View Full Version : does Billy own the SP catalog now? Did/does Virgin own the Pumpkins?


Ugly
06-04-2007, 11:51 PM
and wasn't the 2007 date thing had to do with how long Virgin owned them or something? Discuss.

MisterSquishyHalo
06-04-2007, 11:54 PM
I always thought Bolly owned the songs.

More of interest is the co-written songs..soma..I am one etc..does bolly own these?

pale_princess
06-04-2007, 11:54 PM
gerard way owns it

welcome 2 teh black aparad

thurston
06-04-2007, 11:54 PM
i really don't know, you know i never kept up with that cause it was, as far as i was concerned, undefinable...

lets hope michael jackson doesn't get his hands on it though...

suncrashesdown
06-04-2007, 11:58 PM
Billy owns the copyrights to all the Pumpkins songs that he wrote...meaning he can perform them or record them with no restrictions. However, Virgin owns the sound recordings of their albums, which do not belong to Billy.

Confusing for some, I guess. Let's say Billy decided to self-release a live album as Smashing Pumpkins. He could play all the SP songs and not owe Virgin a cent...the only time he'd owe anybody money is if he played I Am One/Mayonaise or any song that someone else got a co-writing credit. And of course, there would be some kind of contract between the band members that describes how the profits of the live album would be split.

thurston
06-05-2007, 12:01 AM
see i dont think thats neccessary information for me to know...

MisterSquishyHalo
06-05-2007, 12:05 AM
Billy owns the copyrights to all the Pumpkins songs that he wrote...meaning he can perform them or record them with no restrictions. However, Virgin owns the sound recordings of their albums, which do not belong to Billy.

Confusing for some, I guess. Let's say Billy decided to self-release a live album as Smashing Pumpkins. He could play all the SP songs and not owe Virgin a cent...the only time he'd owe anybody money is if he played I Am One/Mayonaise or any song that someone else got a co-writing credit. And of course, there would be some kind of contract between the band members that describes how the profits of the live album would be split.


He can play I am one/Mayonaise live, without getting permission right?

SlingeroGuitaro
06-05-2007, 12:08 AM
He can play I am one/Mayonaise live, without getting permission right?



you can perform any song you want live without permission. there are no restrictions to performing songs, only recording and selling the songs.

venues pay a flat fee to bmi and ascap every year to cover all published music played inside. its just like a jukebox. the pumpkins could get up there and play three hours of matthew sweet songs and not have to pay anything.

some people dont seem to understand this.

MisterSquishyHalo
06-05-2007, 12:15 AM
you can perform any song you want live without permission. there are no restrictions to performing songs, only recording and selling the songs.

venues pay a flat fee to bmi and ascap every year to cover all published music played inside. its just like a jukebox. the pumpkins could get up there and play three hours of matthew sweet songs and not have to pay anything.

some people dont seem to understand this.


well then bam, there is no reason not to play those songs.

SlingeroGuitaro
06-05-2007, 12:16 AM
well then bam, there is no reason not to play those songs.


indeed.

and when i said 'some people dont understand this' i wasnt pointing you out directly. there are several people on different threads saying they arent playing them because they would have to pay royalties to yeehaw.

thurston
06-05-2007, 12:18 AM
indeed.

and when i said 'some people dont understand this' i wasnt pointing you out directly. there are several people on different threads saying they arent playing them because they would have to pay royalties to yeehaw.

its not eeha?

greedo
06-05-2007, 12:20 AM
well then bam, there is no reason not to play those songs.

What about the fact that Billy wrote all the good songs? Except Blew Away.

thurston
06-05-2007, 12:22 AM
What about the fact that Billy wrote all the good songs? Except Blew Away.

that has nothing to do with him playing the songs he only co-wrote

brendo_91
06-05-2007, 04:25 AM
indeed.

and when i said 'some people dont understand this' i wasnt pointing you out directly. there are several people on different threads saying they arent playing them because they would have to pay royalties to yeehaw.

iha would, in an ideal situation, recieve royalties any time one of his cowritten tracks was played.

royalty splits for live performance are a joke.

greedo
06-05-2007, 04:37 AM
that has nothing to do with him playing the songs he only co-wrote

I disagree! Why would they play the inferior songs that James wrote/co-wrote when Billy wrote so many classics?

The playlists are all samey though so far - though what can we expect with half the band being new?

I'm surprised they didn't play more 'hits' in the festival shows. I hope they start to bring out a bit of variety as they get warmed up.

mccririck
06-05-2007, 04:39 AM
He can play I am one/Mayonaise live, without getting permission right?

