Some are questioning the morality of including the song and bringing profit to a convicted child sex offender. The ethics of using a song by a pedophile And the amount could be in the six figures range. Regardless, Glitter is making money, Seay said.
#GARY GLITTER PEDO MOVIE#
Though single payments from theaters are tiny, Seay said they could add up to a “significant payday.” He’ll also get paid when the movie airs on TV. ‘Joker’ has already been released internationally, and Glitter stands to make money that way as well.
In some countries outside of the US, movie theaters also pay performance royalties for music used in films. Whatever money coming out of the song’s use would also have to get filtered through whatever record deal Glitter has. The master is typically owned by the recording company, but Seay said it’s possible that the rights have reverted back to Glitter. Because Glitter is a co-writer on the song, he probably owns some percentage of the publishing on the track, Seay said. It’s unclear exactly how much Glitter could make, but attorney John Seay, who specializes in entertainment law, broke down the general process.īasically, every song has two copyrights - the publishing copyright (the actual composition of the song, like its words and melody) and the actual sound recording (also known as the master). Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, is probably making money off the song’s use in the movie, too. The song, “Rock and Roll Part 2,” plays for about two minutes as star Joaquin Phoenix, who plays the Joker, dances down a flight of stairs. The film, which has already received criticism that it glorifies violence and evokes empathy for a killer, is now facing backlash for its use of a song by convicted child sex offender Gary Glitter. The controversy keeps building for Warner Bros.’ “Joker” movie. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated. This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated.
0 kommentar(er)
