Hollywood Reporter: In a battle over rights to Ray Charles' famous songs, the charitable foundation that was bequeathed the singers' money and assets is suddenly in a tough spot, in danger of losing the substantial revenues that "I Got a Woman," "A Fool for You," "Mary Ann" and other hits generate each year.
4 comments:
The whole issue of copy right infringement and ownership is really a messy one. Part of me believes that that this is the case due greed. There was n problems with who received the royalties until the children decided to be greedy. Further more, if the children win this case, the money is taken away form a charity. I understand that the judge has to look at the matter from a copyright and ownership position but I still think that it would be more beneficial to society to look at it from a social perspective. If the charity looses then money is being taken away form a good cause, and for what, so the rich can get richer. The issues surrounding copy right are becoming increasingly about money and who can make the most of it. That is the same reason why there are fewer and fewer songs going into public domain these days. It's really quite sad.
Can the children just piss off? I am sure they have plenty of money without owning the songs, and they did not write the songs so if Ray Charles left the songs to his foundation to give to charity, I don't really think his children have any claim over the music. If Ray Charles had just left a giant check to charity instead of the royalty rights, would they have argued? It is less likely. It is only the longevity of the gift that makes his children want it. He raised them, not them, him, and they should appreciate what he has already given them. If my father wanted to leave everything he had to charity, I would respect his decision, especially once he was dead. Do the Charles children have no respect for the wishes of the dead? I am a grown girl and I can get a job for myself. Ray Charles' children can do the same.
I tend to agree with Meg, the children weren't in the will so why should they have any rights to his music. Although I if I were one of them I would be pissed because a lot of money is tied up in those rights and considering that they were not in the will that means that they probably make average incomes. It is also crazy that these companies can also essentially own any work that was produced at with them. I keep thinking to myself that I would just never sign with them, but then again I did decide to go to CMU, who will own anything I make here.
Preach on Meg! It seems to be pretty straight forward. If Ray Charles had wanted to leave the rights of his music to his children, well then he would have left the rights of his music to his children, duh. Any cries of protest on behalf of his family members is frankly disrespectful and dishonorable to the memory of Ray Charles. Each child has already received a check from the man for 1 million dollars each, that should be enough and they should respect his wishes.
Post a Comment