Books Update

[Jaco]

Any news on the various books in the pipeline? Richards Searlings, Soul Harmony Singles, Record finding stories? Would be a welcome addition prior to Xmas.

[Soulman]

C'mon Jaco, there's so much going on with the literary side of the Northern Soul world..... you could write a book about it

Steve

[Jaco]

So some news that Richards book will be out late 2013. Any news on the other 2 books?

[boba]

soul harmony singles has been in limbo for a year but hopefully moving ahead to publishing soon (e.g. Jeff finalizing the layout in quark). It's never ending though because every single day new information or previously unknown records come out, it's not like there's some point of stasis where stuff gradually slows down and no new info comes out. the new book is at least twice the size as the last one. it just has to be cut off at some point and published.

[Jaco]

soul harmony singles has been in limbo for a year but hopefully moving ahead to publishing soon (e.g. Jeff finalizing the layout in quark). It's never ending though because every single day new information or previously unknown records come out, it's not like there's some point of stasis where stuff gradually slows down and no new info comes out. the new book is at least twice the size as the last one. it just has to be cut off at some point and published.

Thanks Bob. Really looking forward to this publication, never did get the original despite much hunting.

[Ric-tic]

just read that kev roberts northern soul story is updated and released in november this time its called the difinitive northern soul top 500 blimey talk about squeezing a........

[Guest]

soul harmony singles has been in limbo for a year but hopefully moving ahead to publishing soon (e.g. Jeff finalizing the layout in quark). It's never ending though because every single day new information or previously unknown records come out, it's not like there's some point of stasis where stuff gradually slows down and no new info comes out. the new book is at least twice the size as the last one. it just has to be cut off at some point and published.

Complete empathy...thats kinda where my book on 'US Soul 7" that came out in Japan' is at...I've already expanded it up to 1975 (originally only went up to 1970), and the discs, pic covers, labels and memorabilia just keeps on coming in! One day I'll stop, one day...put me down for late 2013 as well...maybe!

[Windlesoul]

For my Carolina / Virginia / Georgia 60's soul final draft I've selected the bands I wanted to research and set a personal deadline to the end of this year, otherwise same thing, I'd be going on for years. As I'm only focussing on 60s, it is self contained from a date line respect suppose. However still got never-ending material coming in though, which I wont be able to be deal with this time around because of my schedule, but more than enough for a second edition! Also have found as you go through the process band members give you leads and links to yet more bands and history etc to research. It also means I can have the chance to correct any errors or omissions from the first book .

Whilst we have this writers' guild thing going on, can I ask what folks are doing about the legalities of using band promo shots from a copyright perspective? I know there's an unwritten rule that as they was designed for publicity nobody usually pursues copyright action if permission has not been obtained, but technically we should be asking the booking / promo agency / label (where of course these folks can be traced).... in order to do the right thing I have been primarily using personal photos supplied by the band members who I have been interviewing, but just wonder what others are doing? The 50 / 70 year 'free all' rule doesn't quite apply yet I suppose.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Windlesoul

[Chalky]

I don't think Andy's diggin' book will be out this year, I think stories are still coming in and waiting on others who have promising tales of crate diggin'. Sure Andy or Nicola will give you more details when and if they read this.

[boba]

Whilst we have this writers' guild thing going on, can I ask what folks are doing about the legalities of using band promo shots from a copyright perspective? I know there's an unwritten rule that as they was designed for publicity nobody usually pursues copyright action if permission has not been obtained, but technically we should be asking the booking / promo agency / label (where of course these folks can be traced).... in order to do the right thing I have been primarily using personal photos supplied by the band members who I have been interviewing, but just wonder what others are doing? The 50 / 70 year 'free all' rule doesn't quite apply yet I suppose.

This is a sticky issue but pretty much everyone (including a music book publisher I know) considers them fair use. Keith Rylatt did license from the photographers for his book though.

[Guest]

However still got never-ending material coming in though, which I wont be able to be deal with this time around because of my schedule, but more than enough for a second edition! Also have found as you go through the process band members give you leads and links to yet more bands and history etc to research. It also means I can have the chance to correct any errors or omissions from the first book .

