pg
Queen Mab
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_silver.png)
Posts: 2,214
Likes: 1,480
|
Post by pg on Jun 3, 2023 6:11:19 GMT
Any time I thought about the Disney deal, I'd have thought of it as a time-limited licencing arrangement.
If that wasn't the case, which is what is now suggested, then IMO that changes the answer to "what does this mean for future releases".
Because...if Disney had creative carte blanche, there would have been plenty of US-only releases over the past 20 years.
|
|
dysan
Ploughman
Posts: 339
Likes: 483
|
Post by dysan on Jun 3, 2023 6:25:50 GMT
Sorry everyone, this $1.1 billion dollars isn't for the catalogue, it's the price of the next Greatest Hits boxset with free balloons and instrumentals CD.
|
|
august
Satyr
Posts: 64
Likes: 85
|
Post by august on Jun 3, 2023 8:20:56 GMT
But could it mean more releases? It seems strangely coincidental with the 50th Anniversary of the Queen album. A copyrights refresh exercise, perhaps? Remember when they moved to Universal/Island back in 2010 (?) and Greg Brooks told us their (Universal/Island) Executive staff were really excited and that we should get lots of exciting Queen projects and how EMI handed over 4000 video cassettes full of live material etc etc? I'm going back to sleep now. Goodnight. I never thought about this before but maybe it was all thanks to moving to Universal/Island that we got all these great stuff in the 2010's. Lets face it, the late 90's and early the 00's were horrible times to be a Queen fan, regarding what they released from the vaults. That was when all the moaning in the fandom began - and for a good reason. After that things have changed A LOT, and we've gotten some really great stuff, like Rainbow '74, NOTW & The Miracle boxes, "new"/found tracks on Forever, and all the BBC sessions in pefect quality. My point: During the last ten year or so, they have released lots of exciting Queen projects, live & studio. Of course they could have made some of these products even more complete, but I really can't complain. I still get goosebumps when I remember the first time I heard the live version of Fairy Feller's Master Stroke, or Freddie singing Let Me In Your Heart Again. Priceless moments!! If new ownership means digging deeper, then bring it on.
|
|
|
Post by The great pretender on Jun 4, 2023 17:52:19 GMT
Disney gone to print to deny that Queens back catalogue is up for sale for 1 billion dollars
|
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lime.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lime.png)
Posts: 24,095
Likes: 9,543
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Jun 4, 2023 19:09:11 GMT
Disney gone to print to deny that Queens back catalogue is up for sale for 1 billion dollars Moved to existing discussion thread. Do you have a source link for that?
|
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lime.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lime.png)
Posts: 24,095
Likes: 9,543
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Jun 4, 2023 19:41:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jun 5, 2023 16:37:35 GMT
I wonder if this includes the solo catalogues? Hopefully it won't cause a delay for the Star Fleet Box. The Star Fleet Project album was originally Raincloud Productions, which is under the umbrella of QPL. If that's still the case and this news about the acquisition is true, then surely this should be accounted for since Brian has gone public about it. A quick run through discogs.com shows the rest of Brian's solo catalog is Duck Productions, which is separate from QPL. Mr. Bad Guy is Raincloud, so that may be in the QPL bundle. Roger's catalog is part Raincloud and part Nightjar productions (his own company), so his earlier albums may be part of the deal too. But we don't know if they're buying just the Queen albums or taking everything QPL owns. I guess we'll find out once the box set is released, as it'll all be in the fine print.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jun 5, 2023 16:49:17 GMT
Will Q+L have to pay to play their songs live, if they sell the catalog? The artist doesn't pay to play songs live, no matter who owns the rights to them. The performance royalties will just be doled out differently, and they vary from country to country. The same goes for mechanical royalties. The members of Queen will presumably keep making songwriting royalties, but the rest of the residual income will no longer be theirs. It varies from deal to deal.
