Jump to content
 
Snowflake Oliver

The Tom Delonge Thread: Sells Entire Blink Catalog Edition

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Ghent said:

They may have never owned their music in the first place though. Pretty common for artists to sign away rights early on. Could have been a label that sold.

It's pretty much a guarantee a new artist will not own their music when they first sign. I can't think of a single up and coming band that ever has signed their first big label deal and retained their rights, from what I understand (a very limited understanding at that) is that its a make or break decision. You either sign away your ownership or or you don't sign anything at all. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Speedo said:

It's pretty much a guarantee a new artist will not own their music when they first sign. I can't think of a single up and coming band that ever has signed their first big label deal and retained their rights, from what I understand (a very limited understanding at that) is that its a make or break decision. You either sign away your ownership or or you don't sign anything at all. 

For sure. That’s why I said blink played the major labels the right way . Didn’t sign a deal with the Devil so to speak 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Adrianm14 said:

Everyone thinking that this is just burning assets has no proper grasp on how the music industry works.

This is money to be made and it is still a partnership even if they have 100% rights to his songs.

There's also a probably a clause on how much money they can make before they have to renegotiate.

 

(Example: The company earns 2 Million of the songs at 100% return rate for them and Tom recieves 1 Million in advance , a new set of money will need to be negotiated after they break 2 million.)

 

I'm only speaking from experience here as the band I play in has it's own publishing deal. 

Sounds like you are talking about something that this is not.. They acquired the rights to his songs. How is that a publishing deal? How is that a partnership? He sold his rights to the songs.

What once was his has been liquidated. Gone. Like if I own stock in Mcdonalds, and then I sell it. Its goodbye.

This isn't like a record deal where its like " we release your music and you pay us a percentage of the sales".

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, lol, I don't get the "partnership" stuff. He only used that word to make it sound better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ yes. He sold the rights and he won't be entitled to any further profit made from record sales, simple as that. He got his millions upfront and that's it. I suppose he won't even get anything from blink touring without him now.

It really depends on the contract he signed, but in most cases giving up your rights just means handing over everything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Donald Trump's Bulge said:

Obviously needed the lump sum pretty bad. He  gave up making any future money off Blink songs for the rest of his life. Its really sad.

But questions linger. Can Tom still perform the songs? Can the owner use the material without consulting Mark and Travis?

 

Uhm, why wouldn’t he still be able to perform the songs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, twentytwenty said:

Uhm, why wouldn’t he still be able to perform the songs? 

He can perform them, but not in a recorded live format of any kind without permission

But since he's not in the band, that shouldn't matter to him. This article kind of touches on that with the Swift situation

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2019/11/18/taylor-swift-amas-big-machine-label-dick-clark-productions/4230698002/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twentytwenty said:

Uhm, why wouldn’t he still be able to perform the songs? 

I guess that's true. But if I decide to play a Blink set and charge people $20 a ticket and somehow I make loads of money; can't Blink 182 sue me?

I know cover bands do this stuff but I thought there needed to be an agreement.

6 minutes ago, Elisa said:

^^ yes. He sold the rights and he won't be entitled to any further profit made from record sales, simple as that. He got his millions upfront and that's it. I suppose he won't even get anything from blink touring without him now.

It really depends on the contract he signed, but in most cases giving up your rights just means handing over everything.

Yeah, the company is listed on the British Stock exchange under the symbol SONG.

Any Joe Blow can go invest in this company and technically own a piece of the pie. There are thousands if not millions of investors. This is in no way a partnership. Its a company that goes out and buys music and then takes in whatever profit they can.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Donald Trump's Bulge said:

I guess that's true. But if I decide to play a Blink set and charge people $20 a ticket and somehow I make loads of money; can't Blink 182 sue me?

I know cover bands do this stuff but I thought there needed to be an agreement.

Yeah, the company is listed on the British Stock exchange under the symbol SONG.

Any Joe Blow can go invest in this company and technically own a piece of the pie. There are thousands if not millions of investors. This is in no way a partnership. Its a company that goes out and buys music and then takes in whatever profit they can.

No you don’t need permission for live use, all though, the copyright owners do get royalties, but not from the performing artists, but from the venue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Donald Trump's Bulge said:

I guess that's true. But if I decide to play a Blink set and charge people $20 a ticket and somehow I make loads of money; can't Blink 182 sue me?

I know cover bands do this stuff but I thought there needed to be an agreement. 

You can perform any song you want live, ticket charge or not, without permission. I used to know the reason for this but it escapes me. Fair use or something like that. I'm pretty there's a way to record any song you want as well but damned if I remember what it is. Mostly it's just about giving credit to the real song writers.

Edit: I'm an idiot... Fair use... Geez. 

https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/137/do-you-need-original-artists-consent-to-cover-their-songs-live

This is for recording: 

https://www.makeitinmusic.com/licence-cover-song/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But say he wanted to use a blink song in one of his shit documentaries.. Can't happen without permission now. But since he's not in the band, he'd probably have had to get Mark and Travis' permission anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ghent said:

But say he wanted to use a blink song in one of his shit documentaries.. Can't happen without permission now. But since he's not in the band, he'd probably have had to get Mark and Travis' permission anyway

He doesn't make direct profits from royalties but I'm sure he still retains artistic use. I guess the company could send a cease and desist but why would they, they're gonna earn a profit from it's use. 

Per google: "The government-mandated royalty rate is 10.5 percent of the gross revenue minus the cost of public performance. The average rate per stream is about $0.005." 

They'll gladly let that song be used for whatever... That company will do whatever they can to make a profit off that music. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still weird to think that he can’t play ATST in a Facebook video now without getting permission or paying royalties to someone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Speedo said:

He doesn't make direct profits from royalties but I'm sure he still retains artistic use. I guess the company could send a cease and desist but why would they, they're gonna earn a profit from it's use. 

Yes, I think the company would be very glad to place out there as much of his music as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can if he plays it live! 

I don't know, but I'd be interested to see the terms of the agreement. I doubt he needs permission to use them, I think he just forfeited the money they'd potentially earn him for a one time lump sum. I don't know how much they actually make from streams and what not. 

Also, I'd be curious to see if he gets anything if a song is used in a movie or something like that... Like if the company only takes the royalties from streams and radio play and a split percentage of all profits from rights of use or if it's 100% of everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ghent said:

Jen has been going on even more vacays with Tom's family since the divorce...She must have got a nice chunk of coin $$$

Since they've been together since high school i doubt they even signed a prenup when they got married.... I bet she got a nice chunk of a change. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...