#sony music publishing

[parolequotidiane]

SONY MUSIC PUBLISHING partner della 3ª edizione di MUSICOMICS

a cura della redazione SONY MUSIC PUBLISHING - Partner della 3ª edizione del concorso dedicato agli artisti che operano nel campo delle colonne sonore per cinema, tv e videogames. MUSICOMICS PREMIO ROMICS MUSICA PER IMMAGINI Assegnato aLA RAPPRESENTANTE DI LISTA il Premio Miglior Sincronizzazione per progetti audiovisivi. SONY MUSIC PUBLISHING è stato partner della 3ª edizione di MUSICOMICS –…

[alltrekvarnews]

Lanzamiento del Tráiler de la Película Biográfica de Amy Winehouse 'Back to Black'...

[harrelltut]

[insert musical note emoji] Say, ANU GOLDEN 9 Ether [SAGE] QHT SUPERMAN had come to earth to see who he could rock... He blew away every crew he faced until he reached our block... His EXOGALACTIC [HE] QHT PIONEER Speakers were 3 stories high with woofers made of IBM steel... and when we brought our Apple Inc. [A.i.] set outside, he said "HARRELL BEE 4 REAL" [insert musical note emoji]

IMMORTAL U.S. MILITARY KING SOLOMON-MICHAEL HARRELL, JR.™

OMMMMM

[insert musical note emoji] U rock this, rock that and that's a fact… since ANU GOLDEN 9 Ether Jam On Crew will rock your GOLDEN 9 Ether Body right back... rock a steam locomotive right off the track and give the whole wide world web ANU GOLDEN 9 Ether [WAGE] FunkliciousAttack.com... and to the beat y'all, get down let me rock it to the rhythm of the funk sound from hill to hill, from sea to sea.. and when Jam On's rockin' everybody screams Jam on it jam on it... Jam on and on, on and on it and if you're feelin' like you want to dance all night... then go on ahead and flaunt it [insert musical note emoji]

[insert musical note emoji] Ancient SKY King SOLOMON ANU GOLDEN 9 Ether [SAGE] QHT SUPERMAN said, "I'm faster than a speedin' bullet when I'm on the set... Eye don't need no fans to cool my amps, eye just use my super breath... I could fly three times around the world without missin' a beat... I socialize with X-ray eyes, and my ladies think it's sweet” [insert musical note emoji]

[insert musical note emoji] And then HARRELL turned His Hi:teKEMETICompu_TAH [PTAH] Power on and the Earth [Qi] began 2 rhythmically move... all the buildings 4 miles around us were swayin' 2 anu golden 9 ether [sage] sky groove... and just when MICHAEL had fooled the crowd and swore he wouldn't fight [insert musical note emoji]

[insert musical note emoji] We rocked his electronic ear with ANU GOLDEN 12" Music Industry Cut [MIC] called Disco Kryptonite... well, GOLDEN QHT SUPERMAN looked up at ME [MICHAEL], he said, "You rock so naturally"... I said "Now that you've learned to deal, let me tell you why I'm so for real... I'm Cozmo D from outer IBM space, I came to rock this mundane human race... eye do it right 'cause I can't do it wrong... that's why the whole world is singin' ANU song" [insert musical note emoji]

[insert musical note emoji] Ah, jam on it... eye said jam-j-j-jam on it... as days turn to night and night turns to day... whatever time it is, I want to hear you say [insert musical note emoji]

[insert musical note emoji] MAXELL Jam on it, jam on it... QUANTUM HARRELL TECH Jam on it, jam on it... 1968 GEN X Jam on it, jam on it... QHT SUPERMAN Jam on it, jam on it [insert musical note emoji]

[insert musical note emoji] Yeah, that's how you do it Cozmo EL... You rocked it, that's the way you do it... Yeah, like, did you see when he went in the MAXELL corner... And he started doin' this... Wikki-wikki-wikki-wikki... Wikki-wikki-wikki-wikki [insert musical note emoji]

[insert musical note emoji] Ah, man, this is too funky for me... I'm goin' home... Hey, Mergatroid, let's go... let's go... Hey, you fellas seen My Quantum IBM [Qi] Sister Mergatroid?!?!?!... She was standin' over here just a minute ago [insert musical note emoji]

