Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheExpandingMan23977 t1_iuxu1og wrote

Reply to comment by 230flathead in TIL the former members of Timbuk 3 have refused to license the song "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades" for commercials, including a $900,000 offer from AT&T and offers from Ford, the U.S. Army, and Bausch & Lomb for their Ray-Ban sunglasses. by big_macaroons

Ah, the ol’ wait-for-a-cease-and-desist maneuver, classic

31

muskratboy t1_iuyibfk wrote

That's definitely in the "what are the odds anyone who cares is going to see this?" ballpark. I've been there many times.

17

bitofrock t1_iuy16na wrote

Nah...music licensing is pretty straightforward. And expensive if you don't do it properly.

−1

[deleted] t1_iuy53sa wrote

[deleted]

16

bitofrock t1_iuzx1k7 wrote

So you're saying O'Reilly, a major publisher, decides to just wing it? On what basis?

−6

AftyOfTheUK t1_iv1n2ct wrote

I don't know why you're being downvoted. Corporate sized companies like those have pretty strong compliance processes across the board.

Even using a font in an internal presentation generally requires some sort of signoff, or using only fonts from a pre-approved list. And that's not even in the publishing industry, that's pretty standard all over.

1

TrowAway2736 t1_iv1o7mx wrote

It was O'Reilly Auto Parts, not the publisher.

2

bitofrock t1_iv7bis8 wrote

They seem like a pretty big company. If they're winging it on music rights the bills are usually pretty impressive. I do work with image licensing and have seen bills for $5000 per image from Getty. They're vicious. I doubt music firms are any less generous.

1

bitofrock t1_iv7bmhw wrote

I guess because some people really need to live the idea that everything corporate is evil by default?

2