|
|
Post by mas2ermercury on Mar 31, 2023 14:04:14 GMT
The newest episode focused on We Are The Champions, they advertised it as a rare 1977 performance. The film was shot at their Munich 1978 show. It’s not that rare, it can be found all over YouTube. Besides mixing up the dates and the overconfidence of the definition of a rarity, it was a nice change of pace, the footage looks great and I’m definitely not complaining. It’s a bit refreshing, especially after QPL focusing on Wembly, Milton Keynes, etc over and over again. I’d say it’s worth checking out.
|
|
boffy
Ostler
I have a bad habit of over-explaining things. That is to say, I give redundant detail in an excessiv
Posts: 210
Likes: 221
|
Post by boffy on Mar 31, 2023 16:26:46 GMT
IIRC I've seen that footage before in the Japanese Jewels documentary and on the website of the European TV broadcaster which filmed it, but is this the first time this film has been shown by QPL themselves?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrqueenguy on Mar 31, 2023 17:33:04 GMT
It's probably not like that, but after watching the video I was kinda left with the feeling that the error was deliberate to make the footage seem more rare that it is.
It's clearly well known that the footage is from Munich 1978, and QPL should know that too. I expected the whole video that they would mention the data and place and all, but nothing...
My gut feeling is probably wrong, I can't prove it so it is innocent till proven otherwise, and it was just a sloppy mistake, but it is embarassing either way.
|
|
pg
Queen Mab
Posts: 2,304
Likes: 1,618
|
Post by pg on Apr 1, 2023 9:58:30 GMT
I think I'm willing to accept the labelling of unreleased material as "rare", given that I think most of us expected zero such footage after the initial few vids.
However, mislabelling it as 1977 is not great.
|
|
boffy
Ostler
I have a bad habit of over-explaining things. That is to say, I give redundant detail in an excessiv
Posts: 210
Likes: 221
|
Post by boffy on Apr 1, 2023 10:24:50 GMT
I was going split hairs and defend the dating error because they don't say the clip is from 1977, just that it's from their 1977 NotW tour.
However, even that isn't really accurate. The tour had two distinct legs, separated by a gap of a few months; North America in late 1977 and Europe starting in April 1978.
Still, I remain pleased by QPL sharing a clip which I've only seen from third-party sources before. It is of course entirely possible they've licensed or bought the rights to it just for this YouTube video, but they do have a lot of clips of WatC already in their possession.
I'm probably reading tea leaves here, but could this be a hint that they're obtaining rights to live footage from this era for some sort of Blu/DVD release?
|
|
pg
Queen Mab
Posts: 2,304
Likes: 1,618
|
Post by pg on Apr 1, 2023 17:20:46 GMT
Surely there are more likely releases than Munich 78?  Houston, Earl's Court, Paris, Hammersmith 79 for a start. |
|
thebeast
Tatterdemalion
Posts: 10
Likes: 2
|
Post by thebeast on Apr 2, 2023 12:25:56 GMT
I was kind of hoping for last year's tour to be released this year. I can't believe they won't put out the Rhapsody Over London live stream video at some point. Seems an open goal with little further work required. That said, a QI/QII box set would be more than welcomed.
That said, a QI/QII box set would be more than welcomed. I can not agree more and honestly saying it would be great but our wishes and their abbility and their whishes not a final product . "Their" I mean QPL. |
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator 
Posts: 26,037
Likes: 11,245
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Apr 2, 2023 13:21:56 GMT
The Queen album will be out of copyright this year. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but other artists have put material out to preserve copyrights. It would stand to reason that QI would at least get some kind of imminent re-release.
