Ultimate Rhoads

shred2 wrote:

You can stop your attempted psychoanalyzing, because you are REALLY BAD at it.

You're an Andrew Klein apologist - I get it. Keep swinging from his nuts. You do it well.

I don't feel OWED anything - and haven't. Someone asked a question, I related WHY this
person being SUED was completely unprofessional in MY OWN dealings with him and that
he was a POS, as far as I'm concerned.

Romeo Rose isn't the one who said, "your last horse shit email."

Get it? Got it? Good.

Maybe you should read that transcript again. Unless you knew who Klein was before he contacted you, then your response - or lack of - was arrogant. You sound like a whiner. He offered a license. You refused. Fair enough. But you were hardly 'professional' in that exchange.

Sounds like he treated you like sh**, AFTER you treated him like sh**.
Get it? Got it? Good.

How old are you?

Serious question.

Sky wrote:

You are still angry and barking at the wrong people. I acknowledged that your photos were not published in the RR book.
They don't owe you any money or credits, but you're still shouting.

Probably just as well, otherwise he'd have to stand in line with the others whose photographs and material WERE used in the book WITHOUT PERMISSION after having received a very similar 'guarantee' from Klein stating that material wouldn't be used. What's the point of having contracts and the copyright law if the likes of Klein and Margolis arrogantly disregard them and are allowed to get away with it? IMO they're both a disgrace to the film and publishing industry, and that takes some doing!

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.

RRFan4Ever wrote: From what I can see thus far, the same names appear on both bios and the doc in differing order.

Actually this is one of the things that I thought of when I first saw this book. I assumed automatically that the material from the defunct documentary had been rebranded into a book deal. Though it was quickly pointed out in several interviews with the author, he did not use the material from the documentary in the book, in fact a whole new round of interviews and material gathering had been conducted for the book. Of course only those that were involved with the actual interviews would know if this is true or not, but at a wild guess I would say they probably did use some of the original content. The wording on the contracts would be very interesting to look at, as would a comparison of interview contents.

As for the dealings with the documentary team, which seem to be the book team as well. There have been several reports of them being less than professional and very poor attempts at being bullies.

I may sound insipid here, but 'til today, I was largely unaware of how many social media pages there are dedicated to Randy, from as little as 25 members to almost 200k:) There is still a lot of positivity out there about Randy, and I'd say more than negative- and little to no drama, too.

https://www.facebook.com/Rhoadies
https://www.facebook.com/randyrhoads.society
http://www.myspace.com/randallwrhoads
http://www.myspace.com/wwwmyspacecomrandyrhoads#!
http://www.myspace.com/randy_rhoads_rip

Also, why is it that the Rhoads are being blamed for the so-called drama when there really wasn't any before the doc? I personally don't fault them for the behaviors exhibited by the "professionals" that were contracted to make a documentary.

RRFan4Ever wrote:I may sound insipid here, but 'til today, I was largely unaware of how many social media pages there are dedicated to Randy, from as little as 25 members to almost 200k:) There is still a lot of positivity out there about Randy, and I'd say more than negative- and little to no drama, too.

https://www.facebook.com/randyrhoads.society
http://www.myspace.com/randallwrhoads
http://www.myspace.com/wwwmyspacecomrandyrhoads#!
http://www.myspace.com/randy_rhoads_rip

Also, why is it that the Rhoads are being blamed for the so-called drama when there really wasn't any before the doc? I personally don't fault them for the behaviors exhibited by the "professionals" that were contracted to make a documentary.

Why mention myspace? Isnt that cow dead! LOL

shawn wrote:

RRFan4Ever wrote: From what I can see thus far, the same names appear on both bios and the doc in differing order.

Actually this is one of the things that I thought of when I first saw this book. I assumed automatically that the material from the defunct documentary had been rebranded into a book deal. Though it was quickly pointed out in several interviews with the author, he did not use the material from the documentary in the book, in fact a whole new round of interviews and material gathering had been conducted for the book. Of course only those that were involved with the actual interviews would know if this is true or not, but at a wild guess I would say they probably did use some of the original content. The wording on the contracts would be very interesting to look at, as would a comparison of interview contents.

As for the dealings with the documentary team, which seem to be the book team as well. There have been several reports of them being less than professional and very poor attempts at being bullies.

I sincerely doubt that also- and it's not surprising that they would insist there were separate interviews and new releases. PM himself said he ran out of money during the filming of the doc and wrapping it up w/his own funds, I'm not so sure that he'd be willing to do it all over again for the book when everything was already there.

It will be interesting to see what contributors may come out of the woodwork in support of the Rhoads' family in this litigation, that they, too, had originally agreed only to release for a doc, not a book and prove so with the contracts. I suspect that those contacts were indeed signed for the doc but the words allowed for pretty much anything else, too.