I have been 'ready to press' several times, but then a long chat with a guy over here with plenty of experience of writing music books said to me that books are worth doing comprehensively from the start, and shouldn't be rushed...some projects take 5, 10, 15+ years and then become bench marks. He also said that by doing something in an incomplete fashion may also come across as just showing what you have in ones collection, rather than a comprehensive piece. Unless one has all the records being referred to of course!

Onwards!

[Guest]

This is a sticky issue but pretty much everyone (including a music book publisher I know) considers them fair use. Keith Rylatt did license from the photographers for his book though.

Sleeve scans are another sticky point! Then there are the technical differences between whether a book is actually a book, or can be classed as a magazine! That can affect distribution and costings. Then there is the decision to self-publish or go with an established house!

[Dave Moore]

I started a book two years ago.

Research, garnering assets, interviewing people, travelling to locations, and then planning how to collate all the info, all take up huge amounts of time, effort (and money). And that's all before you put pen to paper!

I budgeted a year to complete the project. At the moment I have 200 of the almost 400 pages completed. Everytime I 'complete' a chapter, I learn something new and have to revisit. There will obviously come a time when it will have to be 'complete' but I wish I'd realised the effort it would take and the frustrations of dealing with 40/50 year old material and people who think you're going to make a million pounds and want their share of it.

My self imposed deadline is now Dec 21st. ..............we'll see.

There's one old adage that keeps me sane though......if a job is worth doing.......well, you know the rest.

Good luck to all our SS authors, I wish you all well and will buy a copy of anything you write about artists, labels, writers, producers etc. I have nothing but admiration for you.

Onwards and Upwards!

Regards,

Dave

[Steve G]

Hi,

I am 72,000 words into The Scepter Wand story so far and still on 1966 (!).....This is covering all aspects of the labels....not just soul, but of course will include some difinitive detail on the soul side of things......I expect to have first draft finished by March...so hopefully out in good time for Xmas 2013....Steve

[Windlesoul]

....and newspaper images or clippings, even the smallest of papers from the sixties are archived or currently owned if they still exist by larger congloms - who tend to have a permission cost per use, they are after all in the business. I've had situations where I actually know the photographer who took the shots and is willing to grant permission but because they were a press photographer copyright isn't deemed theirs. Bloody frustrating.

[Guest]

Hi,

I am 72,000 words into The Scepter Wand story so far and still on 1966 (!).....This is covering all aspects of the labels...

A mighty topic you've chosen there, Steve!

Are you mentioning the non-US releases of Flo's products?

[Roburt]

I started a book two years ago.

Research, garnering assets, interviewing people, travelling to locations, and then planning how to collate all the info, all take up huge amounts of time, effort (and money). And that's all before you put pen to paper!

I budgeted a year to complete the project. At the moment I have 200 of the almost 400 pages completed.

My self imposed deadline is now Dec 21st. ..............we'll see.

Onwards and Upwards! Regards, Dave

I started work on my book about 18 months ago with a deadline of Spring 2012.

Still only 70% through the research stage & only 50% through the 'initial draft chapters' stage.

............... set myself a spring 2013 date to finish it now.

Mind you, coming on here & finding a topic that interests me has me shooting off at tagents numerous times.

That slows down work on my major project.

I also get involved in 'smaller projects' & get to post up an article quickly (on here or the like).

Everything seems to slow my major project down these days ... PLUS .... my source / collaborator will tell me some fact or other & that will open up a whole new area that I have to research.

[Steve G]

A mighty topic you've chosen there, Steve!

Are you mentioning the non-US releases of Flo's products?

Hi Dave, yes, but not majoring on them.

So will mention some of the licensing deals and countries.

Steve.

[Jaco]

So by my reckoning that's another 5 books in the pipeline!

Xmas 2013 might be a belter.

[Dave Moore]

So by my reckoning that's another 5 books in the pipeline!

Xmas 2013 might be a belter.

There are still books to had this year Jaco. Not sure where you're interest lies but these are certainly worth a look at if it's the type of thing you're interested in. Here's a couple I found great this year:

Temples of Sound - Jim Cogan and William Clark - ISBN 0-8118-3394-1

Showtime At The Apollo - Ted Fox - ISBN 0-03-060533-4

Regards,

Dave

[MrsWoodsrules]

Asked Richard about a book, said that the research & pictures were the biggest hassle because of time factors.

My impression was that a book wasn't imminent, sort of project for the future.

Aid.

