Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on November 28, 2004, 12:31:51 AM

Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: rpm on November 28, 2004, 12:31:51 AM
source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4047533.stm)
Quote
Pink Floyd pupils claim royalties
 
Former schoolchildren who sang on Pink Floyd's 1979 single Another Brick in The Wall have begun action for unpaid royalties.
Royalties expert Peter Rowan said he was appealing on behalf of one former pupil and was working with others.

The 23 then teenagers from north London have been unable to claim royalties as they recorded their vocals in secret.

The single with its chorus "We Don't Need No Education" became a children's anthem and was a UK and US number one.

The album The Wall, on which the single features, sold more than 12 million copies.

Mr Rowan said: "They (the former schoolchildren) are owed their money and we lodged the first claim last week. I've been working on it for almost two years."

The then pupils from Islington Green School, north London, were taken to a nearby recording studio by their music teacher but without permission from the headmistress.

On hearing the song, she banned the pupils from appearing on TV or video, meaning they had no proof of their involvement on the track.

The lyrics "We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control, no dark sarcasm in the classroom -- teachers leave them kids alone" were also described by the Inner London Education Authority as "scandalous".

The school was paid £1,000 and later given a platinum record of the song but the pupils were paid nothing.

The former headmistress has now agreed to support her former pupils' claim.
Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: NUKE on November 28, 2004, 12:38:54 AM
They are not going to get any royalties.
Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: Gunslinger on November 28, 2004, 12:41:18 AM
Technically they'd need a contract in order to get royalties.....AND technically (if UK laws are the same as the use in this matter) they aren't old enough to sign contracts without their parents consent.

I would say they have a valid case if they're parents never consented to them being on the record in the first place.
Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: NUKE on November 28, 2004, 12:45:09 AM
Performers don't all get royalties. They could expect to get paid for the session at most in this case IMHO.
Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: rpm on November 28, 2004, 12:49:57 AM
This could be interesting.

It looks like the school gave consent, same as athletes. They are performing on behalf of the school, same as athletes. Aren't they considered amatures, same as athletes?
Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: Gunslinger on November 28, 2004, 12:59:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by rpm
This could be interesting.

It looks like the school gave consent, same as athletes. They are performing on behalf of the school, same as athletes. Aren't they considered amatures, same as athletes?



Quote
The then pupils from Islington Green School, north London, were taken to a nearby recording studio by their music teacher but without permission from the headmistress.


Ok I overlooked this.  If this is the case then no they wouldnt be entitled to jack.  The school basically gave them consent to perform even if the headmaster didn't by way of the music teacher.
Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: RTSigma on November 28, 2004, 05:34:04 AM
Screw the kids, what about the "HOW CAN YOU HAVE ANY PUDDING IF YOU DON"T EAT YA MEAT!?"- Guy?

When is he getting due notice?
Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: Heiliger on November 28, 2004, 05:50:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by RTSigma
Screw the kids, what about the "HOW CAN YOU HAVE ANY PUDDING IF YOU DON"T EAT YA MEAT!?"- Guy?

When is he getting due notice?


Haha RTSigma!
Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: RTStuka on November 28, 2004, 09:59:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by RTSigma
Screw the kids, what about the "HOW CAN YOU HAVE ANY PUDDING IF YOU DON"T EAT YA MEAT!?"- Guy?

When is he getting due notice?



My guess is that he is a Chicago Bears fan so he doesnt get ****. :D

Back to the question at hand, if they performed on the basis that they were doing so as a school, then I would say the school has better grounds for money. I know that when you perform or do any work for a school the products become property of the school. For example when i was in college where I studied architectural engineering, any of the deisgns I did for studio projects became property of the school. I have a feeling that these guys will end up getting money though.
Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: Curval on November 28, 2004, 11:01:44 AM
"We don't need no education".

What a stupid thing to make into a rally cry for kids.  

Education is EXACTLY what they need.

Isn't the "guy" who said "How can you have any pudding..etc" the prison officer in A Clockwork Orange and Mr. Warwick in Battle of Britain?  Michael Bates?  I always pictured him as that guy.
Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: NUKE on November 28, 2004, 11:09:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Curval
"We don't need no education".

What a stupid thing to make into a rally cry for kids.  

Education is EXACTLY what they need.

Isn't the "guy" who said "How can you have any pudding..etc" the prison officer in A Clockwork Orange and Mr. Warwick in Battle of Britain?  Michael Bates?  I always pictured him as that guy.


LOL Curval, the lyrics are meant to be sarcastic.

"we don't need no thought control"

"hey teacher, leave them kids alone"
Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: capt. apathy on November 28, 2004, 11:40:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
OK I overlooked this.  If this is the case then no they wouldn't be entitled to jack.  The school basically gave them consent to perform even if the headmaster didn't by way of the music teacher.


the school didn't give consent, a teacher did.
also I don't think it really matters if the school gives consent, since they don't have any authority to sign business contracts for their students.

I'd think that any sort of legal permissions would have to be made by parents or guardians.  I believe the inability to sign contracts mainly applies to protecting under-aged people from signing away their rights or making commitments they don't understand.  I really doubt it gives others the green light to do business with minors, from a "do whatever, they don't have a contract" stance.

I'd guess (not a lawyer, and going by what I know of US law) that if they can find some way to prove it's them, that they should be entitled to some cash.  if there isn't a written record of who they were, I doubt that any wavers were signed releasing their interest.  sounds like it may just be an issue of proving who it was.
Title: All in all it's just a-nother suit in the law
Post by: Curval on November 28, 2004, 11:45:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE
LOL Curval, the lyrics are meant to be sarcastic.

"we don't need no thought control"

"hey teacher, leave them kids alone"


No, it was meant to be alot more than just sarcastic.  It was a commentary on the state of the world, with a bit of Orwellian 1984isms thrown in.

But, regardless of what it was actually trying to "say" the lyrics became a huge rally cry for kids in school when the album was released.  I was one of them.