The Andrew Bennett Book

[Brett]

Not really sure what you’re asking. No he doesn’t have a right to profit off of the video or images without permission. Why do you think selling bootleg audio and video is illegal?

There is no reason to play devil’s advocate for this person. He’s 100% in the wrong. A court of law ruled on it and he has not complied.

[KS 5150]

Ha-Ha! Is it frame worthy? Where do you hang this?

In your jail cell lol?

[Heisenberg]

I'd be more concerned with the rampant overwhelming unauthorized T-Shirt's sold all over the net.....talk about copyright infringement....that Andrew Bennett book is just a miniscule demographic of EVH psychofans bmuying his book....I'd estimate 300 to 1000 books overall worldwide.....

BUT- Look at all the unauthorized VH T Shirts sold all over the net.....

Many VH fans are completley oblivious to the concept of authenticity.....many of the T-Shirts look stupid as fuck....and the idiots that buy them are happy with their fake unauthorized VH T Shirts....

If I was commisioned by the VH in a capacity to stop the copyright infringement I would go haywire with fury & great vengeance to stop these criminals stealing the VH trademarks selling T Shirts.

Look- When you put a DVD movie into your home theatre TV....the first thing you see is a WARNING....to not copy or distribute the movie....or it will be subject to a fine or imprisinment by order of the FBI!!!!!!

The FBI

Copyright Infringement. FBI.

Serious crime.

Thiefs. Criminals.

Not honest consumers.

Bad for America. Bad for free enterprise.

Bad. Period.

[MF5150]

Not really sure what you’re asking. No he doesn’t have a right to profit off of the video or images without permission. Why do you think selling bootleg audio and video is illegal?

The comparison to bootlegging doesn't make sense. The act is prohibited from the get go because the bands dont give permission to fans to record their shows. AB was given permission to photograph and record video.



But my question was who brought forth that action which resulted in the settlement? EVHL or AB?

He was given permission to shoot everything. At the end of it all nothing came of it and he still had all the footage/pictures. There was no contract signed saying he couldn't do anything with said footage without permission. There was also zero payment for the work that was done.

That's why I'm asking, who brought forth the action in 2015? Was it AB looking for payment? Or was it EVH trying to get back the footage?

I was just curious because it looked like it was an exchange. $7000 for the return of all pictures/video AB shot.

[Brett]

Actually Van Halen gave us permission to record their shows in 2012. I’m not sure about the entire tour but the two special shows that I attended we were told specifically to film as much as we wanted by Dave himself. In fact when we got to the shows, Dave’s videographer who invited us told us we absolutely could video as much as we wanted. So that’s not true Mitch. Do you really think I would have recordings from the front row 5-feet from the band if I wasn’t allowed to? Dave was proudly preening into my phone camera.

It doesn’t matter if he was given permission to record video, he wasn’t given permission to distribute anything dude. Just because you videotape someone doesn’t mean you can legally go and sell it and make money off of it. If someone took video of my band and sold it for money I could go after them. It would be even worse for them if they sold it and we were playing cover music. Now you’ve got several entities involved. I’m pretty sure Van Halen wasn’t giving us any permission to distribute anything for sale just because they allowed us to video their shows. This is a silly argument dude.

I’ll let one of the lawyers chime in if they want to. I don’t know why you’re defending this clown but whatever. I know you like to do that devils advocate shit no matter who it is. He was paid for his time, which was the $7500 that he agreed to. I don’t know why he agreed to that sum, but he did.

If Ed’s case had no merit it would’ve been thrown out. Not only did Ed win, he won in about the most absolute way possible. It also clearly wasn’t about money to Ed as he didn’t even want any legal fees from the guy.

And yes Bennett’s illegal selling of his recordings is no different than bootlegging. In fact that’s exactly what it is.

[Brett]

Oh and Heisenberg is right. Those douchebags selling those bootleg shitty Van Halen shirts all over social media are the ones that need to be fucking stopped as well. They are crooks of the highest order.

[MF5150]

Actually Van Halen gave us permission to record their shows in 2012. I’m not sure about the entire tour but the two special shows that I attended we were told specifically to film as much as we wanted by Dave himself. In fact when we got to the shows, Dave’s videographer who invited us told us we absolutely could video as much as we wanted. So that’s not true Mitch. Do you really think I would have recordings from the front row 5-feet from the band if I wasn’t allowed to? Dave was proudly preening into my phone camera.

It doesn’t matter if he was given permission to record video, he wasn’t given permission to distribute anything dude. Just because you videotape someone doesn’t mean you can legally go and sell it and make money off of it. If someone took video of my band and sold it for money I could go after them. It would be even worse for them if they sold it and we were playing cover music. Now you’ve got several entities involved. I’m pretty sure Van Halen wasn’t giving us any permission to distribute anything for sale just because they allowed us to video their shows. This is a silly argument dude.

