Jamerson's widow sues La Bella

[Rickett Customs]

That is very respectable, and shows that you understand how the business works. If you want musicians to make a living, then you need to support them...not steal their (admittedly small in most cases) paychecks.

Now albeit through iTunes has been the way for me the last several years, before that was CD's. Now I will admit that the band leader uses means such as limewire, but I only use this as "learning material" and make no other use of it.

 

[Dark Horse]

This really has nothing to do with this thread.

Only that we should take a look at ourselves while we are defending the Jamerson family.

Perhaps you're correct. However, I think that "theft from a musician and his family" is all related, be it Jamerson, Elliott Smith, Stanley Jordan, or Johnny Cash.


Have a nice day guys. I'm out of the thread.

 

[Lady Kayri]

If you've taken a photograph, technically you're the copyright holder, but you can't use / sell an image you've taken most of the time without a 'model release' signed by the person whose photograph has been taken, unless it's 'in the public interest/newsworthy' - ie, photographs illustrating news stories in newspapers, magazines, etc. This can get complicated. If you get your photograph taken by a pro photog in a studio, technically you can't make extra copies and pass them around, use them on a web site, etc. as the photog has the copyright to that photo, even though the photo is of you and you paid the photog to take it. You have to pay extra to get the copyright to that photo. However, the photog in question can't use that photo of you in any of his/her advertising unless you've signed a release that allows him/her to use it in advertising.

It can get very complicated, which is why if you're going to try to sell your photos to advertisers, card companies, etc. almost all publishers who are looking for photos will want you to include a model release with any photos of people in which either the people are recognizable, or it isn't obviously in a very public venue with lots of other people around. In other words, a photo of someone in a park with lots of other people around, so long as no one is really obviously the center of attention, wouldn't need a model release; but a photo of someone sleeping on a park bench might well need such a release. At least as the laws stand at the moment, as far as I understand them; this area of copyright law and privacy law is very much in flux and is changing.

What it comes down to is that, as I understand it, even if someone else held the copyright to that photo of Jamerson, in order for it to be used in any for profit capacity LEGALLY, he or his estate would have had to sign a model release of some sort.

 

[JimmyM]

thank you, kayri. you crystallized my thoughts eloquently, probably more eloquently than i did.

 

[Papazita]

If you've taken a photograph, technically you're the copyright holder, but you can't use / sell an image you've taken most of the time without a 'model release' signed by the person whose photograph has been taken, unless it's 'in the public interest/newsworthy' - ie, photographs illustrating news stories in newspapers, magazines, etc. This can get complicated. If you get your photograph taken by a pro photog in a studio, technically you can't make extra copies and pass them around, use them on a web site, etc. as the photog has the copyright to that photo, even though the photo is of you and you paid the photog to take it. You have to pay extra to get the copyright to that photo. However, the photog in question can't use that photo of you in any of his/her advertising unless you've signed a release that allows him/her to use it in advertising.

It can get very complicated, which is why if you're going to try to sell your photos to advertisers, card companies, etc. almost all publishers who are looking for photos will want you to include a model release with any photos of people in which either the people are recognizable, or it isn't obviously in a very public venue with lots of other people around. In other words, a photo of someone in a park with lots of other people around, so long as no one is really obviously the center of attention, wouldn't need a model release; but a photo of someone sleeping on a park bench might well need such a release. At least as the laws stand at the moment, as far as I understand them; this area of copyright law and privacy law is very much in flux and is changing.

What it comes down to is that, as I understand it, even if someone else held the copyright to that photo of Jamerson, in order for it to be used in any for profit capacity LEGALLY, he or his estate would have had to sign a model release of some sort.

As I said above, this release may have been part of Jamerson's contract with Motown. If this were an "official" Motown (or at least Motown-owned) photograph, then, by the terms of his contract, commercial use of the photo would be well within thier rights. If they transferred/sold those rights to another person, then, same deal.

 

[JimmyM]

in all of motown's history, they never once used the band's likeness for publicity, and they didn't even credit the musicians on the albums until the musician's union forced them into it. so the likelihood that jamerson signed a model release is nil.

 

[Febs]

As I said above, this release may have been part of Jamerson's contract with Motown. If this were an "official" Motown (or at least Motown-owned) photograph, then, by the terms of his contract, commercial use of the photo would be well within thier rights. If they transferred/sold those rights to another person, then, same deal.

Even if that were true, rights to the commercial use of Jamerson's photograph would not necessarily include rights to the commercial use of Jamerson's name.

