Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

We don't need no education but please pay us!


Recommended Posts

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A group of former London state school children who sang on Pink Floyd's 1979 classic "Another Brick In The Wall" have lodged a claim for unpaid royalties.

 

Twenty-three teenage pupils from Islington Green School secretly recorded vocals for the track, which became an anthem for children with the chorus "We don't need no education."

 

On hearing the song, the headmistress banned the pupils from appearing on television or video -- leaving them no evidence and making it harder for them to claim royalties -- and the local school authority described the lyrics as "scandalous."

 

The album sold over 12 million copies and the single became number one in Britain and America.

 

Royalties expert Peter Rowan told Reuters he was appealing to a music royalties' society on behalf of a former pupil and was working with other members of the class. He said he was still trying to contact the majority of the group.

 

"They are owed their money and we lodged the first claim last week," Rowan told Reuters. "I've been working on it for almost two years."

 

Music teacher Alun Renshaw took the school pupils to a nearby recording studio without the permission of the headmistress after being approached by the band's management.

 

The lyrics "We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control, no dark sarcasm in the classroom -- teachers leave them kids alone" were described by the Inner London Education Authority as scandalous.

 

The school was paid 1,000 pounds and later given a platinum record of the song but the individuals involved were never paid.

 

Rowan said the money would come from a music royalties society and not Pink Floyd. He expected the 23 pupils to receive a couple of hundred pounds each.

 

The application for royalties was initially hindered by a lack of evidence but Renshaw said the headmistress at the time Margaret Maden, now a University professor, had supported their application.

 

"We had to provide evidence to show they were part of the song and Mrs Maden helped us with that," he said.

 

Music teacher Renshaw told the Evening Standard newspaper he accepted the offer, viewing it as "an interesting sociological thing and also a wonderful opportunity for the kids to work in a live recording studio.

 

"I sort of mentioned it to the headteacher, but didn't give her a piece of paper with the lyrics on it."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Does that kind of thing work differently in the UK than here? In the US, session work is work for hire, you get paid whatever flat fee is agreed upon at the time (which could even be "nothing" if you are non union) and no royalties are owed you after that, unless you get a contract at the time stating otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I guess it all boils down to paperwork - was there any? Terms? Clauses? That sort of thing. If the kids were hired as a class, and got paid as a class, then, unless there was specific contracts drawn up, I fear they might be shit out of luck :freak:

 

Cheers!

Spencer

"I prefer to beat my opponents the old-fashioned way....BRUTALLY!!!!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is different in the UK but only it came into force last year i think where if you do session work, you can now be payed royalties instead of the flat fee that most session players did in the past but this wont apply to the group that did the Pink Floyd tracks as the law cant be inforced unless theres a loop hole but I think for them to be going the legal route, they have found one and so they should get payed!

It also seems as if there was no contract signed between PF management and the school and that also adds up to claiming any kind of payment difficult as it has to be prooved that they were on the track and then it has to be looked into which takes months if not years as I well know from the royalties I am chasing up for one of my own bands.

Its also worth noteing that when a school or some youth group does something like this, its normally done via a permission slip signed by the parents.

I signed for my son to be featured on a S Club 7 track a couple of years ago that hit No 1 here but he is no going to receive payments for it as it wasnt in the contracts but a one of fee instead.

It all comes down to how and what was logged with the PRS and MCPS and also if it comes into force cross boarders.

Its very complicated indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by bungelo:

If it was kids, then the parents should have been paid OR the parents should have signed off on it. If the parents did not, then I would think they each are owed a royalty. If that parents did, then it is a done deal.

It doesnt work like that.

Normal any royalties thats owed to a child goes into a trust till the child is old enough to recieve it in its own right.

Parents have no rights to payments but would be the one reponsible for getting contracts signed and looked over by lawyers on behalf of the child but some do get greedy and palm of the money that the kids earn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Does that kind of thing work differently in the UK than here? In the US, session work is work for hire, you get paid whatever flat fee is agreed upon at the time (which could even be "nothing" if you are non union) and no royalties are owed you after that, unless you get a contract at the time stating otherwise.