I’ll let one of the lawyers chime in if they want to. I don’t know why you’re defending this clown but whatever. I know you like to do that devils advocate shit no matter who it is. He was paid for his time, which was the $7500 that he agreed to. I don’t know why he agreed to that sum, but he did.

If Ed’s case had no merit it would’ve been thrown out. Not only did Ed win, he won in about the most absolute way possible. It also clearly wasn’t about money to Ed as he didn’t even want any legal fees from the guy.

And yes Bennett’s illegal selling of his recordings is no different than bootlegging. In fact that’s exactly what it is.

I never said Ed’s case had no merit.

I never once defended AB in my post.

I was asking who brought forth the action which resulted in the settlement in 2015, because I was genuinely curious as there seemed to be an exchange.


And yes. If I was a photographer and you gave me permission to shoot one of your shows and there was no contract regarding what I could and could not do with the photographs, I could sell the prints.

Why do you think the photographers in the pit have to be issued passes by the band and they have to sign a contract?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zambi]

It's called "work for hire" which is defined by U.S. federal copyright statute. Generally the person who creates the art owns the intellectual property. Work for hire is an exception to that rule, where the person or entity hiring the artist (this case photog/videographer) retains ownership of all I.P. created under the contract for services.

Ed (or more likely a VH or EVH entity) hired A.B. under a work for hire arrangement, so Ed or his estate (or the VH entity that hired A.B.) owns the copyright to everything A.B. photographed or recorded on video or audio under the agreement. The VH camp (the "hiring entity") owns the copyrights for whatever A.B. did under the agreement for 120 years. If the VH camp decides to publish any of it, the copyright exclusivity is reduced 25 years. A.B. had no business or right to publish any of it, as the VH camp "owns" everything A.B. did under that agreement.

The Wiki version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

[MF5150]

It's called "work for hire" which is defined by U.S. federal copyright statute. Generally the person who creates the art owns the intellectual property. Work for hire is an exception to that rule, where the person or entity hiring the artist (this case photog/videographer) retains ownership of all I.P. created under the contract for services.

Ed (or more likely a VH or EVH entity) hired A.B. under a work for hire arrangement, so Ed or his estate (or the VH entity that hired A.B.) owns the copyright to everything A.B. photographed or recorded on video or audio under the agreement. The VH camp (the "hiring entity") owns the copyrights for whatever A.B. did under the agreement for 120 years. If the VH camp decides to publish any of it, the copyright exclusivity is reduced 25 years. A.B. had no business or right to publish any of it, as the VH camp "owns" everything A.B. did under that agreement.

The Wiki version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

Interesting.

“In the copyright law of the United States, a work made for hire (work for hire or WFH) is a work subject to copyright that is created by an employee as part of his or her job, or some limited types of works for which all parties agree in writing to the WFH designation. ”

This is obviously the part that Ed got wrong, unfortunately.

Either way, AB settled so that should have been the end of it, I agree. But without anything in writing prior to the 2015 lawsuit he would have been fine publishing his works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zambi]

This is obviously the part that Ed got wrong, unfortunately.

Either way, AB settled so that should have been the end of it, I agree. But without anything in writing prior to the 2015 lawsuit he would have been fine publishing his works.

The "law" is likely not that clear cut as to what is actually in writing governs. It might be a so-called "bright line rule" reading of the statute, but I doubt it. More likely courts will look to other evidence and circumstances to determine the intent of the parties. I.P. law does tend to be more "by the letter" compared to some other areas of law, but frankly this situation is a classic "work for hire" situation. No artist or entity with a 9 or 10-digit value I.P. portfolio is going to bring someone into the fold and turn over I.P. rights. And then A.B. sat on it for 11 years, which demonstrates his understanding of the relationship and that he was work for hire. Then read the court opinion linked to up-thread.

Work for hire issues are usually hashed out at a much lower level. Think wedding or amusement park with photographers. Does the photog own the rights and get to (try to) re-sell it to the persons in the pictures? Sure for the low level plebian weddings like you or me probably had. But at the hollywood level? Hell no, it is work for hire and the celeb owns everything that happens there and the photog is on a job. That's where you see work for hire in contracts and negotiating that issue on the front end. Also where a big corporation brings in a small vendor or individual to do something, such as software solutions.

Something like VH and a second-rate videographer being invited into the artist's home to record for a potential future documentary of some sort for the celeb? That is classic work for hire.

Ain't no way A.B. could pass a lie detector test that this wasn't work for hire. Doesn't pass the sniff test that he didn't know and understand the arrangement. And sitting on it for 11 years is strong evidence supporting the VH argument. Clearly the court agreed, and A.B. didn't bother to show up at court to even attempt to challenge it.

