darkarrow Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 The weird thing is I somehow like that remix better then the original...................what's wrong with me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott. Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 ?? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thongrider Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 Hallucinations is definitely one of my favorite AvA songs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheerios4u98 Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 Apparently it was a year ago that I made this work of art Fun times! I still haven't seen the actual movie even though I've wanted to ever since I first heard of it. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxelder Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 announcement coming soon lmfao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewy030 Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 So i'm looking on Spotify and look at the popular Blink songs......It's depressing that Small Things is their number 1 most streamed song.....They'll never stop playing that shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horchata Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 On 1/31/2018 at 11:58 PM, blink--182 said: I wonder how much money Tom made with California and the shows they played with Matt. Probably more than Matt. most definitely more than matt. maybe best case scenario for matt, it was a 50/50 split. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 I don't think Tom had a cut of the royalties off of the California songs. Maybe he got paid for the use of the brand 'blink-182' (qhich, I guess, he still co-owns), but not for the songs. Also, he surely got his cut off of the live performances of the old songs too. Unless they had an agreement of non-agression or something similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vinegar Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 9 minutes ago, Ghost said: I don't think Tom had a cut of the royalties off of the California songs. Maybe he got paid for the use of the brand 'blink-182' (qhich, I guess, he still co-owns), but not for the songs. Also, he surely got his cut off of the live performances of the old songs too. Unless they had an agreement of non-agression or something similar. How would they use the name blink on the Cali album but Tom not get royalties? Not being condescending, just wondering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoltan Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 tom definitely got royalties for the songs written by him when those were played at show, and obviously for past album sales, but by default he deserves nothing else as royalty. if he's still part of the blink company, he may get a percentage (dividend) of all incomes. i don't think he can get money for the blink name. but it's company policy. they probably have an agreement/contract about who can legally perform as "blink-182". tom may asked for money to let the mark+matt+travis trio use the name, but i guess it was just a one-off thing, not a continuous revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kay Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 It might be a continuous thing, with the way Tom goes on about being able to 'come back whenever' I imagine he still owns some of the rights to the name and therefore gets some form of financial compensation whenever they use it, new records and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prankerd14 Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 Tom would get royalties for past albums as usual and most probaly get a set percentage of sales from new blink lineup set up by a certain contract he would of probaly signed to make this all happen alot smoother. I dont believe for one second that he can just come back whenever he wants.. But i also think all 3 of them arnt too distant with each and mark would probably work with tom again eventually...its a no brainer tbh to let tom back financially wise .. Its interesting tho if matt says hey guys its ok ill take a back seat and play with trio while tom plays with u for a while or if marks too nice and all 3 work with each other...depends of toms ego can take playing with his replacement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champ182 Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 I'm not 100% positive on how this works, but I believe you get paid royalties when a song you "own," AKA have songwriting credit on, gets sold or performed. Tom obviously doesn't have any songwriting credits on California, so I don't believe he would have any reason to get paid any royalties from the album (other than some sort of payment to use the name Blink 182 like some people have suggested) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 4 hours ago, vic vinegar said: How would they use the name blink on the Cali album but Tom not get royalties? Not being condescending, just wondering. Maybe I explained myself wrong. I was meaning just that: getting paid for the use of the name of the band, but not for the songs royalties due to songwriting recognision on Cali, radioplay of those songs. He didn't wrote those songs, he doesn't get paid for Cali other than, as I said, the band using the name. Is my guessing. But being 'blink-182' a company in which he has a share, he's obviously getting money out of the old records, name use and all, aside of punctual agreements on the Tom's breakup and Matt hiring process. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoltan Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 2 hours ago, Kay said: It might be a continuous thing, with the way Tom goes on about being able to 'come back whenever' I imagine he still owns some of the rights to the name and therefore gets some form of financial compensation whenever they use it, new records and all. the band's name is a trademark or copyrighted brand held by the company behind the band (viking wizard eyes llc). so in a legal way tom is not personally connected to the name usage. he can be an authorised person who could use the name, but at the moment he is clearly not one (he could not release his alleged blink demos as blink or he can't print blink t-shirts, etc). that's why i guess there's no such thing as a percentage for the name usage... it happens on another level: they use the name on a t-shirt design or somewhere, and when it's sold, the company gets the profit, then the company members got their yearly or monthly dividend. so the name usage is just a small part of the whole thing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kay Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 16 minutes ago, Zoltan said: the band's name is a trademark or copyrighted brand held by the company behind the band (viking wizard eyes llc). so in a legal way tom is not personally connected to the name usage. he can be an authorised person who could use the name, but at the moment he is clearly not one (he could not release his alleged blink demos as blink or he can't print blink t-shirts, etc). that's why i guess there's no such thing as a percentage for the name usage... it happens on another level: they use the name on a t-shirt design or somewhere, and when it's sold, the company gets the profit, then the company members got their yearly or monthly dividend. so the name usage is just a small part of the whole thing. Ah okay that does make more sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vinegar Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 4 hours ago, Zoltan said: the band's name is a trademark or copyrighted brand held by the company behind the band (viking wizard eyes llc). so in a legal way tom is not personally connected to the name usage. he can be an authorised person who could use the name, but at the moment he is clearly not one (he could not release his alleged blink demos as blink or he can't print blink t-shirts, etc). that's why i guess there's no such thing as a percentage for the name usage... it happens on another level: they use the name on a t-shirt design or somewhere, and when it's sold, the company gets the profit, then the company members got their yearly or monthly dividend. so the name usage is just a small part of the whole thing. So does Tom get $ from the Cali sales? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoltan Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 the incomes from album sales are mostly (completely) royalties, so only those get money who are credited. on the other hand tom gets some from the merch sales, even if it's a california themed t-shirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Backing Track Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 All we know is Tom is forsure getting paid in some way or another from Blink. How much is up for debate. I think it's more than anyone wants to admit though because Mark always looks bitter as fuck when asked on it, while simultaneously selling out like a mf'er, and Tom looks way too content when talking about Blink. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elisa Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 Take it with a pinch of salt because it could be different in the US but a civil law professor told us that when a song is played on the radio, on tour, on tv or it's covered, half of the royalties goes to the actual writers and the other half goes to the publisher (the label) - then the publisher gives a percentage of the money to the band members who are not credited as writers. If Mark and the lawyers didn't do anything in order to prevent Tom from getting a percentage when the California songs are played live, he's getting paid as he keeps saying that he's "still in the band". Then there are recording artist royalties and they rule the album sales. When you sell an album, it's just the credited writer who gets a percentage of sales income, regardless of the songs being performed - so Tom only gets his percentage from the albums he was in as he has nothing to do with California. That's also why Travis wanted to be credited as writer after Enema, he wanted more $$$$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.