|
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lime.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lime.png)
Posts: 24,095
Likes: 9,543
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Jun 5, 2023 16:58:30 GMT
I wonder if this includes the solo catalogues? Hopefully it won't cause a delay for the Star Fleet Box. The Star Fleet Project album was originally Raincloud Productions, which is under the umbrella of QPL. If that's still the case and this news about the acquisition is true, then surely this should be accounted for since Brian has gone public about it. A quick run through discogs.com shows the rest of Brian's solo catalog is Duck Productions, which is separate from QPL. Mr. Bad Guy is Raincloud, so that may be in the QPL bundle. Roger's catalog is part Raincloud and part Nightjar productions (his own company), so his earlier albums may be part of the deal too. But we don't know if they're buying just the Queen albums or taking everything QPL owns. I guess we'll find out once the box set is released, as it'll all be in the fine print. Interesting. I guess that's what you call NOT keeping all your eggs in one basket.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jun 5, 2023 17:00:14 GMT
Does anyone here have any knowledge on what this kind of deal would mean in the long run? Would Queen lose all control of the songs? I would assume if they sell their catalogue that they would no longer have a say in any of the re-releases, etc? I am a total ignoramus when it comes to these kind of deals, so have no idea what happens in situations such as this. It depends on the deal the artist sets up. Maybe they (and eventually the executors of their estates) will retain control. It's a case by case basis. Some artists care, others don't. We're getting into legalese that the public likely won't be privy to. Frank Zappa's catalogue was sold off last year, and the Zappa Family Trust still has plenty of say in the posthumous releases - most of which remain excellent.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jun 5, 2023 17:03:32 GMT
The Star Fleet Project album was originally Raincloud Productions, which is under the umbrella of QPL. If that's still the case and this news about the acquisition is true, then surely this should be accounted for since Brian has gone public about it. A quick run through discogs.com shows the rest of Brian's solo catalog is Duck Productions, which is separate from QPL. Mr. Bad Guy is Raincloud, so that may be in the QPL bundle. Roger's catalog is part Raincloud and part Nightjar productions (his own company), so his earlier albums may be part of the deal too. But we don't know if they're buying just the Queen albums or taking everything QPL owns. I guess we'll find out once the box set is released, as it'll all be in the fine print. Interesting. I guess that's what you call NOT keeping all your eggs in one basket. Yeah. Freddie, Brian, and Roger all started their own companies in the mid-'70s, but their solo music wasn't immediately on those labels. Roger didn't use Nightjar until Shove It in 1987. Most of this is pretty moot though, as it doesn't command the dollars that Queen's biggest songs and albums do.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jun 5, 2023 17:16:47 GMT
The sale/'acquisition' has been announced on Blabbermouth today
|
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lime.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lime.png)
Posts: 24,095
Likes: 9,543
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Jun 5, 2023 17:20:18 GMT
The sad thing is, whatever deals are made, it's clearly in preparation for retirement. Realistically that can't be too far away - at least from touring.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jun 5, 2023 17:27:26 GMT
The sale/'acquisition' has been announced on Blabbermouth today; it is stated within that the deal turns over ownership of Queen's songs from Disney to Universal in North America (U.S. and Canada) only, as the 3 living Group Members and Freddie's estate reportedly own equal shares in Queen Productions Ltd. which owns the Group's recordings outside of N. America.
Someone posted a comment below the article stating that the Group will not profit from the sale, as they don't have ownership of their recordings within the Jurisdiction that the sale is taking place.
Ted
OUCH if that's true. $1.1 BILLION and the members of Queen don't get a red cent of it? As you Brits say..."Blimey.". It reminds me of how Brian said he's actually not seen any money from the Bohemian Rhapsody movie because of tricky Hollywood accounting. If true...that's gotta hurt! That's kind of misleading. Songwriting residuals is where a lot of the income is at for most artists, and there's no way they're giving that up. Queen, like most artists, do not own their own publishing. None of that is a secret. Guys like Dave Clark and Paul McCartney are in the minority. From the sounds of it, QPL may not be too involved with this deal, as it's one multi-billion dollar corporation selling something to another multi-billion dollar corporation. No artist holds a candle to that kind of money. This is a pretty good crash course on what's going down here - and songwriting royalties are not mentioned at all: www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/queens-billion-dollar-deal-explained-why-are-international-bands-and-solo-artists-selling-off-their-music-catalogues/ar-AA1bW9IM
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jun 5, 2023 17:31:33 GMT
Hopefully with the sale of their catalogue, it means we'll see huge dumps from their archives. Not necessarily. I seriously doubt such deals require artists to hand over their personal tape archives. The big money is in the studio tracks that were recorded 40-50 years ago. Now I've got Have a Cigar stuck in my head. Indeed the white suits are "riding the gravy train," more than ever before.
|
|
pg
Queen Mab
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_silver.png)
Posts: 2,214
Likes: 1,480
|
Post by pg on Jun 5, 2023 18:56:09 GMT
Sorry, I'm confused. I thought publishing WAS songwriting royalties?