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonkiller on Apr 2, 2023 14:12:06 GMT
The Queen album will be out of copyright this year. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but other artists have put material out to preserve copyrights. It would stand to reason that QI would at least get some kind of imminent re-release. Yes please....Any kind of material from the first two albums would be great, especially if unreleased. Not sure what material (if any)is left to be released though. |
|
boffy
Ostler
I have a bad habit of over-explaining things. That is to say, I give redundant detail in an excessiv
Posts: 210
Likes: 221
|
Post by boffy on Apr 2, 2023 15:10:35 GMT
Surely there are more likely releases than Munich 78? Houston, Earl's Court, Paris, Hammersmith 79 for a start. Yeah, I can probably only see that particular footage coming out on disc as a bonus feature to one of the ones you've mentioned. I would eagerly buy almost any more 70s live video from the band who have (arguably) released more concert films from July of 1986 than the entire 1970s. |
|
pg
Queen Mab
Posts: 2,304
Likes: 1,618
|
Post by pg on Apr 2, 2023 17:42:17 GMT
The Queen album will be out of copyright this year. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but other artists have put material out to preserve copyrights. It would stand to reason that QI would at least get some kind of imminent re-release. Surely if a reissue refreshes copyright, then the 2011 reissues have it covered? |
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 4,165
Likes: 3,415
Member is Online
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on Apr 2, 2023 17:54:25 GMT
From what I've read, the 50-year rule has not applied since 1972. In both UK and US law 70-years (after death) (UK) or 95 years from recording date (USA). US LAW: www.arsc-audio.org/pdf/Brooks47872_ARSC_Fall05.pdfOne essential fact to remember is that for recordings, two different copyrights apply – one for the song or underlying work, and one for the recording itself. Because the
changes made in copyright law in the 1970s were not retroactive, songs published before 1923 are now in the public domain. However this is not the case with recordings.
Surprisingly, recordings were not covered by federal copyright law at all until 1972. At that time the term was set at 75 years from the date of publication for corporate
copyrights, which include most recordings. In 1998, the now-notorious “Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act” lengthened this to 95 years. Thus a 1972 recording will
not enter the public domain until 2067. But what about recordings made before 1972? Unlike songs and books, they were given special treatment.
Under section 301(c) of U.S. copyright law, they remain under state law until 2067.2 State laws applicable to recordings are generally those dealing with unfair competition,
misappropriation of property and in some cases state copyright. “Common law,” based on prior judicial decisions, also applies. Most experts believe that state and common
law confer permanent ownership in recordings, with no expiration at all.3 Thus, in practice, nothing recorded prior to 1972 will enter the public domain until
2067, when federal law takes over.UK LAW : www.prsformusic.com/works/how-copyright-worksCopyright is a ‘property’ right. This means that the owner of the right, who can be the author or any person to whom the author has assigned it, has the exclusive right to authorise or prevent others from using their work in various ways. A ‘musical work’ consists entirely of music.
The words (or lyrics) of a song are a ‘literary work’. Both are protected in the same way. Copyright in a musical or literary work lasts for 70 years after the end of the year in which the author dies. The musical work then becomes public property or ‘public domain’. |
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator
Posts: 26,037
Likes: 11,245
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Apr 2, 2023 18:24:30 GMT
From what I've read, the 50-year rule has not applied since 1972. In both UK and US law 70-years (after death) (UK) or 95 years from recording date (USA). US LAW: www.arsc-audio.org/pdf/Brooks47872_ARSC_Fall05.pdfOne essential fact to remember is that for recordings, two different copyrights apply – one for the song or underlying work, and one for the recording itself. Because the
changes made in copyright law in the 1970s were not retroactive, songs published before 1923 are now in the public domain. However this is not the case with recordings.
Surprisingly, recordings were not covered by federal copyright law at all until 1972. At that time the term was set at 75 years from the date of publication for corporate
copyrights, which include most recordings. In 1998, the now-notorious “Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act” lengthened this to 95 years. Thus a 1972 recording will
not enter the public domain until 2067. But what about recordings made before 1972? Unlike songs and books, they were given special treatment.
Under section 301(c) of U.S. copyright law, they remain under state law until 2067.2 State laws applicable to recordings are generally those dealing with unfair competition,
misappropriation of property and in some cases state copyright. “Common law,” based on prior judicial decisions, also applies. Most experts believe that state and common
law confer permanent ownership in recordings, with no expiration at all.3 Thus, in practice, nothing recorded prior to 1972 will enter the public domain until
2067, when federal law takes over.UK LAW : www.prsformusic.com/works/how-copyright-worksCopyright is a ‘property’ right. This means that the owner of the right, who can be the author or any person to whom the author has assigned it, has the exclusive right to authorise or prevent others from using their work in various ways. A ‘musical work’ consists entirely of music.