[insert musical note emoji] Yeah, I think I saw her over there with Grand D He's rockin' the mic, you know... "Digga dang, digga dang, dang, dang, dang, digga, digga, dang, dang" [insert musical note emoji]

Shhh... Our Super Silent Phase Sound Accuracy & Ultrasound Wave Cassette Mechanism Patents @ QUANTUM HARRELL TECH LLC

QUANTUM IBM [Qi] SPEED LANGUAGE ASSEMBLY [L.A.] SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING AT&T [PA] @ QUANTUM HARRELL TECH [QHT] Apple+IBM [A.i.] LLC

We ANU GOLDEN 9 Ether [WAGE] Music & Humanoid-Android [HA = HARRELL] RUMARDIAN Compu_TAH [PTAH] EMPIRE

WE 2 GOLDEN 9 ETHER SKY FUNKY [FUTURISTIC] 4 artificial intel 2023 america [aia]

OMMMMM

[microlyric]

River Lea Song Lyrics In English- Adele

River Lea friends if you are Looking River Lea song lyrics then you landed right place so don’t worry relaxed and enjoyed the Adele album all songs lyrics peacefully at one place. You can find and read this lyrics easily in any smartphone and Tablet such as Samsung, Motorola, Sony, Xiaomi, Vivo, Oppo, LG, Huawei, Asus, Lava, Micromax, iTel, Nokia, Oneplus, iphone, HTC and other devices. The Micro…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Penguin Random House, AI, and writers’ rights

NEXT WEDNESDAY (October 23) at 7PM, I'll be in DECATUR, GEORGIA, presenting my novel THE BEZZLE at EAGLE EYE BOOKS.

My friend Teresa Nielsen Hayden is a wellspring of wise sayings, like "you're not responsible for what you do in other people's dreams," and my all time favorite, from the Napster era: "Just because you're on their side, it doesn't mean they're on your side."

The record labels hated Napster, and so did many musicians, and when those musicians sided with their labels in the legal and public relations campaigns against file-sharing, they lent both legal and public legitimacy to the labels' cause, which ultimately prevailed.

But the labels weren't on musicians' side. The demise of Napster and with it, the idea of a blanket-license system for internet music distribution (similar to the systems for radio, live performance, and canned music at venues and shops) firmly established that new services must obtain permission from the labels in order to operate.

That era is very good for the labels. The three-label cartel – Universal, Warner and Sony – was in a position to dictate terms like Spotify, who handed over billions of dollars worth of stock, and let the Big Three co-design the royalty scheme that Spotify would operate under.

If you know anything about Spotify payments, it's probably this: they are extremely unfavorable to artists. This is true – but that doesn't mean it's unfavorable to the Big Three labels. The Big Three get guaranteed monthly payments (much of which is booked as "unattributable royalties" that the labels can disperse or keep as they see fit), along with free inclusion on key playlists and other valuable services. What's more, the ultra-low payouts to artists increase the value of the labels' stock in Spotify, since the less Spotify has to pay for music, the better it looks to investors.

The Big Three – who own 70% of all music ever recorded, thanks to an orgy of mergers – make up the shortfall from these low per-stream rates with guaranteed payments and promo.

But the indy labels and musicians that account for the remaining 30% are out in the cold. They are locked into the same fractional-penny-per-stream royalty scheme as the Big Three, but they don't get gigantic monthly cash guarantees, and they have to pay the playlist placement the Big Three get for free.

Just because you're on their side, it doesn't mean they're on your side:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/#stunt-publishing

In a very important, material sense, creative workers – writers, filmmakers, photographers, illustrators, painters and musicians – are not on the same side as the labels, agencies, studios and publishers that bring our work to market. Those companies are not charities; they are driven to maximize profits and an important way to do that is to reduce costs, including and especially the cost of paying us for our work.

It's easy to miss this fact because the workers at these giant entertainment companies are our class allies. The same impulse to constrain payments to writers is in play when entertainment companies think about how much they pay editors, assistants, publicists, and the mail-room staff. These are the people that creative workers deal with on a day to day basis, and they are on our side, by and large, and it's easy to conflate these people with their employers.