He might have an agreement with James on those two.

mccririck
06-05-2007, 04:40 AM
I disagree! Why would they play the inferior songs that James wrote/co-wrote when Billy wrote so many classics?


Because I Am One and Mayonaise are two of the better songs in their catalogue. :smoke:

greedo
06-05-2007, 05:31 AM
Because I Am One and Mayonaise are two of the better songs in their catalogue. :smoke:

You're definitely right about Mayonaise...but I find I am One boring...like a warmup for the greatness that followed.

Cool As Ice Cream
06-05-2007, 05:33 AM
and wasn't the 2007 date thing had to do with how long Virgin owned them or something? Discuss.
i always thought that was bullshit. people kept bringing it up, but i never knew where it came from.

KManXC
06-05-2007, 07:12 AM
If bands had to pay royalties for playing music live it would be the end of cover bands everywhere.

D.
06-05-2007, 07:37 AM
its not eeha?
nope. it's jaymes yoshinobu yeehaw

D.
06-05-2007, 07:38 AM
but I find I am One boring...like a warmup for the greatness that followed.
says the guy with a zwan "crusaders of rock" avatar

Luke de Spa
06-05-2007, 07:42 AM
If bands had to pay royalties for playing music live it would be the end of cover bands everywhere.
not a bad thing

Luke de Spa
06-05-2007, 07:42 AM
says the guy with a zwan "crusaders of rock" avatar
i think that might just be a joke, d

MisterSquishyHalo
06-05-2007, 08:02 AM
You're definitely right about Mayonaise...but I find I am One boring...like a warmup for the greatness that followed.


I just like the I am one rant.

Gimmie gimmie gimmie nothinggggggggggggggg

Spaceboy88
06-05-2007, 08:07 AM
you can perform any song you want live without permission. there are no restrictions to performing songs, only recording and selling the songs.



There are no restrictions on recording or selling songs. The only thing that happens when you record and sell another person's song, you have to pay mechanical royalties for the track.

If you try to make a video for the song, then you get into a whole different realm requiring sync permission from the copyright holders.

brendo_91
06-05-2007, 08:15 AM
If bands had to pay royalties for playing music live it would be the end of cover bands everywhere.

the venue pays but its a blanket fee, not per song

and fuck knows where that money ends up.

Endless Whining
06-05-2007, 08:35 AM
i always thought that was bullshit. people kept bringing it up, but i never knew where it came from.

i wouldn't say that was bs
wasn't it like the Virgin contract expires somewhere this year technically freeing the smashing pumpkins from Virgin even on the release side of things?
so that from let's say somewhere this year the band/corgan is free to do whatever they want with songs previously held/controlled for physical release by Virgin Records?

NovaFritz
06-05-2007, 08:40 AM
soma
go
believe

i think go makes MII

Cool As Ice Cream
06-05-2007, 09:11 AM
wasn't it like the Virgin contract expires somewhere this year technically freeing the smashing pumpkins from Virgin even on the release side of things?
but where did you get this info?

and why would virgin give back the rights to the songs after a couple of years (given that they had them to begin with)?

panopticon
06-05-2007, 09:20 AM
soma
go
believe

i think go makes MII

So what's Iha's use of the word "Love" count at now?

brendo_91
06-05-2007, 09:49 AM
it is most likely PUBLISHING.... publishing deals usually expire 7 years after the end of contract - which in SP's case would be end of the band. But, it hasn't been 7 years yet either. And Virgin maybe owns SP1's publishing.

greedo
06-05-2007, 09:52 AM
it is most likely PUBLISHING.... publishing deals usually expire 7 years after the end of contract - which in SP's case would be end of the band. But, it hasn't been 7 years yet either. And Virgin maybe owns SP1's publishing.

Has this got anything to do with why I can't buy the B-sides and Rarities collection without DRM on iTunes despite it being an EMI/Virgin release?

Spaceboy88
06-05-2007, 10:10 AM
Virgin will always own the masters that they released under the band's tenure. Those will not revert back to the band.

This was an issue with the band Cracker, who was pissed that Virgin was releasing a Greatest Hits album without their blessing, so to counteract the move, the band re-recorded all the songs that were going to be on the Virgin release and released it themselves on the same day.

greedo
06-05-2007, 10:13 AM
Virgin will always own the masters that they released under the band's tenure. Those will not revert back to the band.

This was an issue with the band Cracker, who was pissed that Virgin was releasing a Greatest Hits album without their blessing, so to counteract the move, the band re-recorded all the songs that were going to be on the Virgin release and released it themselves on the same day.

