Let's all cast "Rumours: The Movie"

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

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.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by michelej1

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

[MikeInNV]

Originally Posted by michelej1

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?)

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

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.

[Villavic]

Originally Posted by MikeInNV

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 think that's right, those are 2 different kind of rights. For example, in the Yesterday movie, actors were performing the songs in the film and not the Beatles themselves, so that made licensing the Beatles' music catalog relatively straightforward, or so I read. Director Danny Boyle said in interviews that the film was "blessed" by McCartney and Starr, as well as the estates of Lennon and Harrison.

[michelej1]

For a movie, even if you aren’t using the original recording and re-record, you still need permission.

Stevie could re-record SS without Fleetwood Mac’s permission and sell just the audio, but she couldn’t put it in a movie without the copyright owner’s permission. FM could put it in a movie without her permission and she’d get royalties as the writer. Of course, I recognize that she is part of Fleetwood Mac, so obviously she’s going to be involved in the decision. But there was a time when that was not the case.

What you CAN do without permission is audio and a live performance (but you can’t sell a dvd of that live performance without permission) like a concert. For that, you just pay ASCAP, BMI, etc and that gives you a blanket right to use it.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by michelej1

For a movie, even if you aren’t using the original recording and re-record, you still need permission.

Stevie could re-record SS without Fleetwood Mac’s permission and sell just the audio, but she couldn’t put it in a movie without the copyright owner’s permission. FM could put it in a movie without her permission and she’d get royalties as the writer. Of course, I recognize that she is part of Fleetwood Mac, so obviously she’s going to be involved in the decision. But there was a time when that was not the case.

What you CAN do without permission is audio and a live performance (but you can’t sell a dvd of that live performance without permission) like a concert. For that, you just pay ASCAP, BMI, etc and that gives you a blanket right to use it.

$he can do whatever $he wants now, and you know it! Because I'm not the bo$$ of this band.

[elle]

https://www.thewrap.com/black-list-2...duced-scripts/

Black List 2019: Films on Fleetwood Mac, Barron Trump, Nicolas Cage Among List of Best Unproduced Scripts

66 screenplays make up 15th edition of annual list
Brian Welk | December 16, 2019 @ 12:14 PM Last Updated: December 16, 2019 @ 12:59 PM
The Black List

The 2019 edition of the annual Black List was unveiled by founder Franklin Leonard on Monday, and films about the band Fleetwood Mac, President Trump’s son Barron Trump and a meta-movie about Nicolas Cage are among the best, unproduced screenplays circling the industry.

The 15th edition of the Black List featured 66 different scripts, some of which already have financiers, while others are still seeking backing.

Among some of the notable titles is “Barron: A Tale of Love, Loss and Legacy,” a script by Nicolas Curcio that follows Barron Trump at age 10 ahead of the 2016 election as he attempts to sabotage his father’s 2016 presidential campaign after he fears what becoming part of the first family would have on his personal life.

“Rumours” is a musical biopic about the life of Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham as the two friends and lovers join Fleetwood Mac and are thrown into a world of fame, drug addiction and potentially the disintegration of their relationship after writing one of the best selling albums of all time. Tyler Austin and Patrick Eme wrote the script.

There’s also “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent,” which is a meta-movie about actor Nicolas Cage as he decides to make an appearance at the birthday party of a Mexican billionaire and head of a drug cartel as he tries to get out of a spiral of debt. Interestingly enough however, the film piqued the interest of Cage himself, who will star in the film that is already being backed by Lionsgate. Kevin Etten and Tom Gormican wrote the script.

Topping the list with 29 mentions among the Hollywood executives who voted on the list is “Move On” by writer Ken Kobayashi. The film is a sci-fi about a man who thinks he’s the only one left alive after all of humanity has been frozen in time, only to discover that someone else still alive is his ex-girlfriend, with whom he must go on a journey to figure out the cause of the freeze. Sony is already financing the film from producer Olive Bridge.

The Black List is not a list of the “best” screenplays but the most “liked” screenplays. Founder Franklin Leonard compiles a survey of 250 film executives who each contribute a list of their 10 favorites that circulated in 2019 and have not yet begun principal photography, though some of the films already have financial support and other backing. A film must have had at least six mentions from film executives before it could be considered for the list.

This year, 29% of the scripts are written by at least one woman, and 58% of the films could be described as “female-driven,” according to a graph shared on Twitter by The Black List. The group adds that on average over the last four years, approximately 26% have been written by women.

Some movies that have appeared on The Black List in past years include this year’s “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” “Jojo Rabbit and “Booksmart.”

Since the launch of the first Black List in 2005, more than 440 scripts have been produced, grossing over $28 billion in box office worldwide. Black List movies have won 53 Academy Awards from 262 nominations, including four of the last twelve Best Picture Oscars and ten of the last twenty-four Best Screenplay Oscars.

View the full list of scripts here.

[elle]

Originally Posted by elle

https://www.thewrap.com/black-list-2...duced-scripts/

Black List 2019: Films on Fleetwood Mac, Barron Trump, Nicolas Cage Among List of Best Unproduced Scripts

66 screenplays make up 15th edition of annual list
Brian Welk | December 16, 2019 @ 12:14 PM Last Updated: December 16, 2019 @ 12:59 PM
The Black List

Full list of scripts and who is behind them here:
https://files.blcklst.com/files/2019...4srxeygcykdmGY

[bombaysaffires]

call me cynical, but I don't hold much hope for any movies about the band or Buckingham Nicks. I expect too much focus on the salacious aspects like drug use and yelling at each other rather than a real look at the fundamental dynamics of that relationship, which is the far more interesting part.

[David]

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

I expect too much focus on the salacious aspects like drug use and yelling at each other

If it happens at all, that’s what we’ll see. There’s nowhere else for a biopic to go but in the direction of mass-market reduction and sensationalism and extreme ellipsis. And those are the same qualities that the band members and their circle have repeated since talking about the band became its own industry. Things that we’ve been despairing over for years—the way harmless or inconsequential conversations or events have been blown up into deathless fables, covered by a crust of misinterpretation and misstatement—will be the essence of any such movie. Of course we’ll all watch, but it’ll be aggravating.

Remember that TV dramatization a few years ago and how painfully bad it was?