Back

@ptkorea WOW!

elegant

She is now the Ambassador and MUSE for
'Louis Vuitton'

after her contract w/ 'CELINE' terminated when members terminated their 'individual'

( *still have as 'group) contracts with YGE.

Part of their-(individual) contracts for members was for Fashion Houses.

(* which YGE got a cut of the revenue earned)

@ptkorea

many do not realize, that all music and promotion in goods even the name of the group belongs to the LABEL

as with

YGE has 'ownership of all under contract,

even the name 'BLΛƆKPIИK'

*.. this is part of the controversy concerning ADOR ~ HYBE and NewJeans under the new name NJZ, where they have raised a legal issue...

concerning the legiality of the group name.

@ptkorea

Many will remember Taylor Swift had the same problem w/ some of her prior music and had to re-record it to gain ownership

@wlf_warren I'm sure it's more than simply re-record. Music copyright doesn't work that way. There are a lot of Copyrighted materials in a song. The melody, the composition, the lyrics, the arrangement, to mention a few, all have separate Copyrights.

If you only acquired the Rights for the lyrics, you practically have to create the music from scratch.

Unless US Copyright.law has turned weird.

@ptkorea

@youronlyone @ptkorea

wow

it must pay to Prompt Engineer'

even with search engines- which many are AI-driven too lol

this seems like a perfect article for our conversation

my search pulled up this...

Harvard law

and yes you are correct, she re-wrote many in a 'newer version'

to get past copyright and make a lot of money on the new stuff

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-taylor-swift-changed-the-copyright-game-by-remaking-her-own-music/

@wlf_warren Love that read.

There were similar cases here in the Philippines, but not that grand/many as Taylor Swift's. As long as they original composer and/or lyricist holds the most important Copyright, they can re-record it to their liking, even block the first version.

And, yes, if this becomes common, record labels are going to demand decades of "no re-recording" clauses. They hate it. Copyright was invented for the capitalists, not for artists/authors/developers.

Look at Shakespeare. Copyright at the time was still in its early form, and thus weak and had many loopholes. Many of his famous works were derivatives, and he did better than the originals. But today, derivatives are generally hated, that's Copyright Infringement. Some authors can't even write a sequel for their own work if the publisher they gave some Rights to it says "no". But authors don't say anything because they need their Publisher's machinery and network.

@ptkorea

@youronlyone @ptkorea

one for the creators~ writers, artists, and musicians

... Good thoughts and comments,

if it is their own, can re-record
( other versions) txs and ...

somethings to 'chew on'

funny, how it comes around like you say and the capitalist culture getting the finger

lol

BTW too

good to cu, haven't in a while since the beginning of Pebble, after we moved here to the Fediverse~just briefly, so was wondering where you were at, tc my ole friend