RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Talk about Randy Rhoads here.

Moderators: Randy Perry, The Flying Dutchman, Stiltzkin, skezza, Trigger

User avatar
RhoadsRockPhotographer
Cool Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by RhoadsRockPhotographer »

RRFan4Ever wrote:Thank you, RRP- the words on this document (their meaning and the implications) indeed support my theory that someone had intentions outside and beyond the scope of the documentary.
For good and valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby irrevocably grants to DP the right to distribute, exhibit or otherwise exploit the Property in the Show, any related advertising, marketing and promotion of the Show, and in any related or derivative versions or uses of the Show, in all media now known or hereafter developed throughout the universe in perpetuity.
DP may transfer and assign this agreement or all or any of its rights or privileges hereunder to any entity or individual without restriction.
Is that standard for a license? Again, I'm not familiar with copyright law and its consequences.
Thanks for quoting that portion, also. That was the part that I had the SECOND MOST problem with (I didn't re-read it today, before posting the attachment).

Usually any licensing agreement is for a SPECIFIC USE - or selling the rights over completely (such as to a "stock photography" company).

I've only ever submitted photos (through an intermediary) for publishing (once to a US publication - once to a Brazilian publication), twice. They chose to use others photos, instead, in the two instances - so there was never any licensing agreement presented to me. Therefore, I'm not familiar with what IS and what HAS BEEN "standard."

I DO, however, know VAGUE contract wording when I read it - and when it's VAGUE enough to allow for interpretation, it's NOT anything I'm going to be interested in participating in, whatsoever (personally).

Anyone else who wants to risk losing control of the rights to their work with such shady worded legalese, good luck.
shawn
Cool Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:06 pm

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by shawn »

I wonder if this was the same contract that was offered to Bob Daisley. He had some issues with a contract offered to him and his layer was less than impressed. I have just read the contract that RhoadsRockPhotographer posted and it basically says, if you give us permission to use your material it is ours to do with what we will and you agree to us giving away your material to whomever; and the receiver does not have to pay for the privilege to use that material.

You would have to be nuts to sign a contract worded in this manner. Good call RhoadsRockPhotographer
User avatar
RhoadsRockPhotographer
Cool Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by RhoadsRockPhotographer »

shawn wrote:it basically says, if you give us permission to use your material it is ours to do with what we will and you agree to us giving away your material to whomever; and the receiver does not have to pay for the privilege to use that material.

You would have to be nuts to sign a contract worded in this manner. Good call RhoadsRockPhotographer

That was my exact interpretation of the wording, as well.

Noooooooooooo thanks.
User avatar
RRFan4Ever
Madman
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:09 pm

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by RRFan4Ever »

shawn wrote:I wonder if this was the same contract that was offered to Bob Daisley. He had some issues with a contract offered to him and his layer was less than impressed. I have just read the contract that RhoadsRockPhotographer posted and it basically says, if you give us permission to use your material it is ours to do with what we will and you agree to us giving away your material to whomever; and the receiver does not have to pay for the privilege to use that material.

You would have to be nuts to sign a contract worded in this manner. Good call RhoadsRockPhotographer
in all media now known or hereafter developed throughout the universe in perpetuity.
It seems that PM/DP could do anything they wanted with it, at any point, anywhere in the universe, for infinity. FFS they were snatching up stock and probably not paying for it. I think that a lot of people were either moved by Randy's legacy or were possibly excited to be associated with any endeavor related to RR to sign off on something that ends with "in all media now known or hereafter developed throughout the universe in perpetuity." I know absolute sh*t about publishing and that contract (for the lack of a better word) is ridiculous.

Is it even legal?

I know that anyone can grab some state/federal statutes and piece them together in a menacing manner (CAPS optional) and think they made something happen (i.e. those facebook statuses claiming copyright and privacy) I mean, it sounds good- but does it mean anything?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3271
If someone thinks that love and peace is a cliche that must have been left behind in the Sixties, that's his problem. Love and peace are eternal. John Lennon
Paul Wolfe
Mass Poster
Posts: 5272
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:19 am

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by Paul Wolfe »

RRFan4Ever wrote:viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3271
Nice use of links... that one brought up some fond memories! :D :D

Oh, the days of the war between UR & TK and the attacks by and of Kevin... good times... :lol:
User avatar
GUITARIDOL5682
Mass Poster
Posts: 4760
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by GUITARIDOL5682 »

So what about all the other professional photographers who would of been giving the same licence to review. I'm talking Neil Zlozower, Ross Halfin, Robert Ellis, Mark Weiss, Fin Costello, John Livzey, Neal Preston, Jeffrey Mayer,Alan Perry, Jay Banbury. Who are just a few of the 30+ contributors to the book. Did they feel like they'd been tret in an unprofessional manner. I don't see any of them mentioning how they've been fucked over. Because they would of been licenced and paid. Dave no disrespect to you mate, it was your choice to contribute your material and you chose not to. If any of these pros thought they'd be providing material for them to do whatever they liked. Then for DP to say "well you didn't read the small print". Come on, these guys know all the ins and outs of any publisher using their material.
User avatar
RhoadsRockPhotographer
Cool Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by RhoadsRockPhotographer »

