Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 6:05 AM
Fri Dec 18
64 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/05/09
If you don't want to get burned, read the bloody fine print next time. #bandhero
11/05/09
Given how quickly Activision churns out titles, I wouldn't be surprised if a detail such as "Band X doesn't want their characters in other songs" got overlooked.
Just one downfall of rapidly producing product...no quality control. #bandhero
11/05/09
11/05/09
And then they found problems with the contract, and had their lawyer fix the legal terminology. Then they sent it back to Activision's lawyers, and they made adjustments.
And they probably played Contract Pong for several months.
Because that's how these things work.
Years ago it became commonplace to want to hose musicians. Oh, and, yeah, hey, everyone gets hosed all the time, legally and otherwise. But musicians, it's still considered "okay" to screw over. Because, hey, we're just artists, right? What's it fuk'n matter!
What matters is whenever one of the artists says "You screwed me, and I'm gonna fight back now." And, knowing Activision's history, especially for them being taken to court for this sort of thing already, it is indeed entirely possible that they just decided "Bah, use them how we want. They're No Doubt. They need the free advertising!"
Ha. As if.
My point being, don't screw people, lest you be prepared for them to screw you in return.
Disclaimer: I am not nor do not stand by either side in this sort of legal debate. I also do not know the entire story for either side. I am merely commenting on the commonplace occurrence of taking advantage of artists, and stressing the fact that most artists do NOT just sign papers. That also is not to be confused with anyone signing a contract even when they are clearly being hosed in said contract.
11/05/09
@Malice Blackhart:
What I meant is that they probably didn't read it personally. No doubt (unintended) that it was read by someone, most likely their manager. But I find it hard to believe that they read it personally if they're trying to fight this. I can say with a 90% certainty that this will be covered in the contract somewhere. Whether the artists themselves were explicitly made aware of this though is doubtful.
But yeah most likely version is their manager read it, figured it was okay and got the band to say yes. #bandhero
11/05/09
Congrats. You won an argument on the internet.
Just, FYI, people do things contracts don't allow all the time -- they're called loopholes. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean the contract explicitly stated it. But, it didn't say anything against it -- so it must be okay. #bandhero
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/06/09
So is Cobain though. The rights to use their images and music don't disappear, just get passed on. Whoever has Hendrixs rights probably read the contract, didn't like it and made sure he was exempt. #bandhero
12/09/09
But you say you're speaking from experience, so what do you think of that? (Note: not trying to "win an argument on the internet" or anything like that, I'm genuinely interested in opening a discussion with you if you don't mind).
12/10/09
As for "a large chunk of money that bands make go towards the people in charge of them" that's a rather...brash statement.
Before continuing, I'd like to ask, could you please clarify "people in charge"? I only ask because that's a rather large group of people, and I don't want to misinterpret. I assume (and should never do that!) that you mean the manager, but you could also mean band leader, band attorney, head of label, or (technically, I suppose) the fans (though much often less than head of label or manager).
*Edited for typographical errors.
12/10/09
As I understand it, most of the money that bands make is used to pay off expenses (paying for venues, paying the salaries of those who helped put their concerts together, paying record companies for use of their recording studios, etc....), and what's left over usually all goes to the band manager. Meanwhile, bands live off their endorsements, as well as their popularity in a sense.
12/10/09
For a start up band, any manager worth his or her weight who actually has a real, sincere interest in a band will usually start wages between 10-15%, and on the more high end can end up somewhere near 25% (which is, probably, fairly standard for big name stars like No Doubt).
As for paying off expenses, often times (and one of the reasons that artists rarely make any money from record labels) is because of a few things. One of the primary reasons is because, whenever a band is freshly signed (I imagine this rule could easily apply to any band who's also renewing their contract with a label), they're normally given a big hand full of money that both parties agree on, and have to meet the demands that the label has set. Often times, it'll be things like them controlling your first certain number of albums, and making agreements in terms of what you can and can not do with your music.
Once they've been given that big hand full of money, (and the reason that big labels are ALWAYS iffy when it comes to signing a new act) is that, at this point, the money that they've received has been, essentially, a very high risk loan. The band will normally have to pay back their advance from the record label within a certain amount of time, and if they don't, often times the results can be something from being dropped to something as serious as not ever being able to produce another album again under that band name. Labels play hardball because they have big money at stake.
As for paying off everything else, like venues and all that, sometimes (depending on the deals of the contract) the artist may end up having to pay lots of people. But I imagine for a larger band, along the size of someone who is as marketable, long-lasting, and wanted as No Doubt, that they simply have to show up, play, and get on with their lives -- their label takes care of the rest. But at a very high cost (usually an INCREDIBLY high amount of revenue from their CD income). My own speculation, I've heard that often times major artists can get as little as $0.10 per album. I'm not sure how true that is, but again, I'm certain that it just comes down to the terms of their contract and verbal agreements with the label.