 

[Phil Smith]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[KUNGfuSHERIFF]

If you get your photograph taken by a pro photog in a studio, technically you can't make extra copies and pass them around, use them on a web site, etc. as the photog has the copyright to that photo, even though the photo is of you and you paid the photog to take it. You have to pay extra to get the copyright to that photo. However, the photog in question can't use that photo of you in any of his/her advertising unless you've signed a release that allows him/her to use it in advertising.

You also have to consider where a photo was taken, and under what circumstances. If somebody took a photo of JJ walking down the street, because he was in a public space at the time the photo was created the assumption is that he holds no special rights inre: broadcast or distribution. In a private space, like the studio where the photo in question was shot, the assumption is that permission is required. At least that's what I remember from my days covering fires and riots for the local news...

 

[JimmyM]

You also have to consider where a photo was taken, and under what circumstances. If somebody took a photo of JJ walking down the street, because he was in a public space at the time the photo was created the assumption is that he holds no special rights inre: broadcast or distribution. In a private space, like the studio where the photo in question was shot, the assumption is that permission is required. At least that's what I remember from my days covering fires and riots for the local news...

again, that's the difference between taking pictures for newspapers and magazines and selling a product. if you put someone's picture on a product, then you are saying that the person endorses that product. what if the person hates that product? you don't think it's unfair to use their likeness that way? the courts sure seem to think it's unfair.

 

[JAUQO III-X]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[KUNGfuSHERIFF]

again, that's the difference between taking pictures for newspapers and magazines and selling a product. if you put someone's picture on a product, then you are saying that the person endorses that product. what if the person hates that product? you don't think it's unfair to use their likeness that way? the courts sure seem to think it's unfair.

You're taking my argument, such as it is, further than I did. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Phil Smith]

Invalid Link Removed

Ha ha, those are some great stories.

 

[mccartneyman]

After paying attention to this thread for a few days and renting "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" from Netflix because of it, I now have the urge to buy a sunburst Fender Vintage 62 P Bass. Curse all of you!

 

[laklandplayer]

A lot depends on if Jamerson had an artist endorsement deal with Labella, which is quite possible. When you sign, most deals reserve the right to use your name and likeness for marketing purposes. A lot would depend on the length, if any, of the agreement and what kind of numeration was involved.
free product, a discount on the product, a fee, or a combination.

If James Jamerson publicly endorsed the strings, in an interview lets say, would that be a green light to use that comment in their marketing? Since the comment would be in the public domain, I imagine that could be a case for the use.

They aren't using his likeness on the packaging, are they using it in ads? If so, all bets are off... they should pay.

Unofficially, I think they refer to the 0760M as the "Jamerson" set but I've never seen the name Jamerson printed on a package. It may have been, its just not on any of the 3 sets that I have on hand.

In court, Labella could claim that Jamerson is a common nik name someone used to describe the set and it stuck.

Morally, if not legally, Labella should pay his estate. I'm sure they've made $25,000 over the years selling flat wounds and 25K is not a lot of money. The publicity would be a lot better for them.

James pretty much got screwed by Motown and I think the estate has the right to get every cent that his talent and likeness are associated with.

 

[Mr. Mig]

If I was Labella I would offer her a modest deal on the rights to his name and image going forward, and pro-rate the deal to the time of his passing.

+1
I remeber that on Juststrings.com they had a string line listed called the Jamerson Line, or something to that effect. I was on recently and it is not listed anymore. I guess LaBella took it serious.

 

[Mr. Mig]

I was in Detroit a couple of months ago and I searched for Mr. Jameson's gravesite. Like the rest of you, I owe a great deal of debt to the (as far as I am concerned) greatest of them all. I wanted to pay my respects, but the site is hard to find. When I finally found it, I noticed that the marker was covered with weeds. I cleaned up the site and took a picture.

That is so sad. Nice job on the clean up Dondabass.

 

[Fire-Starter]

I was in Detroit a couple of months ago and I searched for Mr. Jameson's gravesite. Like the rest of you, I owe a great deal of debt to the (as far as I am concerned) greatest of them all. I wanted to pay my respects, but the site is hard to find. When I finally found it, I noticed that the marker was covered with weeds. I cleaned up the site and took a picture.

That is really sad.

Good for you for cleaning it up and posting that pic, It was a kind of somber moment for me just looking at it and reading your post.

 

[mistergroove]

Please there are somebody who knows HOW TO FIX Labella black nylon tape 7710 string???

 

[bongomania]

Please there are somebody who knows HOW TO FIX Labella black nylon tape 7710 string???

If there is a section of single-strand wire (for example at the ball end) that broke, you can have it welded back together. If a section of the tape wrap is damaged, you could seal that area with a thinned epoxy glue. If anything else about it is broken, you just have to replace it.