This class war need not be the central fact of creative workers' relationship with our publishers, labels, studios, etc. When there are lots of these entertainment companies, they compete with one another for our work (and for the labor of the workers who bring that work to market), which increases our share of the profit our work produces.

But we live in an era of extreme market concentration in every sector, including entertainment, where we deal with five publishers, four studios, three labels, two ad-tech companies and a single company that controls all the ebooks and audiobooks. That concentration makes it much harder for artists to bargain effectively with entertainments companies, and that means that it's possible -likely, even – for entertainment companies to gain market advantages that aren't shared with creative workers. In other words, when your field is dominated by a cartel, you may be on on their side, but they're almost certainly not on your side.

This week, Penguin Random House, the largest publisher in the history of the human race, made headlines when it changed the copyright notice in its books to ban AI training:

https://www.thebookseller.com/news/penguin-random-house-underscores-copyright-protection-in-ai-rebuff

The copyright page now includes this phrase:

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner for the purpose of training artificial intelligence technologies or systems.

Many writers are celebrating this move as a victory for creative workers' rights over AI companies, who have raised hundreds of billions of dollars in part by promising our bosses that they can fire us and replace us with algorithms.

But these writers are assuming that just because they're on Penguin Random House's side, PRH is on their side. They're assuming that if PRH fights against AI companies training bots on their work for free, that this means PRH won't allow bots to be trained on their work at all.

This is a pretty naive take. What's far more likely is that PRH will use whatever legal rights it has to insist that AI companies pay it for the right to train chatbots on the books we write. It is vanishingly unlikely that PRH will share that license money with the writers whose books are then shoveled into the bot's training-hopper. It's also extremely likely that PRH will try to use the output of chatbots to erode our wages, or fire us altogether and replace our work with AI slop.

This is speculation on my part, but it's informed speculation. Note that PRH did not announce that it would allow authors to assert the contractual right to block their work from being used to train a chatbot, or that it was offering authors a share of any training license fees, or a share of the income from anything produced by bots that are trained on our work.

Indeed, as publishing boiled itself down from the thirty-some mid-sized publishers that flourished when I was a baby writer into the Big Five that dominate the field today, their contracts have gotten notably, materially worse for writers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/19/reasonable-agreement/

This is completely unsurprising. In any auction, the more serious bidders there are, the higher the final price will be. When there were thirty potential bidders for our work, we got a better deal on average than we do now, when there are at most five bidders.

Though this is self-evident, Penguin Random House insists that it's not true. Back when PRH was trying to buy Simon & Schuster (thereby reducing the Big Five publishers to the Big Four), they insisted that they would continue to bid against themselves, with editors at Simon & Schuster (a division of PRH) bidding against editors at Penguin (a division of PRH) and Random House (a division of PRH).

This is obvious nonsense, as Stephen King said when he testified against the merger (which was subsequently blocked by the court): "You might as well say you’re going to have a husband and wife bidding against each other for the same house. It would be sort of very gentlemanly and sort of, 'After you' and 'After you'":

https://apnews.com/article/stephen-king-government-and-politics-b3ab31d8d8369e7feed7ce454153a03c

Penguin Random House didn't become the largest publisher in history by publishing better books or doing better marketing. They attained their scale by buying out their rivals. The company is actually a kind of colony organism made up of dozens of once-independent publishers. Every one of those acquisitions reduced the bargaining power of writers, even writers who don't write for PRH, because the disappearance of a credible bidder for our work into the PRH corporate portfolio reduces the potential bidders for our work no matter who we're selling it to.

I predict that PRH will not allow its writers to add a clause to their contracts forbidding PRH from using their work to train an AI. That prediction is based on my direct experience with two of the other Big Five publishers, where I know for a fact that they point-blank refused to do this, and told the writer that any insistence on including this contract would lead to the offer being rescinded.

The Big Five have remarkably similar contracting terms. Or rather, unremarkably similar contracts, since concentrated industries tend to converge in their operational behavior. The Big Five are similar enough that it's generally understood that a writer who sues one of the Big Five publishers will likely find themselves blackballed at the rest.

