Bon Jovi Music Rights?

I think your talking about something else Jim.

Sure Dave Stewarts receives his fee + royalties for DA but I'm sure he doesn't own any share of the rights of those songs. Like Desmond Child won't own any part of rights to any song of BJ.

Courtnely Love owns all the rights of every Nirvana song every published. She inheritit it from Kurt Cobain.
Sure all the old members still receive royalties but they don't a own bit of the rights of those songs, ie they don't have **** to say what's happening with it. Only Courtenly Love.


If Jon owns all the rights, sure Richie/Dave/Tico/Recordcompany get their share but doesn't mean they own the rights (like a patent).

I know like 10 years ago every time a song was played on the radio the owner of the rights of that song got 10 cents.
If Jon owns all the rights, he get the 10ct, but surely there is a contact between other member that they get their share, doesn't mean they own the rights and have final say/

So for me, the question remains.

see my point above about them having their own publishing now as far as i'm aware.

i'd actually prefer to have a publishing deal before a record deal.

whoever writes the song gets a songwriting credit (i.e. rights to songwriting royalties)

whoever performs on the record in the band gets a performance credit (i.e. rights to performance royalties)


you can't talk about rights without talking about the money since thats essentially what most of the rights lay down.

jon owns most of the rights but richie also has rights on LOAP for example since he helped, dave stewart has songwriting rights on a few songs on DA, dave has songwriting rights on in these arms, and tico has performance rights on all of the tunes he's drummed on.

I started this topic after reading a article about rights (bj wasn't mentioned).

I understand where you coming from but songwrting rights are different rights then the one I talk about. I mean sorta like the patent (other word) on the songs itself.

Sure Paul McCartney still got his songwriting part for his Beatles song after Michael Jacson purchased it, but he didn't had any say what happenend to the Beatles song (for example being used for top1000 all time, or for a movie), those are still different rights.

Sure Dave Stewart & Desmond Child get their royalties for the songs they work on, but they don't have any say what's happening with them.
Or do you think when someone wants to use Midnight In Chelsea they need aprovement from both Jon & Dave Stewart? Nah.

that's publishing rights. if michael jackson owns the publishing rights to beatles songs it means he can licence them out to any film or whatever he wants and he'll get the money for it.

if dave has a writing credit for midnight in chelsea then he should be consulted. essentially ANYONE with even a performing right should give their permission before a song is commissioned but publishers have a habit of not doing this.

a friend of one of my old tutors went to the bank machine on a night out with him expecting to have 10 or 20 quid left and found a few grand in the account because their old publisher sold some of this guys old bands music to some canadian car ad without telling any of them...

yeah I understand the difference now - thx. I need some beers

''The publisher is the owner of the copyrighted work'' (wikipedia).

So who has the publishing right, copyright on the songs? The cd's tell us that's the record-company, or is that not directly linked?

Ie:
1996 Polygram Records INC
All rights reserved. Unauthorises copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, publish performance bla bla bla bla

the publisher

i know it's confusing but the publisher has the rights to publish the music.

they get money as does the band, performers etc... whereas with mechanical rights the label gets the cut.

you should check out the prs or ascap site or something they'll be able to give you a much better explanation.

I'm so glad all this just happens behind the scenes (unless you go looking for it) and all we get is the music

Yeah I'll do that, it interest me somehow.

But before I ran off to get totally pissed.

So its possible, for example, that Courtney Love is the publisher (thru a 'publishing' company wich she owns) of the Nirvana songs?
Therefore same goes for Jon or the band, they could be the publisher?

no what will be the case with love is that kurts rights (publishing, song writing, performance etc...) will have been given to her as part of his estate.

i'm assuming he either owned all the songwriting rights ergo why she has such a big say in what gets done with the songs.