Knows earlier this year, any other examples of songs costing films or shows an absolute fortune?

Interesting question – I couldn't think of any off the top of my head or find anything online. One of the reports said that amount Mad Men paid was the five times the average amount for a song to be licensed – I would be quite interested in knowing if there's a scale for these kind of things!

Quote from: Panbaams on November 16, 2012, 12:47:04 PM...Back on the Beatles, wasn't it harder to get music when Neil Aspinall was running Apple, and it's relaxed since he retired in 2007? I think technically it's always been  possible to license a Beatles song, but is so prohibitively expensive and with conditions attached that hardly anyone bothers.

As licensing of Beatles' tracks has become more common in recent years, Aspinall's departure may be a factor (sounds reasonable) but Apple is still a nightmare to deal with I've been told.

It was claimed that one reason it took so long for Beatles' music being available as digital media took is because all of the surviving members and the estates of deceased ones, had to agree to the deal – with a further claim was that due to the extent of antipathy between certain people, disagreements arose out of principle (specifically, the principle of not wanting to agree with the other person over anything). Certainly, with The Royal Tenenbaums, Harrison's illness was said to have complicated negotiations so I wonder whether licensing generally needed such an accord?

Dead kate moss

Quote from: SteveDave on November 16, 2012, 11:43:26 AM
Would "Heroin" work?

I will try that. At the moment the 12" of the Pet Shop Boys' Always On My Mind fits a treat, especially how much his older brother(?) is getting into it.