The Ledge

Go Back   The Ledge > Main Forums > Rumours
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Make the Ads Go Away! Click here.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 08-23-2019, 07:09 AM
TrueFaith77's Avatar
TrueFaith77 TrueFaith77 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New York City!
Posts: 4,762
Default

Wasn't there talk of a jukebox Mac musical?

I wonder if that sort of thing just breaks down now that Lindsey is out of the corporation.

It didn't hit me until now that kicking him out could potentially impact their future revenue streams that are not related to new music or touring.

Does Lindsey now have the ability to block all of that? Movies, musicals, movies based on musicals...

Or was anything like that a mess anyway with battling lawyers and agents?
__________________
"They love each other so much, they think they hate each other."

Imagine paying $1000 to hear "Don't Dream It's Over" instead of "Go Your Own Way"

Fleetwood Mac helped me through a time of heartbreak. 12 years later, they broke my heart.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-24-2019, 07:47 PM
secret love secret love is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueFaith77 View Post
Wasn't there talk of a jukebox Mac musical?

I wonder if that sort of thing just breaks down now that Lindsey is out of the corporation.

It didn't hit me until now that kicking him out could potentially impact their future revenue streams that are not related to new music or touring.

Does Lindsey now have the ability to block all of that? Movies, musicals, movies based on musicals...

Or was anything like that a mess anyway with battling lawyers and agents?
Hazarding a guess here ... I'd say no. You can't have it both ways. On the one hand, being "happy enough" with your payout from your former employer and on the other, blocking their creative directions and future incomes. Would Lindsey even want to do that, anyway?
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-25-2019, 04:06 AM
FuzzyPlum FuzzyPlum is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueFaith77 View Post
Wasn't there talk of a jukebox Mac musical?

I wonder if that sort of thing just breaks down now that Lindsey is out of the corporation.

It didn't hit me until now that kicking him out could potentially impact their future revenue streams that are not related to new music or touring.

Does Lindsey now have the ability to block all of that? Movies, musicals, movies based on musicals...

Or was anything like that a mess anyway with battling lawyers and agents?
I'd hazard a guess at yes. Without knowing the details of the deal that was struck- I'd assume that was purely a settlement regarding the lost tour income. Lindsey would surely retain his image rights and have a say in any future use of his identity that could result in financial gain.
__________________

'Where words fail, music speaks'
Mick Fleetwood
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-25-2019, 09:41 PM
sweetdudejim sweetdudejim is offline
Junior Ledgie
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 29
Default

How about Glenn Howerton from Always Sunny in Philadelphia as Lindsey?

Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-25-2019, 11:17 PM
HomerMcvie's Avatar
HomerMcvie HomerMcvie is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Indiana/Tennessee
Posts: 11,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetdudejim View Post
How about Glenn Howerton from Always Sunny in Philadelphia as Lindsey?

That is a VERY close resemblance!
__________________
I will CRUSH YOU!!!! KAREN BRING ME MY FLIP PHONE!
And I'm David, not Homer!(we all should be able to change our name, at least once)
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-27-2019, 01:18 PM
jbrownsjr jbrownsjr is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,989
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetdudejim View Post
How about Glenn Howerton from Always Sunny in Philadelphia as Lindsey?

Fastastic!
__________________
I would tell Christine Perfect, "You're Christine f***ing McVie, and don't you forget it!"
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-30-2019, 10:23 PM
secret love secret love is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyPlum View Post
I'd hazard a guess at yes. Without knowing the details of the deal that was struck- I'd assume that was purely a settlement regarding the lost tour income. Lindsey would surely retain his image rights and have a say in any future use of his identity that could result in financial gain.
There are movies about mass murderers with zero input from the (now in jail) mass murderers. Not talking about documentaries here. Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood which is out now is a re-imagining of a murder of Susan Tate, Roman Polansky's wife. It angered the family of Bruce Lee as Bruce Lee is portrayed in the film as a buffoon. I doubt they bothered to sue Quentin Tarantino, even still.

