Astonishing decision .... could have serious implications elsewhere?

Absolutely - an extraordinary decision.
Ramifications galore.
Will it be retroactive (if not, why?) and if so... wow!

Well, I must say, I did not give him a hope at all, and his persistence has been admirable.
But this case does raise a further question which could throw everthing wide open.
In the formation of bands, how many hits are formed by musicians who have come and gone from a band, or jammed in a soundcheck for an act, and left inspiration for a hit song "written" by the act?
I certainly know of some 70`s B`sides in which this was a moot point, and don`t forget, they were hits as well as the "A" side even though seldom heard.
The gate is open on this one, but very few musicians would be able to afford the very risky cases.
Legal aid???Forget it...

Could - should - get reversed by Court of Appeal?
Really ought to... but perhaps now I can sue for my unpaid Oooga Chaggas! Watch out Mark James!

It`s bound to go to appeal.
The question has to be asked, "why after all these years is this situation NOW important?".
The trouble is, whatever we do in "western" pop music, there are still only so many chords and structures that can be used to attract the ear of the listener.
Has anyone claimed the classic twelve bar progression yet? Nope.But this could go to Status Quo, or Chuck Berry, but then of course it goes back to Chucks piano player again, as his stuff was in Bb, and how many guitarist start a R+R song in that key?
In retrospect, the buck probably needs to stop here, or people will be scared of writing things that "sound a bit like so and so ".
I will end my thoughts on this one, by saying this IS the only case I would like to have been on the jury for.

Think I'll find a clairvoyant and get Bach to counter-sue.

The claim for back royalties failed - don't know why.

you're going to sue David Hasslehoff too?

"However, Mr Justice Blackburne rejected his claim for back royalties, which could have earned him up to

JK2006 wrote:
Could - should - get reversed by Court of Appeal?
Really ought to...

Surely... it's madness!

Is the judge not confusing the song and the recording/performance?

If I do a cover without the organ chops why the blank should Fisher get a slice?

Apparently not retroactive .... possibly because the claim 39 years late?

Absolutely the right decision and it always amazes me how one can reduce writing down to just lyrics and melody. Or does instrumentals not have any publishing or what about dance music. With such an identifiable riff Matthew deserves to get a cut. All who contribute to the writing and composition should share in it.
If you ask someone to come up with an idea then either pay them a session fee and get the rights assigned or give them a cut. The latter is the decent thing to do.
As for doing a cover without the organ riff then isnt that a new arrangement ?

If a session musician had come up with an idea which became a substantial part of one of my tracks (like the Oooga Chagga in Hooked On A Feeling) I would have offered (or they could have asked for) a share.
But not years later, surely?
And if I have never earned a penny from such concepts as that Oooga Chagga (used WITHOUT the song in Reservoir Dogs, Ally McBeal etc), perhaps I can now ask Mark James (writer of the song) for a share?
But what I find extraordinary is...
if Fisher is now regarded as a 40% writer, how on earth can he NOT be entitled to back royalties?
No, I'm sorry, but to quote one of my other writing idols (the greatest of all)... THE LAW IS AN ASS!

There does seem to be little point without a back royalties reward, however there has been many cover versions of the track, most notably Annie Lennox, and there will probably be more to come, not that they are neccesarily required and daily radio plays regionally on the original.

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't there supposed to be a limit on when you can sue someone for damages/lost earnings/debt ? Perhaps this is why no back royalties are due.

I think in future to avoid this sort of legal quagmire make sure they sign a 'no claim to publishing' contract or something along those lines. Hmm Lawyers will be rubbing their hands with glee.

DJKZ wrote:
Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't there supposed to be a limit on when you can sue someone for damages/lost earnings/debt ? Perhaps this is why no back royalties are due.

I think in future to avoid this sort of legal quagmire make sure they sign a 'no claim to publishing' contract or something along those lines. Hmm Lawyers will be rubbing their hands with glee.

That will be why then.

Isn't this a Statute of Limitations or something. Where there is a time limit after which you can't sue/claim/whatever.

Near 40 years seems to be a reasonable cut-off point

Statute of Limitations is the correct answer. I am still in a state of shock about this decision. Looks like I'm off to court in the 2007...on the positive side I might add.

Big End wrote:
Looks like I'm off to court in the 2007...on the positive side I might add.



So you must be a barrister

No he`s not but I am intrigued....