I hope the family is justly compensated!

chilinvilin wrote:

RRFan4Ever wrote:I may sound insipid here, but 'til today, I was largely unaware of how many social media pages there are dedicated to Randy, from as little as 25 members to almost 200k:) There is still a lot of positivity out there about Randy, and I'd say more than negative- and little to no drama, too.

https://www.facebook.com/randyrhoads.society
http://www.myspace.com/randallwrhoads
http://www.myspace.com/wwwmyspacecomrandyrhoads#!
http://www.myspace.com/randy_rhoads_rip

Also, why is it that the Rhoads are being blamed for the so-called drama when there really wasn't any before the doc? I personally don't fault them for the behaviors exhibited by the "professionals" that were contracted to make a documentary.

Why mention myspace? Isnt that cow dead! LOL

I thought it was a horse?

RRFan4Ever wrote:

Sky wrote:

You are still angry and barking at the wrong people. I acknowledged that your photos were not published in the RR book.
They don't owe you any money or credits, but you're still shouting.

Probably just as well, otherwise he'd have to stand in line with the others whose photographs and material WERE used in the book WITHOUT PERMISSION after having received a very similar 'guarantee' from Klein stating that material wouldn't be used. What's the point of having contracts and the copyright law if the likes of Klein and Margolis arrogantly disregard them and are allowed to get away with it? IMO they're both a disgrace to the film and publishing industry, and that takes some doing!

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.

Romeorose claimed here in 2009 that the coffee table book was being planned in addition to the documentary. Usually, legal agreements tend to be fairly specific about what a person can and cannot do as part of a contractual relationship.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3336&hilit=coffee+book&start=15

Gus wrote:Usually, legal agreements tend to be fairly specific about what a person can and cannot do as part of a contractual relationship.

This one was NOT specific, in its assigned rights - which is why I chose to not participate in it.

Vague would be an understatement.

Pay special attention to THIS part of it:

DP may transfer and assign this agreement or all or any of its rights or privileges hereunder to any entity or individual without restriction.

Let's go with not just NO .... but HELL NO.

RhoadsRockPhotographer wrote:

Gus wrote:Usually, legal agreements tend to be fairly specific about what a person can and cannot do as part of a contractual relationship.

This one was NOT specific, in its assigned rights - which is why I chose to not participate in it.

Vague would be an understatement.

And I agree with your decision RRP! I won't comment on the contract between the family and PM and co as I have no idea what's in it and it's before the courts anyway.
General rule of thumb:I've known a couple of photographers in different fields and usually a license is granted for a specific purpose so it is totally clear to both sides what is happening. Any desired change to that arrangement, eg. original agreement is to use photo inside book but now purchaser wants to use on cover of, has to be done in consultation with the photographer, so that he is aware of the changed usage and is compensated accordingly.

From what I have read, there are 100s of images in the book.
I don't see other photogs lining up here screaming injustice.
Or did I miss that part?

There is no mention of money in that 'image license'. With that, will assume that the other photogs provided images pro bono.

As far as sales numbers go, I will stick with my estimate. I will gladly accept that I am wrong, if someone can prove it.

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:From what I have read, there are 100s of images in the book.
I don't see other photogs lining up here screaming injustice.
Or did I miss that part?

Who's screaming injustice? Maybe I missed that part.

You seem to do an awful lot of projecting.

shred2 wrote:I don't see other photogs lining up here screaming injustice.

How many photographers with famous pictures of Randy are members here? I only know of one... just sayin'

RhoadsRockPhotographer wrote:

Gus wrote:Usually, legal agreements tend to be fairly specific about what a person can and cannot do as part of a contractual relationship.

This one was NOT specific, in its assigned rights - which is why I chose to not participate in it.

Vague would be an understatement.

Pay special attention to THIS part of it:

DP may transfer and assign this agreement or all or any of its rights or privileges hereunder to any entity or individual without restriction.

Let's go with not just NO .... but HELL NO.

Thank you, RRP- for evidencing some of the practices related to this project.

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.

shred2 wrote:From what I have read, there are 100s of images in the book.
I don't see other photogs lining up here screaming injustice.
Or did I miss that part?

There is no mention of money in that 'image license'. With that, will assume that the other photogs provided images pro bono.

As far as sales numbers go, I will stick with my estimate. I will gladly accept that I am wrong, if someone can prove it.

I'd gladly defer to you if you were right, however there is no way to prove one way or the other- unless for some reason this book's sales rival the bible or the Potter series, which I doubt.

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.

What's wrong with Dakota Pictures? I agree that it's not Tri-Star or Sony, but it's a fairly large entity of its own without the RR doc to its credit.

You did note that the doc appeared "thrown together" and "quickly"- perhaps the doc wasn't their main focus? I believe it was PM that went nuts with the cease and desist orders when the trailer was leaked. I also believe him when he said that it wasn't meant for public inspection, I think it was an effort to release both Dakota and PM of their obligation to deliver the doc.

You don't find it interesting that there was mention of this "coffee table book" before the doc went tits up?