Napoleon Murphy Brock’s physical CD, This Is What Frank Zappa Heard, recorded live at the Red Noodle in Waikiki, Hawaii on September 9th, 1973 gives an example of what Frank Zappa heard when he was looking for a lead singer for the Roxy band. Available from CDBaby for $19.00 (US). Listen to brief samples here.
Y’all got a permit to use that ghostly image of FZ?
I can hear what Frank heard, I think. Nappy sounds good, and the band sounds good.
[quote comment=”28365″]Y’all got a permit to use that ghostly image of FZ?[/quote]
I’m really tiring of this notion that everybody needs to approach the ZFT with bended knee each time an image of FZ is used. Hello? They do not own every image, nor do they have a say in how those images are disseminated. From the perspective of copyright and trademark, recent court losses only go to prove that they have grossly overstepped what they do have rights to, and reveal a pattern of bully tactics in lieu of actual legality.
I think Alex was kidding…no?
It’s a legit question – that’s the photo from the cover of The Yellow Shark, photoshopped. How much do you have to photoshop an image before you don’t have to pay for it? Napoleon Murphy Brock seems to be on good terms with the ZFT, and I imagine he’d ask, or the record company would ask.
let’s be petty…and why use a photo from nearly twenty years after the famous canoodle at the noodle? OK, I’ll give the napster a break. He is a MUSICIAN, not a graphic artist.
Good terms? I don’t think he’ll be working with ZPZ again, since he’s been touring a lot with the Grandmothers lately.
[quote comment=”28405″]It’s a legit question – that’s the photo from the cover of The Yellow Shark, photoshopped. How much do you have to photoshop an image before you don’t have to pay for it? Napoleon Murphy Brock seems to be on good terms with the ZFT, and I imagine he’d ask, or the record company would ask.[/quote]
You do have a point, Birdman, but there is also something known as “fair use” since Brock is not actually profiting from the image. The music is his, the CD is his, and his “fair use” of the image by no means interferes with any of the ZFT’s business ventures. Indeed, even the ZFT can be accused of appropriating imagery for some of their recent releases.
[quote comment=”28418″][quote comment=”28405″]It’s a legit question – that’s the photo from the cover of The Yellow Shark, photoshopped. How much do you have to photoshop an image before you don’t have to pay for it? Napoleon Murphy Brock seems to be on good terms with the ZFT, and I imagine he’d ask, or the record company would ask.[/quote]
You do have a point, Birdman, but there is also something known as “fair use” since Brock is not actually profiting from the image. The music is his, the CD is his, and his “fair use” of the image by no means interferes with any of the ZFT’s business ventures. Indeed, even the ZFT can be accused of appropriating imagery for some of their recent releases.[/quote]
Addendum: In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Now, has NMB really infringed upon the Yellow Shark, Birdman? Can you tell that Nappy’s CD is separate and distinct? And the use if the FZ image is therefore, “fair use”?
Not “The Yellow Shark”, but the picture on the cover of the CD. The photograph is copyrighted separately and cannot be reproduced without written consent of the copyright holder (says so on the back cover). For all I know, the copyright holder is not ZFT. Photoshopped versions of a picture are “derivative works” and copyright applies to derivative works. A CD cover is commercial, so it isn’t fair use. Using the photograph from “Yellow Shark” is just like the problem with the original cover photo on MAJNH – and rather than pay a licensing fee, they changed the cover of MAJNH. Does everyone agree that this is a photoshopped version of the Yellow Shark picture? It’s reversed, but look at the way the hair curls below FZs chin.
Anyway, I think NMB would ask before using the picture, knowing the Zappas as he does, so it’s a moot point and a hypothetical type of argument. Has anyone heard the whole CD? It sounds alright from the samples.
I think where we disagree, Birdman, is that grey area of fair use where appropriated images often find themselves – whether that be as a thumbnail image in a review, or on Nappy’s CD. Copyright is not an absolute right that covers everything (even if the back of a ZFT CD attempts to say so). There are some instance in which permission must be obtained (i.e. specific Orchestral Performances of copywritten scores) while others are not (for instance, Zappanale’s use of the Zappa image which institutes fair use). It’s my opinion that Nappy’s use of Zappa’s image falls under the same use as Zappanale’s.
Perhaps someone close to Napoleon Murphy Brock will pose this question to him as to whether he actually sought permission to use the image or used it under the fair use clause?
I had to check my recent CD of “Ummagumma” after checking the wikipedia page to see that, yes, the cover of “Gigi” has reappeared after being airbrushed from previous releases. I’m trying to think of other album covers that feature copyrighted images. Bob Dylan “Bringing It All Back Home”, ELO “Eldorado” (which they must’ve had to pay a licensing fee for). Zappanale isn’t in the US, so the laws are different.
