2 and a half unreleassed songs (Randy)

[rokket]

According to Bob, the Osbournes control RR's estate in terms of music.
Gotta ask yourself, If that is the case....how did THAT happen?
And I am asking a question there. Not suggesting anything.

It's probably because the Osbournes own the rights to the music, and therefore, the performance rights as well.

If you record an original piece of music, and I then become the owner of that piece, and twenty years later you decide you'd like to release the original version of it, you'll need my permission, if I don't give it, the best you could do is release a 'cover' version and then pay me royalties.

"Living Loud" would have to have paid performance and recording royalties to the Osbournes for that project.

It's the one and only reason why Bob can't release the tapes he has, regardless of the fact that he owns them, wrote a bulk of the lyrics and he's on them. Owning the tapes does not mean you own whats on the tapes. He needs permission from the Osbournes (to release the songs, parts of the songs or even early versions(because if they bare similarity to the original you are in breech of copyright law without permission to release them) and if he were to use Randy's name and/or likeness, permission from Mrs. Rhoads to do that.

Even if you were lucky enough to go to an auction, and win a box of old beta video master tapes, and found you had an hours worth of footage from Ridge Farm Studio's.......there's not a damn thing you could do with it without permission from the Osbournes. You own the tapes, but not whats on them.

Even if you decided to 'leak' them onto the internet, if the source was traced and it leads back to you, you'll be sued to the ends of the earth for breech of copyright..........

Technically, even bootlegged material, such as the material available on this site, breeches copyright law, unless the owner of the site, has permission from the Osbournes to distribute it. You could be sued.

[sytharnia]

"Living Loud" would have to have paid performance and recording royalties to the Osbournes for that project

I doubt they would have to pay any royalties (performance or recording) because they (obviously only bob for BOO) are LEGALLY co writers of all those songs and still receive royalties for them...remember the lawsuits were relating to royalty payments the didn't receive for DOAM....they do receive royalties for both albums to this day (since that first lawsuit)

[shred1]

So.... errrr, what are they bitchin about?

They are receiving royalties on BOO, and Diary, correct?

[whoopiecat]

7. Yes!. Why did you go back to work with Ozzy time and time again?

BD. First and foremost, we were still good friends and Ozzy and I worked productively well together. I liked the musical style and direction and his vocal melodies, and he liked my lyrics and playing; we got on personally very well too. The first time I went back was to write and record for the 'Bark at the Moon' album, at a time when Lee and I were suing Don Arden and Jet Records for non payment of performance royalties from the sales of the 'Blizzard of Ozz' and 'Diary of a Madman' albums and lack of due accreditation on 'Diary'. Ozzy and Sharon were helping us in our lawsuit against her father, Don Arden, as she was by then estranged from him, so naturally it was in my interest to work with them again.

8. What was the outcome of your case against Don Arden and Jet Records?

BD. Our case went to High Court in London in 1986, with Lee's and my victory resulting in a payout from Don/Jet. We subsequently thought the royalty payments would continue and that the erroneous credits on 'Diary' would be corrected; neither happened.

Also:

19. On the subject of lyrics, when asked about 'Suicide Solution' and the controversy connected to that song when a teenager killed himself after allegedly listening to it, Don Arden is on record as having said...

"To be perfectly honest, I would be doubtful as to whether Mr. Osbourne knew the meaning of the lyrics, if there was any meaning, because his command of the English language is minimal."

Many would agree, and yet Ozzy has said on several occasions that he wrote the lyrics to 'Suicide Solution'. Would you like to comment on this?

BD. Ozzy has often said that he wrote Suicide Solution about Bon Scott, AC/DC's singer but first and foremost Ozzy didn't write it, I did. Bon Scott was a good friend of mine, I would be the first to say if it had been written about him. I wrote the lyrics as a warning of drinking yourself to death, inspired by Ozzy's heavy drinking at the time and that the 'solution' - as in 'liquid' - is not the solution to the problem. I would like to add that in no way were the lyrics meant to encourage the act of suicide, on the contrary, they meant the opposite.

http://www.bobdaisley.com/interview/website

[rokket]

If Bob and Lee are receiving royalties on BOO and DOAM, then clearly they didn't sign away their rights to the songs as writers and collaborators. So maybe Ozzy should consider this....a bit of copyright law follows........

There are legal cases that protect the primary writer/s of a song from the ownership claims of those who make only minor contributions to its overall creation.

The writing of a few words or composing of a few notes will not normally entitle that songwriter to an equal share.

The same rule applies to any other contribution that would not be suitable for separate copyright protection (such as some chord changes or vocal harmonies). The most common example is the title. Many songwriters ask if they need to share their copyright with a friend who suggested the title. In all fairness, perhaps you should pay the person who thought up the title, but there is no legal requirement that they own any portion of the copyright.

Ozzy might also like to consider this piece of copyright law....