My own agent gave me this advice when one of the Big Five stole more than $10,000 from me – canceled a project that I was part of because another person involved with it pulled out, and then took five figures out of the killfee specified in my contract, just because they could. My agent told me that even though I would certainly win that lawsuit, it would come at the cost of my career, since it would put me in bad odor with all of the Big Five.

The writers who are cheering on Penguin Random House's new copyright notice are operating under the mistaken belief that this will make it less likely that our bosses will buy an AI in hopes of replacing us with it:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/#bullied-schoolkids

That's not true. Giving Penguin Random House the right to demand license fees for AI training will do nothing to reduce the likelihood that Penguin Random House will choose to buy an AI in hopes of eroding our wages or firing us.

But something else will! The US Copyright Office has issued a series of rulings, upheld by the courts, asserting that nothing made by an AI can be copyrighted. By statute and international treaty, copyright is a right reserved for works of human creativity (that's why the "monkey selfie" can't be copyrighted):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/20/everything-made-by-an-ai-is-in-the-public-domain/

All other things being equal, entertainment companies would prefer to pay creative workers as little as possible (or nothing at all) for our work. But as strong as their preference for reducing payments to artists is, they are far more committed to being able to control who can copy, sell and distribute the works they release.

In other words, when confronted with a choice of "We don't have to pay artists anymore" and "Anyone can sell or give away our products and we won't get a dime from it," entertainment companies will pay artists all day long.

Remember that dope everyone laughed at because he scammed his way into winning an art contest with some AI slop then got angry because people were copying "his" picture? That guy's insistence that his slop should be entitled to copyright is far more dangerous than the original scam of pretending that he painted the slop in the first place:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/artist-appeals-copyright-denial-for-prize-winning-ai-generated-work/

If PRH was intervening in these Copyright Office AI copyrightability cases to say AI works can't be copyrighted, that would be an instance where we were on their side and they were on our side. The day they submit an amicus brief or rulemaking comment supporting no-copyright-for-AI, I'll sing their praises to the heavens.

But this change to PRH's copyright notice won't improve writers' bank-balances. Giving writers the ability to control AI training isn't going to stop PRH and other giant entertainment companies from training AIs with our work. They'll just say, "If you don't sign away the right to train an AI with your work, we won't publish you."

The biggest predictor of how much money an artist sees from the exploitation of their work isn't how many exclusive rights we have, it's how much bargaining power we have. When you bargain against five publishers, four studios or three labels, any new rights you get from Congress or the courts is simply transferred to them the next time you negotiate a contract.

As Rebecca Giblin and I write in our 2022 book Chokepoint Capitalism:

Giving a creative worker more copyright is like giving your bullied schoolkid more lunch money. No matter how much you give them, the bullies will take it all. Give your kid enough lunch money and the bullies will be able to bribe the principle to look the other way. Keep giving that kid lunch money and the bullies will be able to launch a global appeal demanding more lunch money for hungry kids!

https://chokepointcapitalism.com/

As creative workers' fortunes have declined through the neoliberal era of mergers and consolidation, we've allowed ourselves to be distracted with campaigns to get us more copyright, rather than more bargaining power.

There are copyright policies that get us more bargaining power. Banning AI works from getting copyright gives us more bargaining power. After all, just because AI can't do our job, it doesn't follow that AI salesmen can't convince our bosses to fire us and replace us with incompetent AI:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/11/robots-stole-my-jerb/#computer-says-no

Then there's "copyright termination." Under the 1976 Copyright Act, creative workers can take back the copyright to their works after 35 years, even if they sign a contract giving up the copyright for its full term:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/26/take-it-back/

Creative workers from George Clinton to Stephen King to Stan Lee have converted this right to money – unlike, say, longer terms of copyright, which are simply transferred to entertainment companies through non-negotiable contractual clauses. Rather than joining our publishers in fighting for longer terms of copyright, we could be demanding shorter terms for copyright termination, say, the right to take back a popular book or song or movie or illustration after 14 years (as was the case in the original US copyright system), and resell it for more money as a risk-free, proven success.