GUITARIDOL5682 wrote:So what about all the other professional photographers who would of been giving the same licence to review. I'm talking Neil Zlozower, Ross Halfin, Robert Ellis, Mark Weiss, Fin Costello, John Livzey, Neal Preston, Jeffrey Mayer,Alan Perry, Jay Banbury. Who are just a few of the 30+ contributors to the book. Did they feel like they'd been tret in an unprofessional manner. I don't see any of them mentioning how they've been fucked over. Because they would of been licenced and paid. Dave no disrespect to you mate, it was your choice to contribute your material and you chose not to. If any of these pros thought they'd be providing material for them to do whatever they liked. Then for DP to say "well you didn't read the small print". Come on, these guys know all the ins and outs of any publisher using their material.
I have no clue what was done (re: agreements) as far as the BOOK project (and don't claim to) re: whichever photographers chose to participate in it. I doubt any of their arms had to be twisted too hard to freely (figuratively AND literally) contribute.

They obviously have the financial resources to be able to afford lawyers if someone DID happen to try to do something OUTSIDE any agreements. It would probably have to be something pretty severe for them to even care, one way or the other. Good for them.

They probably didn't receive any "your last horse shit email" responses from Andrew Klein, either.

I was simply enumerating my own reasons for finding him (and the whole Dakota entity) to be unprofessional and someone I wouldn't even begin to trust, in my own dealings with him. That's it.

I don't spend a second of my day thinking about it otherwise - unless it's something like this (directly related to the subject).
User avatar
randy will never die
Mass Poster
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:11 am
Location: clinton,Iowa USA

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by randy will never die »

can some one explan to me what the hell is going on i am lost
shred2
Junior Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:31 am

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by shred2 »

What's wrong with Dakota Pictures?
Hmmmm. What's wrong with Dakota Pictures? Isn't that the gist of this thread?
My Space?

I believe the wording in that license is to cover the evolution of media, as in an ebook may not be an ebook six months from now.
I may be wrong.
User avatar
RhoadsRockPhotographer
Cool Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by RhoadsRockPhotographer »

I find it quite interesting that your ENTIRE posting history exists in this thread and this thread ONLY.

Not one other post on the whole board you've found interesting enough to give your .02 on?

Co-ink-e-dink?

Probably not.


Image
User avatar
RRFan4Ever
Madman
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:09 pm

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by RRFan4Ever »

shred2 wrote:I will also note that if Randy Rhoads is as popular today as he was thirty years ago, we would be discussing Tri Star, Sony or someone else of 'big league' standing pitching to do a documentary about him, not a small independent, which seems to have been thrown together quickly, basically for this project.
shred2 wrote:Hmmmm. What's wrong with Dakota Pictures? Isn't that the gist of this thread?
My Space?

I believe the wording in that license is to cover the evolution of media, as in an ebook may not be an ebook six months from now.
I may be wrong.
Sorry, I should have said "is Dakota Pictures not a large enough company to commission a RR documentary?" that would have been more apt to deliver my point.

While I appreciate your attempt at realism, I don't get why you find it necessary to downplay Randy's legacy or point out that it's not 1983. I think that Randy's not only maintained a fairly sizable fan base despite his passing, I believe that it's actually grown since his death. Other than a select few, what other bands made music that people stop what they're doing and identify with- from 1981-83?

Also I do not believe the wording in that document was meant to cover any evolution to ebook- I do not think that will happen, unless that ebook costs $99 + $15-60 shipping.

For the record, I do not dispute that anyone should make money in the course of this doc or any book- my problem solely lies in the treatment of the very people that gave them the opportunity to make such materials, and those that would gladly purchase such materials- outside of an occasional lunatic, those associated with this project have created a "shitstorm" [sic] in the media or on the interwebz for anyone that didn't kiss their ass. They created much of the so-called drama that rears its ugly head when it comes to Randy's legacy. They've taunted fans with issues they knew would bring about a reaction (be it unseen film or a severed appendage) and then talked shit about the fans for reacting. . . . all the while using the doc as a catalyst to make more contacts and stir up shit amongst people and their contemporaries. They used tabloid trash for the doc and then talked some more shit about anyone that called them out for doing so- they had an opportunity to talk about Randy and that which made him a talented and unique musician and person, but instead we got stories that horrified his poor mother and guest reviews on Randy's work. Some in that camp have even hacked into fan's computers using .tk and UR as guides to alternately punish or reward users based on their behavior online and in PM's- not to mention peruse the contents of their PC. The behavior illustrated above doesn't even begin to articulate what their other projects and contacts must be like- no, I don't wish them success.

You don't need a doctorate in psychology to see that these so called "professionals" managed to turn what could have been a class act doc into a circus that would make Jesus Christ himself use His own name in vain. And they did so methodically, too.