|
|
|
Post by primejiveusa on Jun 6, 2023 3:38:26 GMT
OUCH if that's true. $1.1 BILLION and the members of Queen don't get a red cent of it? As you Brits say..."Blimey.". It reminds me of how Brian said he's actually not seen any money from the Bohemian Rhapsody movie because of tricky Hollywood accounting. If true...that's gotta hurt! That's kind of misleading. Songwriting residuals is where a lot of the income is at for most artists, and there's no way they're giving that up. Queen, like most artists, do not own their own publishing. None of that is a secret. Guys like Dave Clark and Paul McCartney are in the minority. From the sounds of it, QPL may not be too involved with this deal, as it's one multi-billion dollar corporation selling something to another multi-billion dollar corporation. No artist holds a candle to that kind of money. This is a pretty good crash course on what's going down here - and songwriting royalties are not mentioned at all: www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/queens-billion-dollar-deal-explained-why-are-international-bands-and-solo-artists-selling-off-their-music-catalogues/ar-AA1bW9IMThank you, The Real Wizard! This is all very confusing to me.
|
|
|
Post by primejiveusa on Jun 6, 2023 3:47:42 GMT
Thank you, The Real Wizard! This is all very confusing to me. How do you know they didn't give it up though?
|
|
|
Post by musicalprostitute on Jun 6, 2023 14:08:55 GMT
Does anyone here have any knowledge on what this kind of deal would mean in the long run? Would Queen lose all control of the songs? I would assume if they sell their catalogue that they would no longer have a say in any of the re-releases, etc? I am a total ignoramus when it comes to these kind of deals, so have no idea what happens in situations such as this. It depends on the deal the artist sets up. Maybe they (and eventually the executors of their estates) will retain control. It's a case by case basis. Some artists care, others don't. We're getting into legalese that the public likely won't be privy to. Frank Zappa's catalogue was sold off last year, and the Zappa Family Trust still has plenty of say in the posthumous releases - most of which remain excellent. I am pleased to hear that it is something that is not set in stone, so to speak; that there is room for individual agreements, etc. I should think that Queen would choose to have as much control as they possibly can if they make this deal; knowing Roger - and especially Brian - I cannot see them relinquishing too much power or control when it comes to their catalogue and how it is used.
|
|
|
Post by 85guild on Jun 6, 2023 14:46:32 GMT
I should think that Queen would choose to have as much control as they possibly can if they make this deal; knowing Roger - and especially Brian - I cannot see them relinquishing too much power or control when it comes to their catalogue and how it is used. Well, with the last 20 years of every song in the catalogue being used as the soundtrack for every product imaginable, not sure that Brian and Roger have or had any power or give a rat's ass about how their music is used as long as the money flows in.
|
|
|
Post by musicalprostitute on Jun 6, 2023 15:01:19 GMT
I should think that Queen would choose to have as much control as they possibly can if they make this deal; knowing Roger - and especially Brian - I cannot see them relinquishing too much power or control when it comes to their catalogue and how it is used. Well, with the last 20 years of every song in the catalogue being used as the soundtrack for every product imaginable, not sure that Brian and Roger have or had any power or give a rat's ass about how their music is used as long as the money flows in. They definitely have power to say what ads use their music and have turned down a number of them. Personally, I do not think their choices over the last 3 decades have been that bad; I mean, they are bigger than they have ever been, so they must have done something right. Do I agree with every single decision they have made? Nope. But do I think they seem to know what they are doing? Yep. What they have done best is to keep Queen in the public eye for over 30 years without their lead singer being around - I would much rather overkill regarding their music being on soundtracks, adverts, etc. than them not being out there at all.
|
|
antonio
Dragonfly Trumpeter
Posts: 196 ![Male Male](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/icons/male.png)
Likes: 109
|
Post by antonio on Jun 6, 2023 20:12:26 GMT
The sale/'acquisition' has been announced on Blabbermouth today; it is stated within that the deal turns over ownership of Queen's songs from Disney to Universal in North America (U.S. and Canada) only, as the 3 living Group Members and Freddie's estate reportedly own equal shares in Queen Productions Ltd. which owns the Group's recordings outside of N. America.
Someone posted a comment below the article stating that the Group will not profit from the sale, as they don't have ownership of their recordings within the Jurisdiction that the sale is taking place.
Ted
OUCH if that's true. $1.1 BILLION and the members of Queen don't get a red cent of it? As you Brits say..."Blimey.". It reminds me of how Brian said he's actually not seen any money from the Bohemian Rhapsody movie because of tricky Hollywood accounting. If true...that's gotta hurt!
If so, they´re not as smart as we thought.
|
|
merplot
Dragonfly Trumpeter
Posts: 137
Likes: 158
|
Post by merplot on Jun 7, 2023 0:49:41 GMT
OUCH if that's true. $1.1 BILLION and the members of Queen don't get a red cent of it? As you Brits say..."Blimey.". It reminds me of how Brian said he's actually not seen any money from the Bohemian Rhapsody movie because of tricky Hollywood accounting. If true...that's gotta hurt!
