Really interesting to hear that Timberlake - who by all other accounts is a gracious, nice, funny dude - charges the most of any living artist for these type of rights. (And - lawyers help me out here? - how does he own/control the rights to "Dick in a Box" - wouldn't SNL have at least some hold on these?)
Timberlake co-wrote Dick in A Box and hence owns a copyright in it. I'm assuming SNL hosts do not have work for hire agreements with NBC. I also expect the reference to how much Timberlake charges is not a reference to the artist himself, but his people--as Questlove points out, many times, the artist is cool with it (especially if a quid pro quo is given--John Mayer, for instance, gave rights to one of his songs to "The Office" in exchange for his very own Dundie) and something can be worked out.
Not sure why "gracious, nice, funny dude" is at odds with charging a lot for his songs. Artists can have all sorts of reasons for not wanting their songs used in commercial contexts, including to introduce someone on a talk show. They may feel that it cheapens their work, or reduces it to a joke. They may want to only use it in contexts where they have some control over it, or where they have a choice about the message it is being used for. Or Timberlake may just want to make sure that if someone wants to use his song, he'shandsomely paid.
It's only recently that we saw popular songs being used in commercials because bands were considered to have "sold out" if their songs were used to sell cars or beer or whatever. "Selling out" was reason enough for some people to stop buying aband's albums or going to their concerts. I'm not really sure why the culture changed, but it has, much in the same way that ultra-famous actors are no longer embarrassed to shill for products. (They used to only do so in foreign countries, and were highly embarassed when those ads surfaced here.)
Anyway, the article was interesting, and I love knowing the little tidbits about which artists will allow certain things done with their music in exchange for cameos or whatever. But nothing about the prices here make me think any less of Timberlake as an artist, nor think of him as less than a nice guy.
Marsha's post makes me wonder - what classic rock artists have at this point NOT sold out a song to a commercial? Who still feels that way? Neil Young I think. Elvis Costello? Not many left.
Not every artist has (or has maintained) control over their catalog. There was quite a big to-do when Michael Jakson bought up some of the Beatles catalog and started licensing it for commercials. (Nike using Revolution prompted the to-do, I think.) So while you may be able to say that an artists hasn't sold out if his or her work doesn't appear, you can't necessarily say they have if it does.
I do think "nice guy" and "charges a ton for song usage" are somewhat contradictory, actually, especially because Justin has been so willing to spoof himself and his work on shows such as SNL. I agree it could be his handlers asking for top dollar rather than himself (ie also the Big Boi example used in questlove's post), but for someone who seems to try so hard to seem open, normal, and not the typical "star" it just comes off as weird to me.
Usually, when I read something so garbled, I lose my mind halfway through. The message overcame the messenger. Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteReally interesting to hear that Timberlake - who by all other accounts is a gracious, nice, funny dude - charges the most of any living artist for these type of rights. (And - lawyers help me out here? - how does he own/control the rights to "Dick in a Box" - wouldn't SNL have at least some hold on these?)
ReplyDeleteTimberlake co-wrote Dick in A Box and hence owns a copyright in it. I'm assuming SNL hosts do not have work for hire agreements with NBC. I also expect the reference to how much Timberlake charges is not a reference to the artist himself, but his people--as Questlove points out, many times, the artist is cool with it (especially if a quid pro quo is given--John Mayer, for instance, gave rights to one of his songs to "The Office" in exchange for his very own Dundie) and something can be worked out.
ReplyDeleteNot sure why "gracious, nice, funny dude" is at odds with charging a lot for his songs. Artists can have all sorts of reasons for not wanting their songs used in commercial contexts, including to introduce someone on a talk show. They may feel that it cheapens their work, or reduces it to a joke. They may want to only use it in contexts where they have some control over it, or where they have a choice about the message it is being used for. Or Timberlake may just want to make sure that if someone wants to use his song, he'shandsomely paid.
ReplyDeleteIt's only recently that we saw popular songs being used in commercials because bands were considered to have "sold out" if their songs were used to sell cars or beer or whatever. "Selling out" was reason enough for some people to stop buying aband's albums or going to their concerts. I'm not really sure why the culture changed, but it has, much in the same way that ultra-famous actors are no longer embarrassed to shill for products. (They used to only do so in foreign countries, and were highly embarassed when those ads surfaced here.)
Anyway, the article was interesting, and I love knowing the little tidbits about which artists will allow certain things done with their music in exchange for cameos or whatever. But nothing about the prices here make me think any less of Timberlake as an artist, nor think of him as less than a nice guy.
Marsha's post makes me wonder - what classic rock artists have at this point NOT sold out a song to a commercial? Who still feels that way? Neil Young I think. Elvis Costello? Not many left.
ReplyDeleteNot every artist has (or has maintained) control over their catalog. There was quite a big to-do when Michael Jakson bought up some of the Beatles catalog and started licensing it for commercials. (Nike using Revolution prompted the to-do, I think.) So while you may be able to say that an artists hasn't sold out if his or her work doesn't appear, you can't necessarily say they have if it does.
ReplyDeleteI do think "nice guy" and "charges a ton for song usage" are somewhat contradictory, actually, especially because Justin has been so willing to spoof himself and his work on shows such as SNL. I agree it could be his handlers asking for top dollar rather than himself (ie also the Big Boi example used in questlove's post), but for someone who seems to try so hard to seem open, normal, and not the typical "star" it just comes off as weird to me.
ReplyDeleteI know they're not "classic rock," but the Thermals turned down a request to use a song from F*ckin' A (can't remember which) on a Hummer commercial.
ReplyDelete