The words (or lyrics) of a song are a ‘literary work’. Both are protected in the same way. Copyright in a musical or literary work lasts for 70 years after the end of the year in which the author dies. The musical work then becomes public property or ‘public domain’.Oh. Right. So where did this 50 year thing come from? I'm sure I wouldn't have made it up. 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by saintjiub on Apr 2, 2023 18:39:29 GMT
From what I've read, the 50-year rule has not applied since 1972. In both UK and US law 70-years (after death) (UK) or 95 years from recording date (USA). US LAW: www.arsc-audio.org/pdf/Brooks47872_ARSC_Fall05.pdfOne essential fact to remember is that for recordings, two different copyrights apply – one for the song or underlying work, and one for the recording itself. Because the
changes made in copyright law in the 1970s were not retroactive, songs published before 1923 are now in the public domain. However this is not the case with recordings.
Surprisingly, recordings were not covered by federal copyright law at all until 1972. At that time the term was set at 75 years from the date of publication for corporate
copyrights, which include most recordings. In 1998, the now-notorious “Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act” lengthened this to 95 years. Thus a 1972 recording will
not enter the public domain until 2067. But what about recordings made before 1972? Unlike songs and books, they were given special treatment.
Under section 301(c) of U.S. copyright law, they remain under state law until 2067.2 State laws applicable to recordings are generally those dealing with unfair competition,
misappropriation of property and in some cases state copyright. “Common law,” based on prior judicial decisions, also applies. Most experts believe that state and common
law confer permanent ownership in recordings, with no expiration at all.3 Thus, in practice, nothing recorded prior to 1972 will enter the public domain until
2067, when federal law takes over.UK LAW : www.prsformusic.com/works/how-copyright-worksCopyright is a ‘property’ right. This means that the owner of the right, who can be the author or any person to whom the author has assigned it, has the exclusive right to authorise or prevent others from using their work in various ways. A ‘musical work’ consists entirely of music.
The words (or lyrics) of a song are a ‘literary work’. Both are protected in the same way. Copyright in a musical or literary work lasts for 70 years after the end of the year in which the author dies. The musical work then becomes public property or ‘public domain’.Oh. Right. So where did this 50 year thing come from? I'm sure I wouldn't have made it up. 🤔 If something is repeated often enough, and it has been repeated often on this site ... perhaps it becomes true??? |
|
|
|
Post by badboybez on Apr 2, 2023 18:56:24 GMT
Think it was ole Cliff Richard that went to court to battle the 50 year rule and had it extended to 70 years.
|
|
ted
Ploughman
Cool.
Posts: 393 
Likes: 188
|
Post by ted on Apr 3, 2023 1:31:04 GMT
This could have some correlation re. the copyright law: a no. of years ago I read that copyright for The Beatles' 2 earliest singles had expired and wasn't expected to be renewed, therefore the singles entered the public domain meaning that royalty payments (and I think publishing?) would cease.
Ted
|
|
pg
Queen Mab
Posts: 2,304
Likes: 1,618
|
Post by pg on Apr 3, 2023 6:23:07 GMT
Oh. Right. So where did this 50 year thing come from? I'm sure I wouldn't have made it up. 🤔 It could be related to unreleased material, so it's about specific recordings, not the publishing. I think the general theory is that a studio version of Hangman would be public domain, if it existed |
|
thebeast
Tatterdemalion
Posts: 10
Likes: 2
|
Post by thebeast on Apr 3, 2023 14:58:33 GMT
Oh. Right. So where did this 50 year thing come from? I'm sure I wouldn't have made it up. 🤔 It could be related to unreleased material, so it's about specific recordings, not the publishing. I think the general theory is that a studio version of Hangman would be public domain, if it existed Exactly, if it existed. You said everything right. |
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 4,165
Likes: 3,415
Member is Online
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on Apr 3, 2023 15:48:26 GMT
It could be related to unreleased material, so it's about specific recordings, not the publishing. I think the general theory is that a studio version of Hangman would be public domain, if it existed Exactly, if it existed. You said everything right. not quite right, is it? in the absence of Erwin Schrödinger (in this case QPL) actually looking in the box, as things stand a studio version of Hangman currently exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. |
|
pg
Queen Mab
Posts: 2,304
Likes: 1,618
|
Post by pg on Apr 3, 2023 16:18:58 GMT
You said everything right. First time for everything not quite right, is it? in the absence of Erwin Schrödinger (in this case QPL) actually looking in the box, as things stand a studio version of Hangman currently exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. Well, it was good while it lasted. |
|
readyeddie
Dragonfly Trumpeter
Posts: 144
Likes: 117
|
Post by readyeddie on Apr 7, 2023 13:26:41 GMT
Todays episode: COMPLETELY POINTLESS
All they did was talk for about 20 second about WWTLF and then showed the Q+AL Isle of Wight performance. What is the point? Why not show footage of Queen performing it?
