Eric had two weeks off for Christmas and New Year’s, so during that time I didn’t do any work whatsoever. Felt quite good. I’m not a workaholic by any means. If I were, I’d probably be famous by now.
On one of the days we went with Kevin to visit Walt Whitman’s birthplace in Huntington. Eric and I both have been getting into Whitman lately. I’ve always tended to like the idea of poetry more than the actuality, but in the case of Whitman’s...well, suffice to say that it’s the genuine article. Check it out. For me, Whitman is akin to Mark Twain in his timelessness, honesty, and immensity of scope. His birthplace is a state historical monument, and even though the house is right on 110, that congested artery of Long Island commerce, it’s a haunting and evocative place, well worth a visit...even if an auto body shop is all too visible through the downstairs windows.
Today I’m back to sitting at the computer. There’s not much else to do, since we had a heavy snowfall during the past couple of days and it’s still, as they say, bitterly cold. Bitterly...now there’s a word for you. It somehow puts me in mind of something I’ve been reading about during the past few days. Frank Zappa’s widow Gail went to Quebec, Canada, about a week ago. She had sued a small chain of Canadian furniture stores because nine years ago they used a snippet from one of Frank’s guitar solos as background music for a TV ad without asking for permission from the Zappa Family Trust (i.e., Gail Zappa herself), who administers the rights to Frank Zappa’s compostions. She won about $100,000 in damages, and used the “victory” (her words) as a bully pulpit to warn anybody who would even dare consider doing what this piddly little furniture company had done. She appeared on television news programs throughout Canada, and was interviewed by nearly all the wire services, etc.
My first reaction to this was, ho-hum, must have been a slow news day. I don’t know how Canadian law might differ from American jurisprudence in matters of copyrights and permissions, but in the U.S. the law is quite clear. If a particular composition has been previously recorded, the copyright owner, when asked to do so, must issue a mandatory license for subsequent performances. It seems to me that the only questionable element in this Canadian furniture chain imbroglio was the fact that they didn’t ask the Zappa Trust for that mandatory license before recording their TV ad. Perhaps the fact that the music was used for a commercial application may have colored the situation. At any rate, I find it hard to believe that Gail Zappa was entitled to that $100,000, legally or morally. At most she should have received a token settlement in lieu of royalties, since the furniture company didn’t specifically request the performance license before proceeding with their ad. The amount of music used was minimal anyway, and it’s hard to understand what sort of damages were sustained...certainly nothing financially significant, since the ad ran for less than three weeks and then only in a very limited market.
As far as the moral aspect (which Gail Zappa repeatedly stressed in her interviews), there really isn’t one, nor has morality ever been much of an issue in her own dealings with musicians. For instance, last month Zappa mounted a campaign to keep the FZ tribute band Project/Object from fulfilling dates on their national tour. She doesn’t like the fact that they are performing her late husband’s music, even though there is no legal reason why they can’t. She faxed ahead to some of the venues where the band was to perform, threatening legal action if they were allowed to appear. Naturally the venues cancelled the shows. Project/Object, to put it simply, is not in it for the money. They play constantly for the sheer love of Frank Zappa’s music, and they don’t make much money from it. Gail Zappa, on the other hand, committed a criminal act in her blackmailing of club owners. It’s known as restraint of trade, and it’s not only immoral, it’s illegal...and as such, it’s legally actionable. So for Gail Zappa to pound the podium and pontificate about a moral victory in the case of her lawsuit against the Canadian furniture company...well, it seems like an elephant shooting mice with a BB gun.
