11.9.11 16 tracks, London raves, QUEEN, OUT100 +++
Nov 9, 2011 18:10:15 GMT -5
Post by animated on Nov 9, 2011 18:10:15 GMT -5
I've read the complaint.
The mention of Idol is just to stir up Media attention to this complaint otherwise it is a simple case of recovery of investment.
They are saying that because they were prevented to sell Adam's material they were deprived of their rights to recover what they have invested in Adam . They talk of exploitation of publishers rights. Adam should counter with their blatant exploitation of the artist's rights .
The case of Adam uploading the music toMYspace and allowing free donwloads was done in 2008. I did not read any information that Welsford sent Adam notice to desist from doing such.
And this is the part that got to me:
a. They loaned Adam $ 2,500 in May 2006
b. They will pay him $ 100 for his
prorata share for each of the compositions in question
c. They paid him $25 per hour for recording the demo, and $50 per hour for recording the finals performances.
d. After considering all these , Welsford owed Lambert $ 312.50 for which they paid him for it in Dec 2008..
e. Welsford/Wishire assigned their rights on this contract to Colwell Platinum - the current complainant
Colwell wants to be allowed to freely market these recordings.
I think upon assigning the contract, Welsford may have received a monetary figure from Colwell thus they will have to pursue this.
Colwell apparently did not do enough due diligence.
Did they not study Adam's fanbase ?
Did they not see that this will not generate enough revenue without the explicit imprimatur of The Adam Lambert.
Someone's is going to get really burnt by filing this case, and I believe it won't be Adam.
And above figures , just show what a struggling artist Adam was.
I think Adam should countersue . But since lawyers are expensive and this lawsuit is a nuisance. There may be a settlement. But I think , the settlement should not involve money. I think the settlement should only be limited to allowing them to sell the CD in the open market under the name of the artist recording it at that time. So if it was under Monte or under Citizen Vein, that should be what is on the CD Label and not claim it as solely an Adam Lambert CD.
This is just what I think. Might be other facts I did not read.
The mention of Idol is just to stir up Media attention to this complaint otherwise it is a simple case of recovery of investment.
They are saying that because they were prevented to sell Adam's material they were deprived of their rights to recover what they have invested in Adam . They talk of exploitation of publishers rights. Adam should counter with their blatant exploitation of the artist's rights .
The case of Adam uploading the music toMYspace and allowing free donwloads was done in 2008. I did not read any information that Welsford sent Adam notice to desist from doing such.
And this is the part that got to me:
a. They loaned Adam $ 2,500 in May 2006
b. They will pay him $ 100 for his
prorata share for each of the compositions in question
c. They paid him $25 per hour for recording the demo, and $50 per hour for recording the finals performances.
d. After considering all these , Welsford owed Lambert $ 312.50 for which they paid him for it in Dec 2008..
e. Welsford/Wishire assigned their rights on this contract to Colwell Platinum - the current complainant
Colwell wants to be allowed to freely market these recordings.
I think upon assigning the contract, Welsford may have received a monetary figure from Colwell thus they will have to pursue this.
Colwell apparently did not do enough due diligence.
Did they not study Adam's fanbase ?
Did they not see that this will not generate enough revenue without the explicit imprimatur of The Adam Lambert.
Someone's is going to get really burnt by filing this case, and I believe it won't be Adam.
And above figures , just show what a struggling artist Adam was.
I think Adam should countersue . But since lawyers are expensive and this lawsuit is a nuisance. There may be a settlement. But I think , the settlement should not involve money. I think the settlement should only be limited to allowing them to sell the CD in the open market under the name of the artist recording it at that time. So if it was under Monte or under Citizen Vein, that should be what is on the CD Label and not claim it as solely an Adam Lambert CD.
This is just what I think. Might be other facts I did not read.