And who can forget how publicly angry Amy Winehouse's father was with how he was portrayed in the biopic "Amy"? He couldn't sue for defamation though because they used real life footage of him talking to Amy. The way he treated her was real.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-31-2019, 03:58 AM
FuzzyPlum FuzzyPlum is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by secret love View Post
There are movies about mass murderers with zero input from the (now in jail) mass murderers. Not talking about documentaries here. Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood which is out now is a re-imagining of a murder of Susan Tate, Roman Polansky's wife. It angered the family of Bruce Lee as Bruce Lee is portrayed in the film as a buffoon. I doubt they bothered to sue Quentin Tarantino, even still.

And who can forget how publicly angry Amy Winehouse's father was with how he was portrayed in the biopic "Amy"? He couldn't sue for defamation though because they used real life footage of him talking to Amy. The way he treated her was real.
I imagine its difficult to sue somebody if you're a murderer in jail- but possible. Perhaps Bruce Lee's family could have sued if they felt it would have been worthwhile. I think image rights in America are quite complex- I think there are different laws in different states.
__________________

'Where words fail, music speaks'
Mick Fleetwood
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-01-2019, 01:21 PM
bombaysaffires bombaysaffires is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Coast
Posts: 5,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by secret love View Post
There are movies about mass murderers with zero input from the (now in jail) mass murderers. Not talking about documentaries here. Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood which is out now is a re-imagining of a murder of Susan Tate, Roman Polansky's wife. It angered the family of Bruce Lee as Bruce Lee is portrayed in the film as a buffoon. I doubt they bothered to sue Quentin Tarantino, even still.

And who can forget how publicly angry Amy Winehouse's father was with how he was portrayed in the biopic "Amy"? He couldn't sue for defamation though because they used real life footage of him talking to Amy. The way he treated her was real.
when you are a public figure and have given boatloads of interviews etc that are public you really can't stop someone from actually making a movie.

That's why Stevie never actually said, if you read her comments carefully, that she would stop Lindsay Lohan from making a movie about her, she said she would slam it in the press so hard no one would go see it.

Which actually is shockingly naive because the more she would bad mouth the movie the more attention it would get and the more people would want to go see it to see if what she complained about was true. And the critics etc would love it because it would give them a whole juicy story to write about.

It's actually got a name-- it's called the "Streisand effect" (google it). Short version is someone was publishing something (a coastal environmental study or some such) that inadvertently included a picture of Streisand's house. She made a big stink trying to get them to remove it or whatever and all it did was draw more attention and more people finding out where she lived-- the very thing she was trying to prevent. If she had just shut up about it not very many people would have seen the article and thus learned her address. So in bad mouthing the Lohan movie Stevie would in fact have been giving the movie MILLIONS in free publicity. Stupid.

But it speaks to Stevie's inflated opinion of herself and her power in the media. She's used this kind of argument many times within the band to get her way on stuff-- I think MIck even wrote about it in his first book-- she said "How will it look if I go to Rolling Stone or whoever and trash the album?" Ego much?

I suspect it stunned her the amount of negative backlash she got from the LB firing. You know it had to because they've largely kept her protected from any media contact, hidden away in her little ego cocoon where you know, she's a LEGEND and whatever delusions she has are treated as reality.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-10-2019, 09:17 PM
vivfox's Avatar
vivfox vivfox is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by secret love View Post
Susan Tate, Roman Polansky's
Sharon Tate
Roman Polanski
__________________
 photo d754aa6e-1605-473c-895b-9665a3f17371_zpsrtovtrei.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-20-2019, 06:51 AM
TrueFaith77's Avatar
TrueFaith77 TrueFaith77 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New York City!
Posts: 4,762
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by secret love View Post
There are movies about mass murderers with zero input from the (now in jail) mass murderers. Not talking about documentaries here. Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood which is out now is a re-imagining of a murder of Susan Tate, Roman Polansky's wife. It angered the family of Bruce Lee as Bruce Lee is portrayed in the film as a buffoon. I doubt they bothered to sue Quentin Tarantino, even still.