[Amsterdam Russ]

Whilst we have this writers' guild thing going on, can I ask what folks are doing about the legalities of using band promo shots from a copyright perspective? I know there's an unwritten rule that as they was designed for publicity nobody usually pursues copyright action if permission has not been obtained, but technically we should be asking the booking / promo agency / label (where of course these folks can be traced).... in order to do the right thing I have been primarily using personal photos supplied by the band members who I have been interviewing, but just wonder what others are doing? The 50 / 70 year 'free all' rule doesn't quite apply yet I suppose.

Publicity images are released on the basis that they can be freely reproduced in an editorial context, i.e., in magazines, books, newspapers, in TV reports and anywhere else where text is provided as an information source to users. Copyright is not an issue.

However, if you were to use publicity images in a commercial context, for example, had them printed on t-shirts which you then sold, and had not agreed commercial usage rights with a) the people in the image, b) the agents/representatives of same, and c) the photographer, then you run the risk of facing legal action from any or all of them.

It's the same with scans of records/labels/sleeves - use them in an editorial context and there are no copyright issues.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Russell Gilbert

[Jaco]

There are still books to had this year Jaco. Not sure where you're interest lies but these are certainly worth a look at if it's the type of thing you're interested in. Here's a couple I found great this year:

Temples of Sound - Jim Cogan and William Clark - ISBN 0-8118-3394-1

Showtime At The Apollo - Ted Fox - ISBN 0-03-060533-4

Regards,

Dave

Got the Temples of Sound book Dave, it's from a few years ago if my memory serves me well.

Will check out Showtime at the Apollo - thanks for the tip.

[Steve G]

Publicity images are released on the basis that they can be freely reproduced in an editorial context, i.e., in magazines, books, newspapers, in TV reports and anywhere else where text is provided as an information source to users. Copyright is not an issue.

However, if you were to use publicity images in a commercial context, for example, had them printed on t-shirts which you then sold, and had not agreed commercial usage rights with a) the people in the image, b) the agents/representatives of same, and c) the photographer, then you run the risk of facing legal action from any or all of them.

It's the same with scans of records/labels/sleeves - use them in an editorial context and there are no copyright issues.

What an excellent post!

[boba]

Publicity images are released on the basis that they can be freely reproduced in an editorial context, i.e., in magazines, books, newspapers, in TV reports and anywhere else where text is provided as an information source to users. Copyright is not an issue.

However, if you were to use publicity images in a commercial context, for example, had them printed on t-shirts which you then sold, and had not agreed commercial usage rights with a) the people in the image, b) the agents/representatives of same, and c) the photographer, then you run the risk of facing legal action from any or all of them.

It's the same with scans of records/labels/sleeves - use them in an editorial context and there are no copyright issues.

This is true, but the fair use argument is entirely separate -- e.g. copyrighted photos, used in an educational / discographical context, for profit or not, potentially falls under fair use. Obviously everyone thinks everything is "fair use" but it's pretty standard for music book publishers and liner note publishers at this point (even though they are making a .profit) to claim fair use on publicity photos. The publicity photo aspect just adds to the argument -- e.g. the photos were sent out there to give a face to the group.

It's also worth noting that "publicity photos" weren't always made for editorial context -- the whole reason that there is that huge globe poster collection is that the photos were taken and used so that the group's picture could be reproduced on the poster.

[Chalky]

I think you will find copyright applies to a photo, image on a sleeve, logo etc just like it does with a recording. Permission is required if you wish to use what someone else has produced. Copyright for a photo is applied as soon as the photo is taken and doesn't need to be registered. Copyright is owned by either the photographer or by the company the photographer is employed by.

Whilst fair use will apply to publicity images that ae released for the press they might only be issued to one exclusive outlet and anyone using without permission could be in breach of copyright. There might be restrictions/copyright implications if the images are later reproduced?

A simply google will give you everything you need to know.

[boba]

This whole thread* is about the application of copyright to photos, nobody was saying they were public domain. I acknowledged that fair use is totally blurry but what I stated is the reality of how most book publishers and record labels treat the photos. Googling won't reveal that.

I specifically heard something about Kriegsman photos going into the public domain, anyone have any info on that?

*Edit: sub-thread

[Windlesoul]

Use of photos in a scholarly or editorial context as I understand it (both us and Uk) without seeking permission of the natural copyright holder applies to non profit organisations for research purposes eg research in an academic environment or other non commercial context such as an article written not for profit (and they still have to acknowledge source). In terms of commercial gain ventures I find it difficult to see the difference between a book and a t-shirt (unless the book donates all profits to charity)?