There are "Special Payments" from the union for records and films that sell above a certain amount. I've received royalties from a number of records that I played guitar and keyboards on. Don't know what the exact numbers are but the extra few hundred dollars each year is nice. And as far as free for non-union players, bad idea. Somewhere in the archives of musicplayer is a thread about this - a player wasn't paid on a session and later sued for partial ownership. He won. You must pay someone for their time, even $1.

Rob Hoffman

http://www.robmixmusic.com

Los Angeles, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Shars AKA YaCa:

Yes it is different in the UK but only it came into force last year i think where if you do session work, you can now be payed royalties instead of the flat fee that most session players did in the past but this wont apply to the group that did the Pink Floyd tracks as the law cant be inforced unless theres a loop hole but I think for them to be going the legal route, they have found one and so they should get payed!

It also seems as if there was no contract signed between PF management and the school and that also adds up to claiming any kind of payment difficult as it has to be prooved that they were on the track and then it has to be looked into which takes months if not years as I well know from the royalties I am chasing up for one of my own bands.

[/quote

 

These are, quite possibly, the two longest sentences I've ever seen here on the Forums.

 

"paid" (both continents)

I've upped my standards; now, up yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jeff Da Weasel:

In the US, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, especially considering the school was compensated and the arrangement was made with a teacher at the school.

 

No royalties for you!

 

- Jeff

I agree with Jeff here even though technically they should get payed as the school kept the money when it was for the kids for services rendered.

If they think that this issue will be sorted quickly, well they are deluded, it will take months in a British court to sort out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jeff Da Weasel:

In the US, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, especially considering the school was compensated and the arrangement was made with a teacher at the school.

 

No royalties for you!

 

- Jeff

Nope, implied contract, which is, an agreement which is found to exist based on the circumstances, when to deny a contract would be unfair and/or result in unjust enrichment to one of the parties.

 

You can't pay the school for work performed by the children. Neither the children or their parents signed a contract, therefore an implied contract exists. That's my story your honor and I'm sticking to it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jeff Da Weasel:

In the US, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, especially considering the school was compensated and the arrangement was made with a teacher at the school.

 

No royalties for you!

 

- Jeff

You might be right Jeff, but . . . . as minors they didn't have the right to sign their rights away, right ?

Rob Hoffman

http://www.robmixmusic.com

Los Angeles, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by robmix:

You might be right Jeff, but . . . . as minors they didn't have the right to sign their rights away, right ?

Again, this is all moot... I'm only familiar with US law in this regard.

 

The only person at fault, legally, was the teacher. It would be argued that the band compensated the school, and it would have then been the school's responsibility to get releases from the individual students.

 

I only know this because I've had a university's choir recorded on tracks before and went through this process.

 

Anyway, since the school wasn't really aware of the details and only the teacher seemed to be involved, he'd be the one responsible for further compensation to the kids... not the band, not any outside entity for royalty payment. So the kids would have to collectively sue him as an individual to get paid.

 

I have no idea how this will work in the UK. Here, they'd get nothing. And like it! :D

 

By the way... that record was from around 1979, IIRC. Those kids are now in their mid to late thirties (about the same age as me, come to think of it).

 

- Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

posted by Jeff:

The only person at fault, legally, was the teacher. It would be argued that the band compensated the school, and it would have then been the school's responsibility to get releases from the individual students
Neither the school, nor any teacher would have the legal right to negotiate for any student, no matter what took place.

 

In the absence of a contract between the record company, and each student, and their parents... an implied contract would exist, in my expert legal opinion.

 

This would never have come into play unless the record had been so hugely succesful, because an implied contract only exist when.. to deny a contract would be unfair and/or result in unjust enrichment to one of the parties

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The school doesn't have a legal right to negotiate for the students, or accept payment for the students, just because they go to school there doesn't mean the school is their agent or manager. The school was paid for something else not for the performance of the students.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by John Sayers:

They turned up and performed - that is an implied agreement. They were session singers and aren't entitled to royalties IMO. The school receiving a payment is an implied fee for service - the kids should sue the school

 

cheers

john

They HAD to turn up and perform, because they were students. It's not optional to attend class, it is required.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...