And who can forget how publicly angry Amy Winehouse's father was with how he was portrayed in the biopic "Amy"? He couldn't sue for defamation though because they used real life footage of him talking to Amy. The way he treated her was real.
I'm not referring to a depiction of Lindsey (though that's a good legal question; I just don't know), I'm referring to the use of his songs. If you can't use Go Your Own Way in a FM jukebox musical, what's the point?
__________________
"They love each other so much, they think they hate each other."

Imagine paying $1000 to hear "Don't Dream It's Over" instead of "Go Your Own Way"

Fleetwood Mac helped me through a time of heartbreak. 12 years later, they broke my heart.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:13 PM
michelej1 michelej1 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: California
Posts: 25,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueFaith77 View Post
I'm not referring to a depiction of Lindsey (though that's a good legal question; I just don't know), I'm referring to the use of his songs. If you can't use Go Your Own Way in a FM jukebox musical, what's the point?
Fleetwood Mac owns those songs, not Lindsey personally. They can use them in a musical. Personally, he is entitled to royalties but cannot grant or withhold permission. You remember how angry Stevie was with Mick over SS. He didn’t want her to use her own song. Actually, they could stop Lindsey from using GYOW in a musical if they wanted.

Now, his SYW songs are different. I believe Lindsey does own those himself.

Last edited by michelej1; 09-21-2019 at 10:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-22-2019, 01:55 AM
HomerMcvie's Avatar
HomerMcvie HomerMcvie is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Indiana/Tennessee
Posts: 11,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michelej1 View Post
Fleetwood Mac owns those songs, not Lindsey personally. They can use them in a musical. Personally, he is entitled to royalties but cannot grant or withhold permission. You remember how angry Stevie was with Mick over SS. He didn’t want her to use her own song. Actually, they could stop Lindsey from using GYOW in a musical if they wanted.

Now, his SYW songs are different. I believe Lindsey does own those himself.
So who the hell sold GYOW for that bladder commercial(or whatever the hell it is?)?

FM or Lindsey?

EDIT- And now, Abominable?(just saw the trailer for it).


Okay, unless I hear differently, I have to blame Dick. I mean Mick. #f*ckingloser
__________________
I will CRUSH YOU!!!! KAREN BRING ME MY FLIP PHONE!
And I'm David, not Homer!(we all should be able to change our name, at least once)

Last edited by HomerMcvie; 09-22-2019 at 02:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-22-2019, 08:34 AM
MikeInNV MikeInNV is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michelej1 View Post
Fleetwood Mac owns those songs, not Lindsey personally. They can use them in a musical. Personally, he is entitled to royalties but cannot grant or withhold permission. You remember how angry Stevie was with Mick over SS. He didn’t want her to use her own song. Actually, they could stop Lindsey from using GYOW in a musical if they wanted.

Now, his SYW songs are different. I believe Lindsey does own those himself.
But there's a difference between owning a recording and owning the song, isn't there? Mick wouldn't give Stevie the recording of SS, but nothing could've stopped her from recording another version if she wanted to. (I don't follow Taylor Swift closely enough to know for sure, but isn't she talking about re-recording old albums due to a similar issue?)
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-23-2019, 01:13 AM
michelej1 michelej1 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: California
Posts: 25,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeInNV View Post
But there's a difference between owning a recording and owning the song, isn't there? Mick wouldn't give Stevie the recording of SS, but nothing could've stopped her from recording another version if she wanted to. (I don't follow Taylor Swift closely enough to know for sure, but isn't she talking about re-recording old albums due to a similar issue?)
Yes anyone can record GYOW as a plain record, as long as they pay ASCAP, BMI or whoever the publisher is. There’s a mechanical license to record the song and pay the writer and a master license to record the song and pay the artist, Fleetwood Mac (for the specific recording like you said).

But it is a little different for a musical. It’s a different license at issue because it involves both music and visual art. You would need a theatrical license to use it in a play. The owner of the copyright can give that permission. Lindsey only owns his 1975-1987 stuff as part of FM. FM is the copyright owner. You can record the audio without FM’s permission, but you can’t do a play without it.

Yes, youÂ’re right about Stevie. She couldÂ’ve recorded Silver Springs again.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved