I think everyone is agreed that the band move was/is lame, at best.
They are probably a lame band, but I don't think what they did is lame.
I think everyone is agreed that the band move was/is lame, at best.
Stripping the lossy, compressed audio from a youtube video and releasing that as an album is pretty lame.
Photography is a little weird in that the photographer explicitly owns the copyright unless some other agreement is struck (at least in the U.S.) The only rights the subject has is to refuse to grant the photographer the right to use their likeness; even then there are cases when you can publish someone's photo w/o their permission. (probably has to do with "newsworthiness" or something, but IANaLb...)This reminds me of that photographer guy that got all butthurt because the band he took pics of used one of the pics and cropped it. Oh the horror!
Shit like that is why big acts make photographers sign a release that keeps ownership with the acts.
Fuck it, I'm suing Led Zeppelin.
It's not a bad move...they got money.
Why sue some lame bar band that probably can't cover their bar tab.
...
I work at a patent/trademark law firm. If you want me to inquire, PM me.
But you're not a lawyer, right? I thought it was considered a really bad idea to offer anything resembling legal advice if you worked in the industry but weren't actually a lawyer?
I said I could "inquire". Not give my own advice. Good try though
Sorry. I wasn't trying to be combatative.