I wasn’t expecting anything from this series but they really are scraping the bottom of an empty barrel for this!
|
|
dave76
Dragonfly Trumpeter
Posts: 180
Likes: 200
|
Post by dave76 on Apr 7, 2023 19:15:19 GMT
This rubbish series makes releases like Rare Live, Queen Dance Traxx and Live Magic masterpieces.
|
|
|
|
Post by mas2ermercury on Apr 14, 2023 11:24:56 GMT
The episode released this morning is pretty interesting, it contains HQ snippets of ‘39 from Earls Court, so that’s pretty neat. Everything else is the same as usual
|
|
pg
Queen Mab
Posts: 2,304
Likes: 1,618
|
Post by pg on Apr 14, 2023 11:32:09 GMT
Talk about red sequinned suit
Accompanying visuals - white canvas shorts from Montreal.
Obviously.
There's surely enough material to do one episode on each (plus three on Freddie)? Although that would involve putting some effort in....
|
|
thebeast
Tatterdemalion
Posts: 10
Likes: 2
|
Post by thebeast on Apr 14, 2023 16:35:34 GMT
I expected something more (archival) from these videos, but apparently expectations and reality are not about QPL
|
|
|
|
Post by musicalprostitute on Apr 14, 2023 17:04:41 GMT
This Live series is really poor. And lazy. It's just aimed at casual fans and offers nothing of interest.
But it does remind me how much I would love another Rare Live style release. And when are we going to get that Live Anthology first mentioned some 26 years ago?
|
|
|
|
Post by battlegear100 on Apr 28, 2023 19:19:38 GMT
The latest Live series upload is Sheer Heart Attack, which is a compilation of three performances: Houston 1977, Hammersmith 1979, and Montreal 1981. Montreal 1981 is just the officially-released version and the Houston 1977 segment looks and sounds worse than DJGreg and Chief Mouse's version, but I'm unsure about the Hammersmith 1979 segment. Does the segment use a master copy of the video and the video feed, or is it a different source altogether?
|
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 4,165
Likes: 3,415
Member is Online
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on Apr 28, 2023 21:10:56 GMT
♦ Live Aid ♦ Knebworth ♦ Rio ♦ Milton Keynes ♦ Montreal ♦ Hammy 75 ♦ Houston 77 ♦ Rainbow 74 ♦ Budapest 86 ♦ Wembley 86 this is easier than shooting large fish in an extremely small barrel. the only thing QPL excel at is arse-numbing predictability |
|
|
|
Post by davex26 on Jun 29, 2023 9:10:34 GMT
OMG Queen just shared a "Rare archive footage" on their Youtube channel.  Had my daily laugh. I cannot imagine what kind of people run that YT channel. |
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 4,165
Likes: 3,415
Member is Online
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on Jun 29, 2023 9:45:08 GMT
OMG Queen just shared a "Rare archive footage" on their Youtube channel. Had my daily laugh. I cannot imagine what kind of people run that YT channel. in fairness to QueenYT - this video is rare - to the entire population of Beta Centauri  |
|
Had my daily laugh. I cannot imagine what kind of people run that YT channel.