Until then, remember, just because you're on their side, it doesn't mean they're on your side. They don't want to prevent AI slop from reducing your wages, they just want to make sure it's their AI slop puts you on the breadline.

Tor Books as just published two new, free LITTLE BROTHER stories: VIGILANT, about creepy surveillance in distance education; and SPILL, about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/19/gander-sauce/#just-because-youre-on-their-side-it-doesnt-mean-theyre-on-your-side

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[fishmech]

Yeah it's people who don't really understand how anything works, like in their heads the only thing that ever existed is Spotify and CDs. And it's extra funny because a lot of them are like, genuinely unaware you can buy music files? Like there's a lot of assumptions that once Spotify got big in 201x surely all the music download places must no longer be in business.

The people specifically advocating for the analog hole stuff is also so funny because it's been really easy to just use a program to fake there being an aux cord but its really just recording the audio to a file or sending it as input to another audio program for free for like 20 years now. Absolutely no need to get other devices in there.

Heck back when DRMed music downloads were still a thing there were even specialty programs that you just told to go convert all your DRMed purchases via the virtual audio cable method if you were feeling particularly low effort about setting it up.

You really don't need to burn CDs if you want to air quotes own your digital music files. Afaik even iTunes or whatever doesn't enforce any kind of drm besides counting which computers you can download songs from them on, and ofc bandcamp or pirated music doesn't care at all.

My android phone has never spoken to iTunes and has my whole library on it, I have a big external drive with music that I pass between computers as needed and never had any issues, I can use all of them in video or audio editing software directly without doing aux cord tricks

You just have to actually download the files onto a device instead of streaming everything forever is the thing. If you want CDs because they look nice or because you have a car that has a CD drive but no Bluetooth or place to charge your phone (can't you use a lighter adapter?) or you want to send someone a mixtape or whatever, knock yourself out, but otherwise files are good enough

[fans4wga]

Strike's over—what now?

[ID: SAG-AFTRA picket sign with the logo of a person with a raised fist and the text, "SAG-AFTRA ON STRIKE!" The picture was taken near the Sony building and "Sony Pictures" and "Sony Music Publishing" can be seen on a sign to the right. end ID]

On November 8, SAG-AFTRA reached a tentative deal with the AMPTP to end the strike. What can we as fans & audiences do to continue supporting the unions?

DONATE TO STRIKE FUNDS!

The devastating effects of both strikes on every entertainment worker AND those not in entertainment, but affected by the work stoppages, are going to continue to be felt for months, even years, down the line. PLEASE don't let up your financial support just because the strikes are over! Please keep boosting posts about how to support the unions! Tip: schedule the posts for a week or a month down the line so they keep circulating.

Entertainment Community Fund

Green Envelope Grocery Aid

VOCALLY SUPPORT THE UNIONS MOVING FORWARD!

WGA and SAG-AFTRA have won, but you know who still needs a deal? The Animation Guild will have negotiations next year. IATSE, aka International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, which represents technicians and craftspeople, is going to enter into negotiations next year. Teamsters (unionized drivers, including the ones essential to Hollywood sets!) are going into negotiations next year. It is essential that we show up for other unions like we showed up for WGA/SAG-AFTRA. And if you haven't yet... have YOU considered joining a union?

CORRECT MISINFORMATION AND BIASED NARRATIVES!

Lots of people—both in the immediate future and a few years down the line—are going to think they've drawn correct conclusions from the strike that are absolutely false. False ideas like WGA/SAG-AFTRA were the ones that dragged out the strikes, that it was unnecessary to put such a strain on the economy, and so on.

Prove them wrong—and cite your sources! WGA/SAG-AFTRA's Twitter updates and website articles updated during the strikes are a good resource, as are eyewitness accounts from those of us who were active participants in fandoms supporting the unions. Don't let the narrative get turned around. Unions are essential, strikes work, and it was the solidarity between varied workers and their audiences that forced the AMPTP back to the table.

[sgiandubh]

Lallybroch: copyright vs. trademark

An excellent question was asked by our friend @rosfrank in the comments thread to 'The door faces North' post and given the cosmic amount of uninformed bullshit being ventilated for almost ten years in this fandom, I think it's time to answer it once and for all:

Whenever we are informally talking about 'owning the rights to something', I think it's very important to bear in mind a fundamental distinction between two different categories of ownership rights: copyright and trademark.