[N.B. - My area of law is regulatory for an "unregulated" industry, and not intellectual property. So I am speaking in in terms of educated guesses. The outcome from the court speaks volumes though.]

[LAD-1972]

He should’ve taken the guitar...

[MF5150]

The "law" is likely not that clear cut as to what is actually in writing governs. It might be a so-called "bright line rule" reading of the statute, but I doubt it. More likely courts will look to other evidence and circumstances to determine the intent of the parties. I.P. law does tend to be more "by the letter" compared to some other areas of law, but frankly this situation is a classic "work for hire" situation. No artist or entity with a 9 or 10-digit value I.P. portfolio is going to bring someone into the fold and turn over I.P. rights. And then A.B. sat on it for 11 years, which demonstrates his understanding of the relationship and that he was work for hire. Then read the court opinion linked to up-thread.

Work for hire issues are usually hashed out at a much lower level. Think wedding or amusement park with photographers. Does the photog own the rights and get to (try to) re-sell it to the persons in the pictures? Sure for the low level plebian weddings like you or me probably had. But at the hollywood level? Hell no, it is work for hire and the celeb owns everything that happens there and the photog is on a job. That's where you see work for hire in contracts and negotiating that issue on the front end. Also where a big corporation brings in a small vendor or individual to do something, such as software solutions.

Something like VH and a second-rate videographer being invited into the artist's home to record for a potential future documentary of some sort for the celeb? That is classic work for hire.

Ain't no way A.B. could pass a lie detector test that this wasn't work for hire. Doesn't pass the sniff test that he didn't know and understand the arrangement. And sitting on it for 11 years is strong evidence supporting the VH argument. Clearly the court agreed, and A.B. didn't bother to show up at court to even attempt to challenge it.

[N.B. - My area of law is regulatory for an "unregulated" industry, and not intellectual property. So I am speaking in in terms of educated guesses. The outcome from the court speaks volumes though.]

Interesting insights, man. Thank you!

He wasn't paid though. So, how does that factor into the equation initially, pre-settlement? Surely, the "we didn't have a contract" is not a one way street. If it's to be assumed that it was a WFH without anything in writing than AB was entitled to assume that he was going to be paid for his work, without anything in writing stating as such. And we know he wasn't until it went before the courts, 8 years later.


For as many problems as this guy obviously has, nobody will be able to convince me that this wasn't a case of a corporation (EVHL) taking advantage of a relatively unknown photographer. If that wasn't the case, they would have paid him in 07' and been done with it. Being a drug addict doesn't preclude you from being paid what you're rightfully owed upon completion of work.

I'm also perplexed as to why he settled for $7000. Thats literally 1/10 what he should have been paid for this work at minimum. 3 years of work, virtually day in/day out. Any decent lawyer would have been able to argue that he was owed a whole hell of a lot more by an entity such as EVHL.

I'm sure there's more to this, that we're never going to hear about. I can't imagine any publisher would have come within 100 ft of this guy if they felt it was a lawsuit waiting to happen. Their lawyers would have done their dd.

[Destructo2]

Interesting.

“In the copyright law of the United States, a work made for hire (work for hire or WFH) is a work subject to copyright that is created by an employee as part of his or her job, or some limited types of works for which all parties agree in writing to the WFH designation. ”

This is obviously the part that Ed got wrong, unfortunately.

Either way, AB settled so that should have been the end of it, I agree. But without anything in writing prior to the 2015 lawsuit he would have been fine publishing his works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s such an over simplistic view of this I wouldn’t even know where to begin. (Not a criticism as this stuff is not easy even for trained lawyers.) I guess the easiest way for people to understand is the scope of Ed’s win in court and this dirt bags complete fraud from taking the money with NO intent to turn over anything he agreed to. Extending to his verbal “fuck you” to the courts ruling including the injunction obtained. If your inclined to defend this guy I hope you never find yourself in business with anyone like him.

[MF5150]

That’s such an over simplistic view of this I wouldn’t even know where to begin. (Not a criticism as this stuff is not easy even for trained lawyers.) I guess the easiest way for people to understand is the scope of Ed’s win in court and this dirt bags complete fraud from taking the money with NO intent to turn over anything he agreed to. Extending to his verbal “fuck you” to the courts ruling including the injunction obtained. If your inclined to defend this guy I hope you never find yourself in business with anyone like him.

I specifically said “prior to the settlement” in that post.

I’m not arguing that post-settlement he shouldn’t have abided by the ruling nor am I defending him for taking the $$$ and not holding up his end of it.

Not sure where you got that from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cav]

Here’s a thought.
What artist will hire AB moving forward in light of this debacle?
Trust is the gold standard.
AB has effectively shot him self in the foot with a bazooka.