Haha, that's clever! Fuck Virgin! But then they wouldn't be Virgin any more...I'm confused.

Ugly
06-05-2007, 02:31 PM
Billy owns the copyrights to all the Pumpkins songs that he wrote...meaning he can perform them or record them with no restrictions. However, Virgin owns the sound recordings of their albums, which do not belong to Billy.


What about something like "Bullet" being used in the trailers for "Wlliard" or "1979" being used in "Clerks 2"? Did they have to go to Bolly for that, or just straight to Virgin?

And also the fact that can't Virgin just be a dick, or try to cash in, and release Smashing Pumpkins - Live in Bogatah or Smashing Pumpkins - More Greatests Hits on the same release date as Zeigiest? Cause them Pumpkins ain't Virgin anymore, they're Warner Brothers, I believe.

suncrashesdown
06-05-2007, 02:48 PM
What about something like "Bullet" being used in the trailers for "Wlliard" or "1979" being used in "Clerks 2"? Did they have to go to Bolly for that, or just straight to Virgin?

And also the fact that can't Virgin just be a dick, or try to cash in, and release Smashing Pumpkins - Live in Bogatah or Smashing Pumpkins - More Greatests Hits on the same release date as Zeigiest? Cause them Pumpkins ain't Virgin anymore, they're Warner Brothers, I believe.

The way I understand it, Virgin does not have to get Sp's permission to license their songs to be in a movie (unless of course, there is an exception in Sp's contract). But Billy and Co. still get paid.

D.
06-05-2007, 02:53 PM
i think that might just be a joke, d
you can never be too sure over here.

Spaceboy88
06-05-2007, 03:47 PM
The way I understand it, Virgin does not have to get Sp's permission to license their songs to be in a movie (unless of course, there is an exception in Sp's contract). But Billy and Co. still get paid.

Yes they do. They have to get the permission of the the publisher to use it, as well as the label if they plan on using the actual sound recording. If they wanted to do a cover of the song for a commercial, they only need the publishers approval.

Cool As Ice Cream
06-05-2007, 03:58 PM
Spaceboy88, does the 88 in your username have anything to do with nazis?

Spaceboy88
06-05-2007, 04:10 PM
Spaceboy88, does the 88 in your username have anything to do with nazis?

Nope, August 8th.

werideatdusk
06-05-2007, 04:35 PM
STRAIGHT THRU THE MOTHERFUCKING HEART

brendo_91
06-05-2007, 06:18 PM
What about something like "Bullet" being used in the trailers for "Wlliard" or "1979" being used in "Clerks 2"? Did they have to go to Bolly for that, or just straight to Virgin?

To the publisher, which may be Virgin. And the record label, which obviously was Virgin.

You could probably say with some certainty that any appearance of SP music on TV, ads etc since Dec 2, 2000... wasn't Bolly approved.

greedo
06-05-2007, 08:14 PM
To the publisher, which may be Virgin. And the record label, which obviously was Virgin.

You could probably say with some certainty that any appearance of SP music on TV, ads etc since Dec 2, 2000... wasn't Bolly approved.

I remember Billy saying in an interview that he doesn't let his music be used for ads, etc. because the music means so much to so many people.

This implies that he has some control over how it's used. I certainly don't hear any Pumpkins music in ads.

Nirvana was on Lost the other week. That was cool to hear.

brendo_91
06-05-2007, 08:16 PM
he had control over it while the band was still "alive" - once the publishing contract ends, e.g. the band breaks up, there is a usually 7 year 'retention period' where the publisher can do whatever the fuck they like with the songs to make as much money as they can for themself and the artist. the artist loses creative control during this period. after that time the publishing goes to whatever publisher the artist is currently with.

ciGarski
06-05-2007, 08:27 PM
http://www.spfc.org/songs-releases/song.html?song_type=1&song_display=||0|||||||

commando
06-05-2007, 08:30 PM
Nirvana was on Lost the other week. That was cool to hear.

yeah.. future flash forlorn Jack bumping some "scentless apprentice" in his truck. I assumed that was Courtney's doing since she sold like 1/4 of the catalog.

N0toyz4OJ
06-05-2007, 08:46 PM
I remember the 03 MLB Playoffs when Tonight Tonight was used...maybe it was 00, 01, or 02....but it was one of those years.

