[quote name=\'Scrabbleship\' post=\'221058\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 11:48 PM\']I take it this artist has a want to be perpetually starving rather than have any sort of success. I'd pray for her soul if there was concrerte proof that she had one alongside herbrain.[/quote]
It was a Christian artist, I'm quite sure she believes she has a soul. It was her choice to sacrifice sales and publicity for her right to control the path of her career and the channels she chooses to further her career. I don't agree with the choice, but she has it.
I've also been dealing with a record label this week that has pulled their material, since they prefer to sell from their site for the marginal increase in the per unit profit rather than have their sales driven by the volume major retailers and web sites would bring them. I don't agree with it either, but it is their right.
[quote name=\'Scrabbleship\' post=\'221058\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 11:48 PM\']I'd really like to see the exact law that allows for this unreasonable veto power and the circumstances that led to its enactment. It's a shame that such a law exists (and naturally the US is probably the only western nation who has one) because why should people in entertainment be allowed to whitewash their debatable bad moves. Most of us have to live with our bad decisions and get no veto power over them, why should entertainers be any different.[/quote]
Warning: Not a Lawyer, but I do have more-than-the-average-Joe insight into this.
The Constitution gives you the right to privacy unless you are a public figure, and by public I mean a politician. It's why you can see greeting cards with Bush or Obama on them. However, celebrities, as strange as it sounds, is still a private endeavor. I can just not take your picture, slap it on a billboard, and advertise for Scrabbleship's Extra Stink Control Adult Diapers. I have to get your permission for that, because you control your likeness. And the U.S. is not alone in this, rules vary from country to country, but pretty much any country who is a signatory to the international copyright conventions in place now will have some form of this rule.
When a contract was made for celebrity X to appear on show Y, certain rights were forfeited in consideration for the appearance. At the time contracts were made, it was unlikely that any language was included that allowed appearances on another network 35 years down the pike. Extra consideration has to given to allow these appearances at a rate negotiated by the actor's union. Part of that negotiation as believed by GSN is that they have to have an agreement to that rate, which we have learned through anecdotes is minuscule.
The star or their agent for whatever reason has decided this is not agreeable to them. For us, it may not be ideal, but for the star or their agent, but those were the decisions that were made. These are the same decisions that may keep a DVD from the market due to song royalties, and some of them may be for vindictiveness rather than pure financial gain, like Shannen Doherty refusing to grant clip rights for her flashbacks to be in the original 90210.
Again, as much as this sucks to you the viewer, it's also to make sure that people are properly compensated for past endeavors. When a realization that money could be made from reruns, the perpetual signing over of rights ended, and it became a lot of effort just to make sure everybody was fairly compensated. And where I've had to spend time to figure out royalty rates to the sixth decimal place at work, I realize sometimes it seems a bit absurd. But in a business where your likeness is everything, you should have that right to control how it's being used.
My 2 cents for this reading, my .5 cent for the second reading, my .1 cent for the third reading, and my .025 cents for each subsequent reading
--Mike