If so, they´re not as smart as we thought.
Or they dont care about the money as much as everyone thinks.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jun 7, 2023 18:39:06 GMT
Thank you, The Real Wizard! This is all very confusing to me. How do you know they didn't give it up though? You're right, we don't know. Paul Simon gave up his: www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/arts/music/paul-simon-catalog-sony.htmlSo I stand corrected. I guess it's a big enough cheque that royalties are ultimately a drop in the bucket. A formal retirement, and his kids and grandkids can live well.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jun 7, 2023 18:42:46 GMT
It depends on the deal the artist sets up. Maybe they (and eventually the executors of their estates) will retain control. It's a case by case basis. Some artists care, others don't. We're getting into legalese that the public likely won't be privy to. Frank Zappa's catalogue was sold off last year, and the Zappa Family Trust still has plenty of say in the posthumous releases - most of which remain excellent. I am pleased to hear that it is something that is not set in stone, so to speak; that there is room for individual agreements, etc. I should think that Queen would choose to have as much control as they possibly can if they make this deal; knowing Roger - and especially Brian - I cannot see them relinquishing too much power or control when it comes to their catalogue and how it is used. They've got one of the best lawyers in the biz as their manager. They'll retain whatever they can.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jun 7, 2023 18:44:23 GMT
I should think that Queen would choose to have as much control as they possibly can if they make this deal; knowing Roger - and especially Brian - I cannot see them relinquishing too much power or control when it comes to their catalogue and how it is used. Well, with the last 20 years of every song in the catalogue being used as the soundtrack for every product imaginable, not sure that Brian and Roger have or had any power or give a rat's ass about how their music is used as long as the money flows in. Bruce Springsteen would definitely care if Born In The USA is used by the Republican Party. I have no doubt such things came up in his deal. There are so many variables that the public just won't be privy too.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Jun 7, 2023 18:47:44 GMT
OUCH if that's true. $1.1 BILLION and the members of Queen don't get a red cent of it? As you Brits say..."Blimey.". It reminds me of how Brian said he's actually not seen any money from the Bohemian Rhapsody movie because of tricky Hollywood accounting. If true...that's gotta hurt!
If so, they´re not as smart as we thought. This has nothing to do with their intelligence. I assure you that QPL are massively prudent in all of their legal affairs. You're quoting an article from 2019. Here's one from 2021: www.radiox.co.uk/artists/queen/this-is-how-much-queen-are-making-from-the-bohemian-rhapsody-film-every-dayWhile it's very likely that there was money exchanged for their likeness to be used in the movie, the payments were probably just delayed. We just can't comment on things we don't know enough about. It's standard fare for celebrities to sign waivers allowing actors to depict them in such a film, and then their hands are mostly washed clean of it, save for an agreed amount of creative control they're allowed to maintain - details the public are not privy to. Chances are Brian and Roger were paid as consultants for their input. Brian was very public about his involvement in the film's production, and you can bet your left nut he wasn't working for free. But when that money exchanged hands is not something that ever goes public. In 2019 Brian was probably airing frustration that the money hadn't shown up for a film that had begun production nearly a decade earlier and had been out for six months. No doubt they have been paid in full by now.
|
|
|
Post by michaelallred on Jun 8, 2023 1:37:12 GMT
I don't know why this idea of Disney "owning" Queen's music in the USA has any traction at all. Disney became their American record label when they signed in the 90s ie Hollywood had exclusive rights to release Queen music in that territory. A license if you will. Queen still owned their own music which is why they can sell to whomever wherever. If any such deal takes place it will be for worldwide useage otherwise paying a BILLION dollars for just one continent is an extraordinarily bad deal for who is buying it.
|
|
|
Post by primejiveusa on Jun 8, 2023 14:08:39 GMT
I don't know why this idea of Disney "owning" Queen's music in the USA has any traction at all. Disney became their American record label when they signed in the 90s ie Hollywood had exclusive rights to release Queen music in that territory. A license if you will. Queen still owned their own music which is why they can sell to whomever wherever. If any such deal takes place it will be for worldwide useage otherwise paying a BILLION dollars for just one continent is an extraordinarily bad deal for who is buying it. Initially that was the deal but sometime before the 2011 remasters it seems that Hollywood Records now owns the North American rights. All releases now just say "Hollywood Records" and nothing about being "under license from QPL". Not forseeing their eventual surge in popularity they seemed to have sold it to Disney. That's gotta stick in their craw today! We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars they are missing out on.
|
|
billy
Dragonfly Trumpeter
Posts: 179
Likes: 215
|
Post by billy on Jun 9, 2023 1:41:06 GMT
|
|