"Oh boo hoo hoo I don't own my art!"

[vraiblonde]

This was on FB but it's limited so I can't share it, but the gist is:

For most of his life, John Fogerty had to watch other people profit from the very songs he poured his soul into. The man who wrote “Proud Mary” couldn’t even own it. Decades of legal warfare, betrayal, and heartbreak over the rights to his own music had become a tragic subplot of his legacy — until now. At 80, Fogerty is finally flipping the script. And he’s doing it with a wink to someone who walked a similar path, just in a different era: Taylor Swift.

Then a bunch of boo hoo hoo about how artists don't own their music, the record company or someone else does and they have no say over how it gets used.

Um, John? TayTay? You SOLD your music. And got a piss ton of money, I might add. You could have kept the rights to your art, but you wanted to get paid so you sold it. And now want to cry about it. And get durhards on the internet to cry with you.



It's not surprising to see entitled crybabies whining that something completely aboveboard and reasonable is "not fair". What's interesting is to see seemingly intelligent people who don't even know this person reflexively siding with them.

It IS fair. You created something. You sold it. Now it belongs to someone else.

 

[OccamsRazor]

"For most of his life, John Fogerty had to watch other people profit from..."

THIS is the most important part of the story. It's not a matter of owning something they created. Its a matter of controlling who PROFITS from that creation.

 

[vraiblonde]

"For most of his life, John Fogerty had to watch other people profit from..."

THIS is the most important part of the story. It's not a matter of owning something they created. Its a matter of controlling who PROFITS from that creation.

But he profited from it too. He made millions and millions of dollars.

 

[OccamsRazor]

But he profited from it too. He made millions and millions of dollars.

Correct BUT, now artists see how they can profit from other avenues (movie and TV show jingles, etc.) and they want that money too.
They don't want to end up like Xerox in the PC wars.

 

[vraiblonde]

Correct BUT, now artists see how they can profit from other avenues (movie and TV show jingles, etc.) and they want that money too.
They don't want to end up like Xerox in the PC wars.

They should have thought of that. Typically musicians sell the rights to their music because they need/want the cash. They've gotten themselves in a financial hole through indulgence. Or they didn't have faith in their talent, so they sold themselves and their product to a record label. Then, because they aren't financially responsible, they blow through that money and get mad when there's no more coming in.

Artists aren't business people, which is why they're supposed to hire business people to do that stuff for them...AND THEN DO WHAT THE BUSINESS PEOPLE TELL THEM TO DO.

 

[GURPS]

Then a bunch of boo hoo hoo about how artists don't own their music, the record company or someone else does and they have no say over how it gets used.

Um, John? TayTay? You SOLD your music. And got a piss ton of money, I might add. You could have kept the rights to your art, but you wanted to get paid so you sold it. And now want to cry about it. And get durhards on the internet to cry with you.

back then that was the DEAL THAT WAS MADE ... artists GOT PAID, the Music Company OWNED the rights ..
artists pushing back did not come until decades later

same thing with cover art for books, pulps ... etc

Artists were paid for a drawing / painting the publisher KEPT the illustration ... unfortunately made original prints were just thrown away decades later or the publisher cleaned up on selling the Original Works ... artists like Frazetta or Boris that did all of those fantasy covers

 

[vraiblonde]

back then that was the DEAL THAT WAS MADE ... artists GOT PAID, the Music Company OWNED the rights ..
artists pushing back did not come until decades later

Right. And there's nothing stopping artists from creating MORE art and owning it instead of selling it. Taylor Swift may or may not be under contract, but John Fogerty certainly isn't. He can write new songs, market and distribute them, do all the leg work, and keep all the money for himself.

It's like anything you create for profit. You are either contracted to make this thing, or you make it and sell it to someone. Either way, it's not yours anymore because you sold it. Doesn't matter if it's a song or a painting or a custom dog bed. Once you sell it, it belongs to the buyer and not you.

 

[black dog]

"For most of his life, John Fogerty had to watch other people profit from..."

THIS is the most important part of the story. It's not a matter of owning something they created. Its a matter of controlling who PROFITS from that creation.

John Fogerty's estimated net worth is in the range of $75 million to $100 million. This wealth is primarily attributed to his successful musical career with Creedence Clearwater Revival and his later solo work.

 

[vraiblonde]

John Fogerty's estimated net worth is in the range of $75 million to $100 million. This wealth is primarily attributed to his successful musical career with Creedence Clearwater Revival and his later solo work.

Serious, so what's he bitching about?

 

[OccamsRazor]

Serious, so what's he bitching about?

If I had to guess, I would say it is one, or both, of 2 reasons...
1) Same as any other rich person. They want more MONEY.
2) He doesn't want his music being used by some political person they disagree with.

 

[vraiblonde]

2) He doesn't want his music being used by some political person they disagree with.

aHA! Now it makes sense.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Correct BUT, now artists see how they can profit from other avenues (movie and TV show jingles, etc.) and they want that money too.
They don't want to end up like Xerox in the PC wars.

They also might have never been heard of if they didn't sign with a label and could have ended up working at Walmart.

 

[herb749]

If I had to guess, I would say it is one, or both, of 2 reasons...
1) Same as any other rich person. They want more MONEY.
2) He doesn't want his music being used by some political person they disagree with.

3) Was one of his songs used in a drug commercial .

 

[Makavide]

If I had to guess, I would say it is one, or both, of 2 reasons...
1) Same as any other rich person. They want more MONEY.
2) He doesn't want his music being used by some political person they disagree with.

4) realized Bruce Springsteen was able to keep the rights to his music, and then sold it 2 years ago for $500 Million.

 

[RoseRed]

4) realized Bruce Springsteen was able to keep the rights to his music, and then sold it 2 years ago for $500 Million.

Eff him.

 

[RoseRed]

Popped up on FB...

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm always sorry when these iconic musicians show their ass. I prefer not knowing who they are, I just want to idolize them a little bit. Once they open their mouths (or fingers) and start spewing it's like, ugh.

 

[phreddyp]

Sometimes it's not about what you have to sell but about what you CAN sell to move forward. When you are in a pinch point most anything is fair game!

 

[black dog]

Eff him.

Yep, the chickens finely came home to roost with his ass.
Mellencamp is another dumb ass.