George H of the Beetles was saying that he had to pay rights to use his own songs. This is definitely wrong. He and his band made the status of those songs so that the person with the rights could make the money.

I propose that you can sell the rights but can never lose your own rights use the music or intellectual property you have made.

The symbol for this right would be a dot in a circle (.) and would mean, if your genesis was big, it would not be a reason for you to end destitute and in the gutter.
-- wjt, Jan 25 2015

Shop lefts are different http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shop_right
The gotcha of inventing while working for somebody. [popbottle, Jan 29 2015]

Reggae version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jah_Roots
no groaning please [bhumphrys, Jan 30 2015]

Who did he sell them to that he had to pay for the use of them?
-- normzone, Jan 26 2015


Michael Jackson
-- JesusHChrist, Jan 26 2015


"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants." Isaac Newton in a letter to Robert Hooke
-- popbottle, Jan 26 2015


What rights do you mean?
-- calum, Jan 26 2015


The rights to play the music or tinker with the intellectual property without having to pay anyone. If G. H. plays a concert to people all he is doing is helping the sales of those with the rights anyway. He shouldn't be penalized. He wouldn't be able to copy the music and sell it because it's not him playing it.

The difference between copying and generating (hence genesis)
-- wjt, Jan 26 2015


Who are these Beetles of which you speak? Their name seems like a rip-off of another much more popular band.
-- RayfordSteele, Jan 26 2015


This might work for individual copyright, but it's going to go over less well if the original copyright holder is, say Warner Bros, and they're selling something to Disney.

Or did you mean the right would stay with the animator or writer who created it specifically under contact? Because that wouldn't go over much better.

And if this is extended to patents, it blows the entire system out of the water.
-- MechE, Jan 26 2015


Also, what has this got to do with Genesis? - George Harrison wasn't in Genesis.
-- hippo, Jan 26 2015


//George Harrison wasn't in Genesis// It's easy to remember, Phil Collins isn't hairy, and George was far more hirsute.

This brings about the simple mnemonic:
Smooth Phil, invisible touch.
Hairy George, not so much.

-- zen_tom, Jan 26 2015


Nice mnemonic! I always found Phil Collins to be a rather unlikely rock star - he had, you might say, become a rock star against the odds, whereas George Harrison looked the part. Again, easy to remember:

Uncool Phil, against all odds;
Gorgeous George, my sweet Lord
-- hippo, Jan 26 2015


//I propose that you can sell the rights but can never lose your own rights use the music or intellectual property you have made

You could put that in the contract if you wanted.

It would be like selling a car and still being able to use it on Saturday afternoons. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the buyer agreed.

//If G. H. plays a concert to people all he is doing is helping the sales of those with the rights anyway. He shouldn't be penalized.

Penalized? He's getting a royalty, isn't he?
-- the porpoise, Jan 26 2015


My mnemonic:
George Harrison, stabbed
Phil Collins, no such luck

Also, what the porpoise said.
-- calum, Jan 26 2015


" Who are these Beetles of which you speak? Their name seems like a rip-off of another much more popular band. "

You're probably thinking of the Beat Farmers, a great San Diego band.
-- normzone, Jan 26 2015


[Mech E] has it right, genesis rights reside at the person act level. To colaborate an amount of copying has to be involved and hence a saleable entity. Big companies don't really have genesis rights because they buy all the intricate web of genesis acts for a object that is able to be copied.

You may get problems where one band member has to pay rights to another for their rights but it is still not paying for your own creations.

[the porpoise] No. You have to have made the car. Sellings the rights to copy and make the car doesn't stop you making another for yourself.

//He's getting a royalty// It would depend on the rights sale contract and probably be a fraction. Still wrong in my mind.
-- wjt, Jan 27 2015


But as the originator of a work, you can't have it both ways. At the moment, you can sell the Intellectual Property in your work to someone else, and then, as George found, you have to pay to perform the songs you originally wrote. Let's say that Intellectual Property law is changed so that the originator of a work has some lifetime, residual rights over the work. If this happens then when you want to sell your Intellectual Property, you'll get a lot less for it than you would if you retain no rights.
-- hippo, Jan 27 2015


What hippo said.

This boils down to a recognition that you can sell / licence / retain any part of your IP rights that you like. I have seen some crazily detailed slicing of IP rights but this sort of slicing is more prevalent in an academic context (where the exploitation value of the IP is contingent / aspirational) than it is in a commercial context (as would be the case with the works of a member of a popular beet combo) as there, as hippo sez, the whole is worth more than the sum of the parts: a potential purchase of IP rights will want to be sure that they have the benefit of the monopoly and aren't shattering their market with a deal which is generous to the IP-creator.
-- calum, Jan 27 2015


//popular beet combo// - would you include ABBA in this categorisation, being Swede-ish..?
-- hippo, Jan 27 2015


In most of the world, author rights have two components - economic and moral.
The idea is that you can sell the economic rights (which are in any case limited in duration) but the right to be recognised as the author is permanent and non- transferrable.
-- Loris, Jan 27 2015


Are Swedes beets? I thought they were a hypertrophied rutabega.
-- bungston, Jan 27 2015


// the right to be recognised as the author is permanent and non- transferrable //

What about ghost writers? I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that they typically were not recognized.
-- scad mientist, Jan 28 2015


Loris is describing the idea, rather than the current US / UK law. I think.
-- calum, Jan 28 2015


No, I think Loris is describing copyright law as it stands.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 28 2015


//popular beet combo// - The Wurzels
-- bhumphrys, Jan 28 2015


If a large company patents some IP, do they have to state the originators in the patent? I would have thought that you would have to make a legal declaration that the idea was yours.

I don't condone a promoter company owned by George not paying royalties but a spontaneous jam to a packed restaurant. "Copyright", to me, means the rights to copying. How can an originator copy when they are the source.
-- wjt, Jan 30 2015


//If a large company patents some IP, do they have to state the originators in the patent?

Inventors are always identified on patents for their inventions.

In most (all?) countries, ownership of an invention resides with the inventor until the inventor transfers ownership to an employer or some other thing.
-- the porpoise, Jan 30 2015


Another type of 'Beet combo'? see link
-- bhumphrys, Jan 30 2015


//Inventors are always identified on patents for their inventions.
In most (all?) countries, ownership of an invention resides with the inventor until the inventor transfers ownership to an employer or some other thing//

The rights to an invention belong to whoever can afford the extortion, they no longer belong the inventor.
-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jan 30 2015



random, halfbakery