Edited October 16, 2012 by Windlesoul

[Windlesoul]

Anybody know a copyright lawyer?!

[Chalky]

Use of photos in a scholarly or editorial context as I understand it (both us and Uk) without seeking permission of the natural copyright holder applies to non profit organisations (and they still have to acknowledge source). In terms of commercial gain organisations I fail to see the difference between a book and a t-shirt (unless the book donates all profits to charity)?

There is no difference between a book and a t-shirt, permission is required to use anything where a copyright exists. Some obscure image from the 60's might prove impossible to locate the copyright owner.

[Windlesoul]

That's the issue, the balance between using old obscure images or promo pics and the risk the author feels they want to take regards litigation if the original copyright holder wants to pursue copyright claim. In all cases, every effort should be made to contact the original holder . Some universities have a good practice policy in this regard, eg 3 written attempts to request permission. Even after this, could still be an infringement if somebody pops their head up after a no response. If the originator of the image can't be found at all or is undetermined, same thing.

[Dave Rimmer]

Anybody know a copyright lawyer?!

No, but I know a professional photographer who still recieves payments from an agency who manage the photographs she took years ago. If someone uses one of her images in a book, or on a website, they have to pay. Simple as that.

[Amsterdam Russ]

It's a good time to point out that 'fair use' is a principle that applies to USA copyright legislation - not the UK. The UK uses principles known 'fair dealings', which are stricter. The blanket use of the term 'fair use' is confusing because what might be acceptable in the USA isn't necessary acceptable in another.

An image of just about anything is automatically protected by copyright. However, copyright owners can and do permit their work to be used under various licenses. In certain situations this works as being implied consent for the material to be used. Press/publicity images carry an implied license that allows media publishers to use them freely and without the need for permission. Sometimes this may require that attribution is given - that the name of the photographer/agency is printed alongside any published image.

The majority of photographers want to have control over how their work is used. They require a commercial licence of one form or another before an image can be reproduced by anyone else.

A photographer taking images of a band for a record label will usually have signed a contract that assigns the licencing rights of the images to the record label, or perhaps to the agents/representatives of the group. It works much like it did in the darker days of the music recording industry, where artists and groups were often paid a one-off fee for recording the song or session and didn't get the copyrights, royalties or any other rights.

In the USA, this type of deal falls under the 'work for hire' laws, which basically say: if I employ you as a contractor, anything you create, and any rights associated with them, belongs to me.

The thing about copyright law, no matter which country you apply it to, is that it is generally not black and white, right or wrong. Instead, laws provide broad guidelines about what is allowed and what isn't, and each case is judged on the specifics of the situation.

Just to reiterate - reproducing publicity stills, labels scans, record sleeves in an editorial context - no matter which country you're in - should not be a problem. By 'publicity stills', I mean those images that were distributed freely to the press for use in magazines, newspapers, etc, etc...

[boba]

There is no difference between a book and a t-shirt, permission is required to use anything where a copyright exists. Some obscure image from the 60's might prove impossible to locate the copyright owner.

except in cases of fair use, which is admittedly a mess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

it's pretty easy for soul publicity photos to know the copyright holder as most are watermarked at the bottom with the specific studio (e.g. kriegsman).

I do know an IP lawyer but I haven't talked to him about the use of publicity photos in books. I have talked to a guy I play poker with, who is a music-related book publisher.

[boba]

The thing about copyright law, no matter which country you apply it to, is that it is generally not black and white, right or wrong. Instead, laws provide broad guidelines about what is allowed and what isn't, and each case is judged on the specifics of the situation.

we're pretty much in agreement on this

Just to reiterate - reproducing publicity stills, labels scans, record sleeves in an editorial context - no matter which country you're in - should not be a problem. By 'publicity stills', I mean those images that were distributed freely to the press for use in magazines, newspapers, etc, etc...

even this is not totally clear -- e.g. what constitutes an "editorial context", especially if it's a for-profit business. For example, allmusic is filled with reviews of artists. At face value that's "editorial". However, they license out their content to tons of places, making it pretty commercial.