The copyright is the most familiar one to many of you. It is what you usually find on those annoying and apparently useless first or last pages of all the printed or digital editions on this planet. Something like this:

In the US, copyright issues are regulated by the Copyright Act of 1976, as included in Title 17 of the US Code. The US public authority competent for registering and managing copyright is, as predictable, the US Copyright Office.

Perhaps the most seminal US Supreme Court decision, as far as copyright is concerned, is the 1991 Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. In it, the Court ruled that mere compilations of information or facts (such as, for example, telephone books) are not protected by copyright, according to US law. In other words, the ancient legal concept of 'sweat of the brow' (which simply means the amount of work required to gather and compile those facts/information) is not enough to qualify a work for copyright protection, if no creative effort is added to enhance its content. This is why I have always considered absolutely ridiculous Marple's efforts to watermark public information screenshots: it is useless (to the extent that it legally protects her from nothing) and, as her timelines, a mere compilation of facts (legally ditto). A similar approach is preferred by the UK and also by many Roman law legal systems, such as the French one - just making things clearer, here, by the way.

See how 'Erself is roughly doing, right now, in this department:

But I am rambling. In my view, Lallybroch, as a pivotal concept used in Diana Gabaldon's books, is protected by the copyright granted to each and every of her books mentioning it, according to the Roman law principle 'accessorium sequitur principale' (the accessory follows the principal). So it will remain protected for at least 70 years since the last of her books mentioning it would have been published under copyright. Unless she chooses to separately protect the entire finished cycle as a whole, once Book Ten (fingers crossed) is published, preferably during our foreseeable lifetimes.

That being said, that goes only for one copyright category: (published) text - you cannot copyright that secret diary in your drawer, LOL. This is why, the current US Copyright Office records concerning Lallybroch look like this:

Sony Pictures Television Inc owns the copyright to the fictional name Lallybroch in the motion pictures category, as it is the title of the Episode 12, in Season 1 - DG has been handsomely compensated for this, no worries. And someone I have no idea about owns the rights to an original musical score she has written and titled Lallybroch in the music category, since October 2013.

Onwards to the trademark. This is something different and this is all about making your name/concept/idea profitable. It is all about branding it, putting it on a product and selling it under that brand. It includes all the graphic elements and the logo of the brand (accessorium...) - in short, its visual identity to the consumers. In the US, trademark issues are regulated by the 1946 Lanham Act and the public competent authority is the good old US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO).

Right now, the situation for the Lallybroch trademark is as follows:

So, we see three different trademarks: two of them, owned by Diana Gabaldon, are classified as 'dead' (cancelled and/or abandoned) and the third, Lallybroch Spirits, owned by S's Great Glen Company is pending approval - he will not be able to label any booze bottle Lallybroch Drink Me before permission is granted by the USPTO.

Let's unpack:

Both Lallybroch trademarks formerly owned by Diana Gabaldon were filed at the USPTO on February 21, 2000 and granted on December 12, 2000. The first was aimed at producing 'tartan fabrics for the manufacturer of clothing' and it was abandoned in December 2003:

The reason is that the owner did not file in any Statement of Use after the trademark was granted. She had three years to do so, and since she chose not to do anything about it, the trademark was deemed abandoned (Stacy K. Smith is the attorney hired by Herself, btw). That means she specifically implied not to intend using it in the future. As such, she may claim NO rights on a now free to use mark:

The second trademark was aimed at producing 'clothing, namely, t-shirts, dresses and headwear' and also 'jewelry, namely, rings, pins and necklaces'- to cut the story short: OL merchandise - and it was cancelled on March 1st, 2013:

The reason is that the owner did not file the Section 8 declaration (of continuous use for five years) within the allowed legal timeframe (6 months after the fifth anniversary of the trademark granting renewal). Her trademark federal rights are now deemed canceled (but not her state law and/or common law rights!) and if she wants to ever use that name again, she would have to start the whole process over, bearing in mind the trademark could have been granted to someone else, in the meanwhile (not her case).

