Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty

[vgonis]

Sure thing Fletch! Of course it would only be an opinion, 50-50 I may be mistaken.
I searched flickr with the name you provide but comes up with nothing, while I find several Fletch from Australia.
If there is no problem, copy and paste the address of his flickr main page, send my a PM or through facebook.
It should look something like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vassilis_d_gonis/

[ds1984]

Thanks DS for breaking it down and for the nice example. 
Still think (and this is only my personal opinion) that the system of rights, even if it benefits only the writer and performer and not the companies, is unfair and perpetuates the inequalities in our society. I think that it is unfair to all mankind when  a man to write 1, 2, 20 hit songs in his early age and live off of the rights until his old age.  And believe me I try to make a living off photographs, but no, not this way. Another man has to break his back for peanuts (as ZZTop used to sing"Just got paid today, got a pocket full of change"). It is not about ethics, morals, but about justice and logic. What do you think?

If you make money using somebody else creation it is fair that that creators still gets its part out of it?
If a song a hit or a book are still a best seller 50 years after being first disclosed to the public, why  the record companies or the publishers should be the only remaining ones to still make profits from selling them?

There is a time for commercial exploitation and a time for public domain. Putting the line between the two is subject to debate.

[Fletch]

Sure thing Fletch! Of course it would only be an opinion, 50-50 I may be mistaken.
I searched flickr with the name you provide but comes up with nothing, while I find several Fletch from Australia.
If there is no problem, copy and paste the address of his flickr main page, send my a PM or through facebook.
It should look something like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vassilis_d_gonis/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fleeeeeetch/with/8588993052/

Thanks mate, don't no why the search didn't work, I guess there's a lot of Fletchs in this world !!

I'll send Joel your link! I've seen a lot of your stuff on fb... I don't always press 'like' because it's a little risqu

[vgonis]

@DS1984 Thank you for your point of view! It is the only solid argument there is. As a matter of fact a musician friend of mine that i have been discussing the same matters uses the exact words:" If you make money using somebody else creation it is fair that that creators still gets its part out of it"  I agree with this but there is a limit. I mean it is a way of thinking really, like the Royal families  or the patents etc. I think the whole procedure is tainted by greedy companies, that try to get more and more money without actually offering something, or offering it too expensive, without respect for the consumer or the artist. It is no secret that only a few musicians can live off the sales of their records and have to rely heavily on live tours and merchandise. And do you think that the people that play covers or radio stations, note down and declare what they have been playing so that the original artist gets his share? Still it puzzles me.

@ Fletch
OK, found it, will go through and get back to you in a couple of days,probably by PM or facebook message. From a quick look they are great!   

[ds1984]

And do you think that the people that play covers or radio stations, note down and declare what they have been playing so that the original artist gets his share? Still it puzzles me.

In France this is compulsory. You have to declare what is performed or broadcasted (and pay the SACEM!)

[vgonis]

Here as well, but very few do it. Of course everybody pays our two copyright companies, but royalties go to the established artists, while the smaller names get nothing.