All this drama and confusion has people now insulting the Rhoads' family- whom have been nothing but accommodating to fans (perhaps a bit too much at times). The only thing that the Rhoads' did wrong IMHO was trust in the wrong people, and still they've maintained the same relations with Randy's fans despite the public outcry.
If someone thinks that love and peace is a cliche that must have been left behind in the Sixties, that's his problem. Love and peace are eternal. John Lennon
User avatar
RRFan4Ever
Madman
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:09 pm

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by RRFan4Ever »

GUITARIDOL5682 wrote:So what about all the other professional photographers who would of been giving the same licence to review. I'm talking Neil Zlozower, Ross Halfin, Robert Ellis, Mark Weiss, Fin Costello, John Livzey, Neal Preston, Jeffrey Mayer,Alan Perry, Jay Banbury. Who are just a few of the 30+ contributors to the book. Did they feel like they'd been tret in an unprofessional manner. I don't see any of them mentioning how they've been fucked over. Because they would of been licenced and paid. Dave no disrespect to you mate, it was your choice to contribute your material and you chose not to. If any of these pros thought they'd be providing material for them to do whatever they liked. Then for DP to say "well you didn't read the small print". Come on, these guys know all the ins and outs of any publisher using their material.
You know what's probably a basis for this litigation is that even though someone may own a patent on an image, they don't necessarily have the right to publicity of the person depicted in that image without a release from the estate, if the person in question is dead. I assume, and don't know why it is, that it's entirely different for use of publicity for not-dead people- given all the images sold and exchanged on the tabloid market.

This will be an interesting case to watch for many, and not just us UR posters, either.
If someone thinks that love and peace is a cliche that must have been left behind in the Sixties, that's his problem. Love and peace are eternal. John Lennon
Sky
Madman
Posts: 414
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:43 am

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by Sky »

I'm not familiar with how licensing works but I assume the rights are limited to how and what the contributor signed off on in the license agreement; I wonder if release PM used indicated the materials were solely for the documentary- or if it was worded to allow use in various and yet undisclosed projects. . . . .

I know that Bob has stated that he wasn't impressed with the agreements he was asked to sign- do you mind my asking why that is, was it because they were vague and non-specific?

I'm asking because I think that the documentary was being used as a ruse to gather material for the book first and foremost. From what I can see thus far, the same names appear on both bios and the doc in differing order.
Bob was interviewed/filmed in his home over a period of 6 days, halfway through the filming Bob was handed 3 release forms and a pen to sign off on the spot. This sort of request during filming is unusual, to say the least. Bob told Margolis that he wouldn't sign without his manager or lawyer giving all 3 forms the once-over. Bob asked Margolis how his interviews would be used in the film and in what context, and if the original recordings of Boo & Diary were going to be used. Bob said that he wouldn't sign off on anything if they intended to use 'the bogus re-recorded shite' in their documentary. Margolis couldn't answer Bob's questions but filming continued for the next few days.
When Margolis & Klein left Australia, as well as the interviews, they took with them scans of some of Bob's original hand-written lyric sheets and private photographs, on the understanding that nothing of Bob's could/would be used in their film or anywhere else until he signed the release forms. He never signed.

As far as I know, Margolis and Klein formed Velocity with the sole purpose of publishing the RR book. Most of the material in that book was acquired during the filming of the documentary.
Sky
"Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away." - Elvis Presley
User avatar
RRFan4Ever
Madman
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:09 pm

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by RRFan4Ever »

Sky wrote:
As far as I know, Margolis and Klein formed Velocity with the sole purpose of publishing the RR book. Most of the material in that book was acquired during the filming of the documentary.
Sky
Thank you for the insight, Sky.
If someone thinks that love and peace is a cliche that must have been left behind in the Sixties, that's his problem. Love and peace are eternal. John Lennon
Sky
Madman
Posts: 414
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:43 am

Re: RANDY RHOADS' Family Sues Margolis and Klein

Post by Sky »

GUITARIDOL5682 wrote:So what about all the other professional photographers who would of been giving the same licence to review. I'm talking Neil Zlozower, Ross Halfin, Robert Ellis, Mark Weiss, Fin Costello, John Livzey, Neal Preston, Jeffrey Mayer,Alan Perry, Jay Banbury. Who are just a few of the 30+ contributors to the book. Did they feel like they'd been tret in an unprofessional manner. I don't see any of them mentioning how they've been fucked over. Because they would of been licenced and paid. Dave no disrespect to you mate, it was your choice to contribute your material and you chose not to. If any of these pros thought they'd be providing material for them to do whatever they liked. Then for DP to say "well you didn't read the small print". Come on, these guys know all the ins and outs of any publisher using their material.
Some of the photographers named sold their photographs to Getty Images quite some time ago, Fin Costello among them, so they wouldn't have had any dealings with Margolis or Klein. Not all photographs in the book were taken by professionals and although some may have been used in the book legitimately, others were knowingly used without permission.
"Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away." - Elvis Presley
Post Reply