-
Gliiter and Joker
https://www.theguardian.com/music/sh...the-joker-film
Could Gary Glitter really make hundreds of thousands from the Joker film?
The convicted paedophile could profit from the use of one of his tracks. Should those convicted of crimes continue to earn money from their intellectual property?
https://cdn.hitc-s.com/i/1607/joker_...er_1360733.jpg
According to the Sun, the two-minute use of Gary Glitter’s 1972 track Rock and Roll Part 2 in a key scene in Joker, which falls under a synchronisation licence, could make the convicted paedophile “hundreds of thousands of pounds”. He will make money, but perhaps not to the extent that is being presumed.
Two sets of rights have to be cleared and paid for here – one covering the sound recording and another for the publishing/song composition.
“The local company [that placed it in the film] will retain maybe 20% to 30% of the fee,” says a music lawyer and synchronisation expert, who has asked to remain anonymous. “Of the remainder, the local record company in the UK might take 60%. So Glitter could get maybe 30% of the fee on the recorded side and probably less on the publishing, because it is a co-write [with Mike Leander] and because the publisher is also taking a cut.”
The financials are more convoluted than the red-top headlines suggest, but they are nothing compared with the ethical conundrum.
“It’s really the job of the music supervisor to do the due diligence on it,” says Cliff Fluet, a partner at the law firm Lewis Silkin. “In the US, they would literally have no idea, or indeed care, about Gary Glitter.”
The song has different contextual associations in the US, having long been used in sports games, [known colloquially as The “Hey!” Song due to its chant] to gee up spectators. It is far removed from its association in the UK with a convicted paedophile.
For record companies and publishers there is likely to be a blunt business decision underpinning it all. But should those convicted of crimes continue to earn money from their intellectual property? Simply put, copyright does not end if someone serves time. Phil Spector, a convicted murderer, continues to make money from River Deep – Mountain High and Be My Baby, while Glitter continues to make money from Hello by Oasis, due to its referencing of Hello! Hello! I’m Back Again.
One cannot presume this is news to the Joker team. Someone along the licensing chain should have sent up a red flag. How they morally square all this with Glitter getting any money is down to them. But, ultimately, expecting Hollywood or the music industry to prize ethics over earnings reveals a shaky understanding of the history of both.
-
It does bother me when I hear this at various sport events...
-
Saw the movie tonight, it's only about 20 seconds with no vocals just the intro riff - The Sun 'newspaper' talking shit as usual.
I ran into Captain Sensible a few years back who is a friend of a friend and he was saying how the conviction(s) had absolutely devastated the livelihoods of his friends in the Glitter band which I kind of get but I didn't know how to react to that and just kind of shrugged.
Either way I recommend the film it's very good, I don't really understand the backlash against it although there does now seem to be a backlash backlash.
It's more like 1980 Scorcese than a superhero movie, if you like Taxi Driver or King of Comedy you will like it although I don't think its as good as those, more like an interesting cover version.
-