[Amsterdam Russ]

even this is not totally clear -- e.g. what constitutes an "editorial context", especially if it's a for-profit business. For example, allmusic is filled with reviews of artists. At face value that's "editorial". However, they license out their content to tons of places, making it pretty commercial.

You're talking about two separate, but closely-related things here. One is about what defines an editorial context, and the other is whether publicity photos can be included in the resale or licencing of editorial content to other sources.

To answer the first question, the Oxford Dictionary offers this definition of 'editorial':

relating to the part of a newspaper or magazine which contains news, information, or comment as opposed to advertising

That seems pretty clear cut to me.

Nowadays, of course, you need to include online publishing to that. The boundaries between what is editorial and what is advertising blur in publishing (as it does on broadcast media as well). So much so that there is a third category of content in media, the advertorial, which is commercial/advertising content presented as editorial. This, however, is usually paid for by a client, and so is deemed as being advertising rather than editorial (indeed, once upon a time, most magazines would clearly label advertorial as such so as to not confuse its readers).

Regarding the latter part of your question, my feeling is that if editorial were being sold or licensed for money - and the publicity photos were included in that product - then anyone with a copyright/licencing claim to any of the images might successfully argue that this is a commercial package (after all, money is changing hands), and under law should be treated as such. But that's only a guess on my part...

Edited October 16, 2012 by Russell Gilbert

[Guest]

No, but I know a professional photographer who still recieves payments from an agency who manage the photographs she took years ago. If someone uses one of her images in a book, or on a website, they have to pay. Simple as that.

What it comes down to is how I sold the image originally -- sort of much like musicians who sold their rights for a one-off payment and never got any royalties... Generally I only sell images for a specific use, so the invoice will say something like "for 1/8 page reproduction in 2012 edition of..." and then upon payment they get to use it for that and I retain the rights for all other uses. Occasionally I have sold an image for unlimited use, but I charge a lot more when I do that!

Then again, I may just be talking about American copyright law here...

[Dave Rimmer]

What it comes down to is how I sold the image originally -- sort of much like musicians who sold their rights for a one-off payment and never got any royalties... Generally I only sell images for a specific use, so the invoice will say something like "for 1/8 page reproduction in 2012 edition of..." and then upon payment they get to use it for that and I retain the rights for all other uses. Occasionally I have sold an image for unlimited use, but I charge a lot more when I do that!

Then again, I may just be talking about American copyright law here...

Who said I was talking about you

[Amsterdam Russ]

What it comes down to is how I sold the image originally -- sort of much like musicians who sold their rights for a one-off payment and never got any royalties... Generally I only sell images for a specific use, so the invoice will say something like "for 1/8 page reproduction in 2012 edition of..." and then upon payment they get to use it for that and I retain the rights for all other uses. Occasionally I have sold an image for unlimited use, but I charge a lot more when I do that!

Then again, I may just be talking about American copyright law here...

This sort of licensing arrangement is standard practice and doesn't specifically relate to the UK or US. At its most basic, images can be sold on as:

* Royalty free - the buyer makes a one-off payment and has unlimited use of the image.

* Rights-managed - how the image is used, where (including which countries) and for how long, is agreed as part of the sale.

* Exclusive - the photo is sold to one buyer only, which gives them an image that no one else has. Newspapers and fashion/gossip mags like exclusives!

There are variations, but broadly speaking they will fall into one of these three categories.

[Roburt]

Another good xmas buy book ...............

https://www.amazon.co...50463606&sr=1-1

[Roburt]

An extract from the book on Mary Wells ..............

[Paul McKay]

Isn't it a lot easier these days to publish a book using Print on Demend? A lot of US books from Amazon are printed here when ordered from their site.

[Chalky]

I hope all you would be authors think of publishing a digital copy as well?

[Steve G]

Yes indeed Chalky, from my perspective.

[Biggordy]

Bob McGrath's Soul Discography Vol.3 still to come out (probably next year) too.

[Roburt]

Swamp Dogg (Jerry Williams) tells me that he's a good way through writing his life story (bet that's very interesting).

He says the book should be finished by the beginning of next year, so that's another one to buy. 

[Amsterdam Russ]

Swamp Dogg (Jerry Williams) tells me that he's a good way through writing his life story (bet that's very interesting).

He says the book should be finished by the beginning of next year, so that's another one to buy.

Finishing it and publishing it are different matters, of course, but what a book it would be!!