All writers of a particular song have a legal duty to account to each other for any monies earned from any use or exploitation of the song. In its most basic sense, this just means each writer has to pay the others their equal share of monies received, but the "receiving" writer should also provide information about the source of the monies and a copy of any accounting statement received by that writer along with the payment.

Each collaborating songwriter also has a legal duty to give credit to the other writers wherever a printed or visual credit appears for any of the writers.

Maybe Bob should consider taking the Osbourne's back to court for various other reasons........I would.

[sytharnia]

If Bob and Lee are receiving royalties on BOO and DOAM, then clearly they didn't sign away their rights to the songs as writers and collaborators. So maybe Ozzy should consider this....a bit of copyright law follows........

There are legal cases that protect the primary writer/s of a song from the ownership claims of those who make only minor contributions to its overall creation.

The writing of a few words or composing of a few notes will not normally entitle that songwriter to an equal share.

The same rule applies to any other contribution that would not be suitable for separate copyright protection (such as some chord changes or vocal harmonies). The most common example is the title. Many songwriters ask if they need to share their copyright with a friend who suggested the title. In all fairness, perhaps you should pay the person who thought up the title, but there is no legal requirement that they own any portion of the copyright.

Ozzy might also like to consider this piece of copyright law....

All writers of a particular song have a legal duty to account to each other for any monies earned from any use or exploitation of the song. In its most basic sense, this just means each writer has to pay the others their equal share of monies received, but the "receiving" writer should also provide information about the source of the monies and a copy of any accounting statement received by that writer along with the payment.

Each collaborating songwriter also has a legal duty to give credit to the other writers wherever a printed or visual credit appears for any of the writers.

Maybe Bob should consider taking the Osbourne's back to court for various other reasons........I would.

in the first quote regarding primary writer, when the songs were submitted and publishing was assign ozzy's name was on there so what you have quote doesn't apply.....

as far as the second one....why do you think Bob hasn't taken this to court ????? (maybe he has and that was one of the many cases he has lost?).....because he is currently getting paid royalties for DOAM....I don't know whether he gets the performance royalties (the laws around that are different in america than they were in britain so who knows what/how sharon can/has manipulated that) but he is getting publishing royalties.. It's written in ozzy's book and if it wasn't true well bob could easily sue with printed evidence

[whoopiecat]

Concerning the performance credits:
9. The fact that Sharon and Ozzy helped you suggests they believed your claim against Don Arden and Jet records was justified. Why did you and Lee sue the Osbournes and what did you sue them for?

BD. Lee and I found out during the 1990s that the Osbournes had bought the rights to the Ozzy Osbourne catalogue from Don Arden/Jet Records in July of 1983 and that from then on they were receiving our performance royalties from the sales of 'Blizzard' and 'Diary'. I sought legal advice from a law firm in L.A. who told us we had a good case and so legal action was taken to bring the Osbournes to justice. Ozzy and Sharon had been helping us in our original case against Don/Jet from 1982 and continued 'helping' us knowing full well that they owned the rights after July 1983. When they took ownership of the name and catalogue of Ozzy Osbourne, they also inherited the liability of paying us, which they've never done to this day.

According to Bob, there has just been the one suit against Don Arden and the one in 2000 against the Osbournes, although, there was this incident:

15. Did you or Lee ever sue the Osbournes for any reason other than for non payment of performance royalties from the sales of the 'Blizzard of Ozz' and 'Diary of a Madman' albums and for the lack of accreditation for your performances on 'Diary'?

BD. No, the only time we took legal action against the Osbournes was when we finally found out where our royalties for 'Blizzard' and 'Diary' were going - into their pockets. There was an incident in 1986 when the album 'The Ultimate Sin' was released without my credit for writing on it, with the first 500,000 pressings omitting my name. I threatened to sue but the credit was corrected so no further legal action was taken. I'd co-written much of the music for that album with Jake E. Lee and then had written all the lyrics for the whole thing and didn't get credited on the first 500,000 released. There are no other incidents of legal proceedings having been launched against the Osbournes by Lee and/or me at any other time.

http://www.bobdaisley.com/interview/website

~T.

[shred1]

The background info is much appreciated, but is clear as mud....

From reading the above posts it is not clear if they have been paid for Diary and Blizzard or not.

Bark, well he cut a deal and received a lump some. Ultimate Sin - he didn't get a writer's credit on the first pressing.

Is that correct?
thanks

They won their case in 1986, but never got paid? Maybe Bob should sue his lawyer.

[whoopiecat]

Looks like in the case against Don & Jet, they got paid on royalties up until 1986, but the payments didn't continue for whatever reason.
Judging by the newest releases, they both are credited for writing on both albums and performing on Blizzard.
Whether Bob and Lee continue to recieve royalties, I am uncertain.
I guess what remains is the performance royalties on Diary, which it appears the Osbournes have been keeping.
You are correct concerning both BATM & US.

~T.