3 ms·

> But that’s in a commercial setting, this is during a musical performance. This means he wasn’t paid for the performance, is that correct? Because otherwise

> But that’s in a commercial setting, this is during a musical performance. This means he wasn’t paid for the performance, is that correct? Because otherwise doing it for paid performances and promoting it on social media but saying “it’s not commercial bro” doesn’t seem very genuine

justusw 4y ago
Chiming in here, even if he was not being paid for performing this song here, the tweet and publicity still serve to market his work, right? How is that not commercial? I mean, this is to sell more tickets in the future, one would assume.
williamcotton 4y ago
Sure, but in the Bette Midler case, I was talking about a literal television commercial: Midler pursued a common law judgment against Ford for using her distinctive voice without her authorization. The appellate court pondered the question of whether or not an artist's voice is a distinctive personal feature over which a person has controlling rights from appropriation. Midler was not seeking damages for copyright infringement of the song itself, but rather for the use of her voice which she claimed was distinctive of her person as a singer. The recognition of Midler's voice in the commercial was found to be the intentional motivation and a major feature of the commercial. This is a common law right to publicity. This is our common law right to be in control of our likeness. David Guetta is being paid but he is not being paid by the promoters or the audience because he says he is Eminem so there is no reasonable claim to a violation of Eminem's common law right to publicity. Whereas with Midler, the commercial production crew was seen by the jury to be paying an artist to convince an audience that Bette Midler was endorsing the product. These are completely different situations.
Tozen 4y ago
The fact that "doesn't seem very genuine" was written is deeply depressing. https://youtu.be/LLFhKaqnWwk https://youtu.be/LLFhKaqnWwk

justusw 4y ago

Chiming in here, even if he was not being paid for performing this song here, the tweet and publicity still serve to market his work, right? How is that not commercial? I mean, this is to sell more tickets in the future, one would assume.

williamcotton 4y ago

Sure, but in the Bette Midler case, I was talking about a literal television commercial: Midler pursued a common law judgment against Ford for using her distinctive voice without her authorization. The appellate court pondered the question of whether or not an artist's voice is a distinctive personal feature over which a person has controlling rights from appropriation. Midler was not seeking damages for copyright infringement of the song itself, but rather for the use of her voice which she claimed was distinctive of her person as a singer. The recognition of Midler's voice in the commercial was found to be the intentional motivation and a major feature of the commercial. This is a common law right to publicity. This is our common law right to be in control of our likeness. David Guetta is being paid but he is not being paid by the promoters or the audience because he says he is Eminem so there is no reasonable claim to a violation of Eminem's common law right to publicity. Whereas with Midler, the commercial production crew was seen by the jury to be paying an artist to convince an audience that Bette Midler was endorsing the product. These are completely different situations.

Tozen 4y ago

The fact that "doesn't seem very genuine" was written is deeply depressing. https://youtu.be/LLFhKaqnWwk https://youtu.be/LLFhKaqnWwk