Also, the note on the back cover of Yellow Shark says that Zappa and Frank Zappa are trademarks (but all the letters are capitalized — I won’t tempt fate. Here’s something interesting I copied directly from spam.com — “If the term is to be used, it should be used in all lower-case letters to distinguish it from our trademark SPAM, which should be used with all uppercase letters. “) I don’t even know what that means, really. Law is too baffling for me to comprehend. I’ll go back to checking out porn stars before and after boobs jobs. There’s a lot of material for research and I can understand the real-world ramifications of it.
Also, on the Ummagumma wiki page, I read that Roger Waters is pictured standing in front of the Elfin Oak. Following the links, I discover a lengthy list of individual oak trees with names. Who knew? Forget before-and-after boob jobs, I could spend the evening learning about these individual oak trees. Google has fractured my attention span. Anyone see the commercial for, I think, Bing, where people hear a word that triggers them to spout random facts related to that word?
Does anyone plan to get this NMB CD? Even the grooves sound like Zappa’s ’74 band. He nicked their singer and their groovy sound, no?
[quote comment=”28437″]Perhaps someone close to Napoleon Murphy Brock will pose this question to him…[/quote]
Great idea! While you are at it, would you also ask him if he ever saw Frank naked?
Umm…back to the CD itself. The samples sound rather wonky. This would be fun to have a tape of but not for $19.00. It’s fun to hear Napoleon before he hooked up with Frank, but seems a little steep to me.
[quote comment=”28440″][quote comment=”28437″]Perhaps someone close to Napoleon Murphy Brock will pose this question to him…[/quote]
Great idea! While you are at it, would you also ask him if he ever saw Frank naked?[/quote]
Alex, I think everyone has seen Frank naked. lol
[quote comment=”28438″]I had to check my recent CD of “Ummagumma” after checking the wikipedia page to see that, yes, the cover of “Gigi” has reappeared after being airbrushed from previous releases. I’m trying to think of other album covers that feature copyrighted images. Bob Dylan “Bringing It All Back Home”, ELO “Eldorado” (which they must’ve had to pay a licensing fee for). Zappanale isn’t in the US, so the laws are different.
Also, the note on the back cover of Yellow Shark says that Zappa and Frank Zappa are trademarks (but all the letters are capitalized — I won’t tempt fate. Here’s something interesting I copied directly from spam.com — “If the term is to be used, it should be used in all lower-case letters to distinguish it from our trademark SPAM, which should be used with all uppercase letters. “) I don’t even know what that means, really. Law is too baffling for me to comprehend. I’ll go back to checking out porn stars before and after boobs jobs. There’s a lot of material for research and I can understand the real-world ramifications of it.[/quote]
You have correctly identified how unevenly applied some copyright law is applied, Birdman. For instance, living in Canada, we are considered pirates because our government won’t go along with the draconian US interpretation of copyright. When the US law first changed, the first reaction of the larger record companies were just as you described, to airbrush all copyright images from older albums without first consulting the artists or their legal representatives. As these companies soon discovered, US law does not apply worldwide. At least, not yet.
As we all know, by the way, appropriation of images has long been a artform in and of itself used by a myriad of artists. Imagine all the excellent album covers that have made use of it – the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, even Zappa and the Mothers…
Most excellent conversation – may I appropriate for my college thesis?
For what it’s worth, the cover image appears to be derived from the ‘Hamburg church’ CDs that Napi has appeared on in recent years. (see http://www.united-mutations.com/s/sy_zsfb.jpg and http://www.united-mutations.com/b/boguspomp_zappa_bach.jpg
Excellent catch, Andrew! The image on Napi’s CD does, indeed, appear from the poster used to promote the opening of the 2008 edition of the Zappanale Festival recorded live at the St. Katharinen Church in Hamburg, Germany on 2008/08/13 (the image, itself is reversed).
[quote comment=”28398″][quote comment=”28365″]Y’all got a permit to use that ghostly image of FZ?[/quote]
I’m really tiring of this notion that everybody needs to approach the ZFT with bended knee each time an image of FZ is used. Hello? They do not own every image, nor do they have a say in how those images are disseminated. From the perspective of copyright and trademark, recent court losses only go to prove that they have grossly overstepped what they do have rights to, and reveal a pattern of bully tactics in lieu of actual legality.[/quote]
You tell ’em….again.
Pppropriated from another place…a tiny little French man
http://chickcorea.com/wp/wp-content/images/2011/02/australia/rtf-australia-7.jpg