Spaceboy88
06-05-2007, 08:47 PM
he had control over it while the band was still "alive" - once the publishing contract ends, e.g. the band breaks up, there is a usually 7 year 'retention period' where the publisher can do whatever the fuck they like with the songs to make as much money as they can for themself and the artist. the artist loses creative control during this period. after that time the publishing goes to whatever publisher the artist is currently with.

That's not true.

To use a song in a commercial or any other type of advertising, one must get permission from the person who holds the performance rights. Performance rights are registered through ASCAP, BMI & SESAC. Billy's publishing is owned under his DBA of Cinderful Music. (http://repertoire.bmi.com/publisher.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&querytype=PubID&cae=233435492&Affiliation=BMI&keyname=CINDERFUL%20MUSIC&keyid=409577)

Unless Billy sells his share of the publishing, he has final say over the songs being "whored out" or not. This does not go away when the band breaks up.

The reason you're finally now seeing Nirvana songs used everywhere (video games, "Lost," etc...) is because Courtney Love sold a percentage of Kurt Cobain's publishing to Primary Wave Music. Before then, she would not allow the music to be placed anywhere

ciGarski
06-05-2007, 09:05 PM
I remember the 03 MLB Playoffs when Tonight Tonight was used...maybe it was 00, 01, or 02....but it was one of those years.
03

ciGarski
06-05-2007, 09:08 PM
yeah.. future flash forlorn Jack bumping some "scentless apprentice" in his truck. I assumed that was Courtney's doing since she sold like 1/4 of the catalog.
maybe, but considering the doc marten incident it doesn't sound like she has a very tight hold on her ownership.

wilffiv
06-05-2007, 11:13 PM
have they played anything off of gish even?

zebramask
06-05-2007, 11:26 PM
have they played anything off of gish even?
Crush and Daydream have been played

werideatdusk
06-06-2007, 12:04 AM
Why come the new Warner Bros. promo video for SP is almost nothing but Virgin-owned video and song clips from 1991-2000?

greedo
06-06-2007, 12:15 AM
Why come the new Warner Bros. promo video for SP is almost nothing but Virgin-owned video and song clips from 1991-2000?

I imagine they paid for it.

I wonder if there is a law that allows this kind of thing - sort of like fair use. It certainly should be allowed to show Smashing Pumpkins songs to promote Smashing Pumpkins.

manders4001
06-06-2007, 12:40 AM
I remember Billy saying in an interview that he doesn't let his music be used for ads, etc. because the music means so much to so many people.

This implies that he has some control over how it's used. I certainly don't hear any Pumpkins music in ads.

Nirvana was on Lost the other week. That was cool to hear.
Yeah, that was cool. It decieved me into thinking that it was a flashback to when the album was first released. :rofl: Guess not.



So if Virgin owns the masters, does that mean that if the Pumpkins ever wanted to remaster their stuff they would have to do it through Virgin?

greedo
06-06-2007, 12:50 AM
Yeah, that was cool. It decieved me into thinking that it was a flashback to when the album was first released. :rofl: Guess not.



So if Virgin owns the masters, does that mean that if the Pumpkins ever wanted to remaster their stuff they would have to do it through Virgin?

It actually jarred with me so much that is seemed to be too overtly suggesting it was flashing back to the 90s...which gave it away to me that it was a forward flash. They were clearly trying very hard to hide information to build up to a 'surprise'.

I knew that was Kate getting out of the car.

I'm still not sure if I like that episode or not. It was awesome up to that point, though.

Endless Whining
06-06-2007, 02:19 AM
as far as i know virgin does not own the masters to the recordings made under contract with the smashing pumpkins. from what i've always understood the smashing pumpkins kinda delivered an album worth of material and licensed those songs for release to Virgin retaining all other rights and the masters themselves, same for singles/b-sides.

corgan and the smashing pumpkins weren't free to release anything somewhere else though without Virgin's approval (courtesy of thing on Lost Highway for example) and i clearly remember the 7 year clause because it was mentioned several times in that the band was not free until the contracts expired to release any material recorded during the contract period (let's say signing for gish thur mcis; for adore the p and c credits change to virgin records america inc. & the smashing pumpkins), bc and jc told me so themselves; hence they were privately working on finishing the Metro DVD for a release once they'd be out of the Virgin deal.

but i'm no US copyright lawyer so i don't know the specifics although several people in the music industry did point out to me the smashing pumpkins had a pretty sweet recording contract deal in retaining a lot of rights for themselves instead of a lot of band that lose control over the masters and release.

i've always understood if Virgin wanted to release anything by the smashing pumpkins at all they would have had to go thru the band/corgan to get permission to use any song for that specific release which seems to differ from the Cracker deal...