AFter seeing one of the paintings in question, I'd say the painter clearly violated the song writer's copyright. The entire painting IS the lyrics from the songs. That's not fair use, that just USE. The songwriter should definitely be a co-creator the painting since it's his copyrighted work that's being presented. If the paintings were anything other than the lyrics (street scenes, abstract blobs, etc), then the painter would not have been contacted in the first place. But this is clearly NOT fair use.
This article reinforces something I've been trying to get people to see for a while now: a reasonably LIMITED copyright term. Creators get paid for the work they do, but that work doesn't become a retire account for their grandkids.
Limit copyrights to 25 years and everyone wins. Creators have get a government-backed monopoly on the opportunity to get paid for their work, but the limit insures they will create more - to keep the potential cash flowing. Society gets more art, creators get paid, everybody wins.
I can think of at least one. When a venue/restaurant/whatever comes on board with BMI/ASCAP/SESAC, they get a monitor to put in their venue/restaurant/whatever. The monitor uses a technology like Shazam (not that specific one, but similar) to listen for songs registered by that collection society. When a song they cover is performed, the artist gets an automated royalty, which is paid out once per quarter. All of this is automated, so this portion of it is very low overhead. They'll need people to talk with the venues/restaurants/whatever, which most of these societies already have.
With this idea, everyone wins. The society can point directly at the data for proof they are paying what they are supposed to and become more transparent (which is always a good thing). The artists/writers get exactly what they should, no more, no less. Music fans get more places to hear music. Restaurants and coffeeshops can offer music as an attractor to their place. Electronics companies get to produce the monitors. Software guys get to program the automated systems. Everyone wins.
Fair use? No...
AFter seeing one of the paintings in question, I'd say the painter clearly violated the song writer's copyright. The entire painting IS the lyrics from the songs. That's not fair use, that just USE. The songwriter should definitely be a co-creator the painting since it's his copyrighted work that's being presented. If the paintings were anything other than the lyrics (street scenes, abstract blobs, etc), then the painter would not have been contacted in the first place. But this is clearly NOT fair use.
Sensible copyright
This article reinforces something I've been trying to get people to see for a while now: a reasonably LIMITED copyright term. Creators get paid for the work they do, but that work doesn't become a retire account for their grandkids.
Limit copyrights to 25 years and everyone wins. Creators have get a government-backed monopoly on the opportunity to get paid for their work, but the limit insures they will create more - to keep the potential cash flowing. Society gets more art, creators get paid, everybody wins.
Re: spell checker
I believe you missed his band name, The Ignerents. The purposeful misspelling was a reference to his band name.
Re: better business model
I can think of at least one. When a venue/restaurant/whatever comes on board with BMI/ASCAP/SESAC, they get a monitor to put in their venue/restaurant/whatever. The monitor uses a technology like Shazam (not that specific one, but similar) to listen for songs registered by that collection society. When a song they cover is performed, the artist gets an automated royalty, which is paid out once per quarter. All of this is automated, so this portion of it is very low overhead. They'll need people to talk with the venues/restaurants/whatever, which most of these societies already have.
With this idea, everyone wins. The society can point directly at the data for proof they are paying what they are supposed to and become more transparent (which is always a good thing). The artists/writers get exactly what they should, no more, no less. Music fans get more places to hear music. Restaurants and coffeeshops can offer music as an attractor to their place. Electronics companies get to produce the monitors. Software guys get to program the automated systems. Everyone wins.
Re: Special Case
Oddly, enough he doesn't sing, he produces dance/electronica jazz.