The real fact is, there's almost an infinite number of possibilities on what may end up happening between any artist and any label. Changing trends (CDs no longer mattering), ability to adapt (out with the old label head, in with the new), and the give-and-take on behalf of both parties while at the bargaining table could end up in any number of situations.
I hope that helped a little...?
Oh...P.S. Known fact of the music industry -- the number one source of income for any artist is, hands down, ALWAYS, merch.
That's why you tour.
*Edited because I don't know how to spell. LOL
12/11/09
Well, in any case, we can only hope that Activision and No Doubt can come to some middle ground on the situation. I mean, Activision has nothing to lose if they agree to change the band's appearance in game, albeit for some man-hours and wages.
12/11/09
I'm sure they'll argue for a while, and we'll probably hear about a verdict in a few years, after they've both appealed to 5 different district courts. Or something.
11/05/09
11/05/09
While Activision probably didn't lay it out in black and white it'll be right there in the contract, the contract that No doubt and Cobain's widow et al all signed. It's just as much their fault for signing themselves away for a quick buck without bothering to check exactly what they were signing up for. You can whine about Kotick being the devil but it doesn't change who was holding the pen. I mean seriously if you sign a contract forfeiting your house for a dollar you can't go back and whine about losing your house because you didn't read that bit. #bandhero
11/06/09
11/04/09
Seriously, who the hell buys a No Doubt album? #bandhero
11/05/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/05/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
Once again, Activision provides evidence that they did in fact get No Doubt's permission to use their likeness.
But, once again, nobody's arguing that Activision couldn't use No Doubt. They're debating the legality of how the band was used in game.
This statement does nothing to help their cause, as they never once address the issue of No Doubt playing songs that aren't by No Doubt.
Just like when they said the same thing about Cobain. #bandhero
11/04/09
11/04/09
Sounds a little defensive. And "representatives" always sounds better than "lawyers", doesn't it?
I'm guessing the language didn't specify "usage" to any specific degree. After the Cobain debacle, suddenly musicians are realizing the ramifications of giving away your likeness to a developer without putting a firm hand in the development process.
This will never be an issue after GH5. There's no way the lawyers won't be going over this stuff with a fine-toothed comb from now on.
Activision should reach some kind of settlement, just for goodwill. Something beyond defensive PR statements. Musicians are a temperamental bunch, and they may flock elsewhere if there's enough blood in the water at Activision, and there's a litigation frenzy. #bandhero
11/04/09
If they haven't cried stupidity yet, than it probably means that they are legally in the clear of any heat. I wouldn't settle, or redact the work, if I were Activision. If people are going to not read fine print anymore, than they deserve what happens to them. :-/ #bandhero
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
I bet the signed contracts are for usage with their songs, which Activision then 'stretched' to make them into karaoke singers.
Remember - one is an incident, two is a trend. I wouldn't be surprised if a third lawsuit is coming.
Besides, since when did anyone start defending Activision of all companies? I thought you lot hated them with the passion of a thousand burning suns. #bandhero
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
Oh, and did he hate blacks. Look up some of the stuff he had to say about blacks in South Africa, and again, don't just look towards the movie of him. #bandhero
11/04/09
Don't hire any more celebrities.
You'll save money and won't have to deal with their BS. #bandhero
11/04/09
And my intense level of apathy to their brand would be less extreme. #bandhero
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/05/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
I'm being serious, I want to see if there were any loopholes that Activision could have taken advantage of. #bandhero
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
READ THE FREAKING CONTRACTS BEFORE SIGNING THEM, YOU IDIOTS!
Signed,
Me. #bandhero
11/04/09
11/04/09
That's why you hire someone called a "lawyer" to see if the contract is sound. #bandhero
11/04/09
I doubt that they were misled, I think they simply left too much to happenstance instead of properly combing the agreement. activision wants these musicians and their music. they have nothing to gain by just screwing them over. in fact, more damage to their prospects would be done by word getting out and artists that they seek out for music or otherwise refusing to do so because of fear of being exploited.
activision is flexible in terms of these arrangements. a perfect example of this is the TOOL venues in GHWT. if they wanted the music, they had to craft the venue. there is nothing to suggest that the wishes of these "scorned" artists, and their estates, would not be heeded if they were simply more direct in their dealings and demanding of what they see as proper treatment of their respective likenesses. #bandhero