MOG

cha-ching$$

Let's just say that between Gail and Yoko, i'd prefer to have Yoko living next door...

I personally can't say that this is at all surprising. Frank was always very protective of his copyrights, and Gail has posthumously taken up the slack...infinitely more than Frank ever did, but that's beside the point.

A bunch of years back, I wrote to the Zappa Family Trust regarding getting permission to use a sample of the first 8 bars of "Dinah-Moe Humm." I finally did receive back tentative permission from Gail, via the ZFT's lawyers, saying that if it (the sample) were absolutely necessary to the song, then she'd allow it for financial consideration. I also got the impression that if I recreated it, then a simple writing credit would likely be permissable...

Either way, I understand her reasoning, if not her motives. I would have at least waited to see if they posted a profit from the festival before hitting them up for any money...

the thing i don't get is that this is the 19th installment of the fest. why not do this sooner?

^Sure, but the bottom line is that she has the right to say "knock it off."

She certainly has the right to intervene in the way her lat husband's legacy is represented, but the wisdom of doing so in this way is questionable. This festival appears to have respectful admiration at heart.

Should she be involved in celebrating her late husband's art? Definitely. She should be encouraging this sort of event, but on the condition that she is involved.

Should she have a financial stake in its success? Of course. But if the festival is continuing out of love for Zappa's music in the face of unprofitability, perhaps she ought to be calling for profit percentage with the right to audit rather than a prohibitively large flat fee.

The stash thing strikes me as being a rather silly element to the feud. I'm afraid that she doesn't have much of a leg to stand on legally in that respect unless she can prove it to be deceptively implying Frank's endorsement. Seems to be a stretch, but I'm no lawyer.

I also doubt she has much of a legal case with respect to the rest of the festival. If they are paying performance royalties to BMI, ASCAP, or similar organizations, then she is technically getting her due cut for his copyright.

The bottom line is that Frank was a public figure, and people have a right to gather together and remember him as long as they are obeying his copyrights. To expect them to do so without being able to make reference his name or likeness is a little silly: "We're having a festival celebrating a dead guy. Can't use his name, but it rhymes with 'stank crappa.' Come on down and check it out."

It would be wise for the two parties to be collaborating, but her timing (19th annual?!) and her exorbitant demands smack of greed and myopia.

She really needs to consider all of the above before she takes action. Otherwise she risks looking like Heather Mills' mentor...

Sturgell says:

"Sure, but the bottom line is that she has the right to say 'knock it off.'"

Then she should have said something 19 years ago. Hell, even if she waited until after he died, the man has been dead for nearly 15 years now.

Furthermore, it's very short-sighted on her part, because it can only serve to sell more of Zappa's over-priced discs.

Don't get me wrong, I love the man. I think he's one of the top American composers who ever lived, and an unbelievably under-rated guitarist. I used to be a big proponent of Zappa's music, but I soured, growing tired of paying what I felt was an unreasonable amount for the music. And though I can't begrudge a man or his widow the right to make money on the fruits of his labor, there is a limit.

Sure, she has a point, but for her to have waited so many years has taken all credibility out of her claims for me - whatever she says now, it all sounds like 'kerching' to me.

Gotta with Chaos Cowboy, and Scotch. If I was Zappa (Yea I wish lol) I would hope my wife would get her cut, and say in things.

Side note: I had a friend who was a photographer that was e-mailing back, and fourth with her when he was in his death bed. She stopped e-mailing him when he offered to photograph him just for the family just as a rememberance, not for financial gain. He also sent an audition tape to him to play bass for him. He got a letter back saying thank you for auditioning, you are a really good player, but I don't need a bassplayer at this point.

Ummm - Frank died in '93. If the festival has been going for nineteen years, then it's been going since '89.

Which is to say, four years before Frank's death.

I'm pretty sure Frank would have heard about it.

If Frank didn't try to stop it...

I seem to recall something about Gail objecting to the naming of a street inm Berlin in Frank's honour, too.

Gail gotta eat...

Gail's doing just fine, unless she spends like a drunken sailor.

She has the right, bottom line.

I do agree with Chaos Cowboy about a pro rata cut of the profits with right to audit. In the end though, you have to defer to Gail. Frank was one of the first musicians in America to insist on keeping his copyrights. He is one of the shining beacons for artists and musicians who wish to retain their rights. She has every right to issue a cease and desist letter or demand compensation.

Few are arguing that it's not her right, only if it's Right to do so.

of course it's right to collect, that's what intellectual property rights are designed to protect against (as you know). Maybe the best question is: is it necessary?

Perhaps. Though, I can't agree that it is always right to collect. This situation is quite extraordinary - it's not as though Zappa was screwed out of the money he so richly deserved during his career -- like Bo Diddley, for instance -- and these nasty promoters are simply cashing in. After 19 years of this festival, she should be thrilled that it not only glorifies Frank's career and music, but can only help the sales of her late husband's recordings.