egafd.com

Interesting. I'm not sure how all this works. If you read my comment to Peter just now, it seems the BBC pay out for everything - including a Cliff Richard sing-a-long at Wimbledon. Lol.

max_tranmere wrote:

> If that's the case the networks are probably ensuring they play
> 29 seconds or under

Certainly was the case in the few instances I was involved, they were shit hot on keeping it under 30 seconds to avoid paying for it.

I'm sure I read somewhere that Ian Watkins has earned around ?300,000 in Lost Prophets royalties since being jailed.

Peter wrote:

> Certainly was the case in the few instances I was involved,
> they were shit hot on keeping it under 30 seconds to avoid
> paying for it.


The 30 second rule is widely believed in but is entirely mythical and has no basis in law. It comes from wishful thinking. It's similar to the "you won't get pregnant if you do it standing up" idea.

Legal cases have been made and won for far less than 30 seconds of copyrighted material, although on the other hand there was a recent case in which someone got away with using 41 seconds.

It all depends on the circumstances of the case and what would be considered fair use. The BBC in using a clip for "informational" purposes would be OK in broadcasting a few seconds of a song.

An interesting case is Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films. Bridgeport were successful in their action for copyright infringement, even though the infringement in that case was only TWO SECONDS.

He did but that was before he was arrested. They would obviously still have to pay now but I doubt anyone would now use it.

JamesW wrote:

> Essex Lad wrote:
>
> > Neither he nor his relatives get a penny from his songs being
> > played ? although where they are played I have no idea. He
> sold
> > the rights to Universal many years ago.
>
>
> Unfortunately not true. He sold PARTS of his back catalogue,
> not all of it.

That isn't what he said in court.

>
> Glitter continues to earn both publishing and performing
> royalties and considerable sums too. He will continue to earn
> whilst in prison.

From where? A few American football games playing Rock'n'Roll Part 2 won't bring in that much. I haven't seen any of his albums in the shops for years. Heard Another Rock'n'Roll Christmas in McDonald's a few years back but that was a one-off.

And despite what the Daily Mail reported, he did not receive "thousands of pounds" when he was shown on ToTP2.

But even if you are right and I'm wrong, why shouldn't he earn?

Essex Lad wrote:

> From where? A few American football games playing Rock'n'Roll
> Part 2 won't bring in that much. I haven't seen any of his
> albums in the shops for years. Heard Another Rock'n'Roll
> Christmas in McDonald's a few years back but that was a
> one-off.
>
> And despite what the Daily Mail reported, he did not receive
> "thousands of pounds" when he was shown on ToTP2.
>
> But even if you are right and I'm wrong, why shouldn't he earn?


I didn't say he shouldn't earn.

No, I know you didn't.

And the other answers?

Essex Lad wrote:

> And the other answers?


In 2012 he earnt ?300,000 in royalties. The use of one of his songs in an advertising campaign brought him ?64,000 and he also had a greatest hits album released in the US that year which accounted for most of the rest. He also had a song feature in the trailer for Oscar nominated movie Silver Linings Playbook.

I know the BBC admitted paying Glitter for repeats of Top Of The Tops, but I don't know the sum involved. When Top Of The Tops began in 1964 the appearance fee was less than ?100, so I wouldn't have thought it was hugely more in Glitter's time, the 1970s. It may have been a lot more by then, but even so the press reports of "thousands of pounds" seem exaggerated to me. But then I really don't know how many episodes of Top Of The Pops with Glitter in have been repeated.

Yes, Radio 1 used to pay about ?45 for playing a song. I doubt he got more than ?100 from ToTP2.

What is your source for the ?300k figure? NME, I'm guessing. The ?64,000 came from Hewlett Packard but the report does not say that he earned the remaining ?236,000 from the LP.

I doubt he received anywhere near that figure especially in a country where 99% of the populace has never heard of him and considering he hasn't had a chart hit there since 1972.

NME says he "reportedly" earned ?300k ? not exactly verifying where the "report" came from.

His company has only just over a grand in cash, assets of less than ?20k and is worth only just over ?150k. Now he may, of course, still be involved but Companies House says that he resigned as a director in November 1998.

His former manager has assets of more than a million pounds although he resigned from the company in June 2010. There are two directors listed (neither is Gary Glitter or his manager).

In August 2008, The Daily Telegraph reported that he "sold parts of his back catalogue for a figure reported to be up to ?5million but still earns ?50,000 a year in royalties through the Performing Rights Society". To jump from ?50k to ?300k in four years seems as I say excessive especially as you say the majority in 2012 came from a greatest hits album in a country where he is virtually anonymous.

That Oasis album would still sell reasonable amounts and the songs would still be played in various places - thus giving Glitter an income. Also when someone listens to a track on YouTube the artist receives money, as far as I'm aware. People will still listen to Gary Glitter on YouTube, in fact every time infamous news coverage appears about him people will go on there and listen to his songs - not me, but some would.