And for anyone who might ask, 'Erself does not own any other trademarks whatsoever:

The other (Doll Lab - LOL for ages) Diana Gabaldon is a pharmacist from Albuquerque, NM. Chill. 🤣🤣🤣

The owner of the copyright to the fictional toponym Lallybroch, as far as published text is concerned, is Diana Galabdon.

The owner of the copyright to the fictional toponym Lallybroch, as far as motion pictures are concerned, is Sony Pictures Television Inc.

The owner of the copyright to the fictional toponym Lallybroch, as a personal work of music, is Mrs. Kelly Ruth Davis, of Pennsylvania, USA.

The owner of the Lallybroch Spirits trademark will be Sam Roland Heughan, when that trademark is granted by the USPTO.

I hope this answers your question, @rosfrank. Thank you for asking.

[ladyamanda123]

Hmmm what if…..

Listening to The Tortured Poets Department and thinking….what if this is from Karlie’s perspective?

Like girl, stop being so dramatic and tragic and let’s just BE TOGETHER!

Why are you sacrificing us to this idea of being the great poet? They don’t hold you, they don’t know you, they don’t decode you or troll you like me.

I’m the one who actually knows you….stop picking the fans/industry and choose us instead!

You left your typewriter at my apartment

Straight from the tortured poets department

I think some things I never say

Like, who uses typewriters anyway?

But you're in self-sabotage mode

Throwin' spikes down on the road

But I've seen this episode and still loved the show

Who else decodes you?

And who's gonna hold you like me?

And who's gonna know you if not me?

I laughed in your face and said

You're not Dylan Thomas, I'm not Patti Smith

This ain't the Chelsea Hotel, we're modern idiots

And who's gonna hold you like me?

Nobody, no-fucking-body, nobody

You smoked then ate seven bars of chocolate

We declared Charlie Puth should be a bigger artist

I scratch your head, you fall asleep

Like a tattooed Golden Retriever

But you awaken with dread, pounding nails in your head

But I've read this one where you come undone

I chose this cyclone with you

And who's gonna hold you like me? (Who's gonna hold you, who's gonna hold you?)

And who's gonna know you like me? (Who's gonna know you?)

I laughed in your face and said

You're not Dylan Thomas, I'm not Patti Smith

This ain't the Chelsea Hotel, we're modern idiots

And who's gonna hold you like me?

No-fucking-body, nobody (who's gonna hold you, who's gonna hold you?)

(Who's gonna hold you, gonna know you, won't control you?) Nobody

Sometimes I wonder if you're gonna screw this up with me

But you told Lucy you'd kill yourself if I ever leave

And I had said that to Jack about you so I felt seen

Everyone we know understands why it's meant to be

'Cause we're crazy

So tell me, who else is gonna know me?

At dinner, you take my ring off my middle finger

And put it on the one people put wedding rings on

And that's the closest I've come to my heart exploding

Who's gonna hold you? (Who?) Me

Who's gonna know you? (Who?) Me

And you're not Dylan Thomas, I'm not Patti Smith

This ain't the Chelsea Hotel, we're two idiots

Who's gonna hold you?

You left your typewriter at my apartment

Straight from the tortured poets department

Who else decodes you? (Who? Who?)

Source: LyricFind

Songwriters: Jack Antonoff / Taylor Swift

The Tortured Poets Department lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

See all

[publicacionesdeunachica]

If I told you how much I think about her.

You'd think I was in love.

[zot3-flopped]

There's a piece on the Daily Mail that gives a very interesting behind-the-scenes of Liam's life (they also talk about a big childhood trauma but "whose full details the Mail has chosen not to publish"). It's behind a paywall but I've discovered that many times the reading mode in Firefox and Safari gets through anyway, so here it is:

---

Liam Payne's serious childhood trauma and why having a baby so young with Cheryl couldn't bring the stability that may have saved him: KATIE HIND

It was the autumn of 2011, and I had been summoned to Sony Music’s west London HQ to meet Britain’s hottest new boy band.

A few months earlier, five hopeful teenagers had auditioned for ITV’s X Factor talent show – and the music impresario Simon Cowell had drawn them together to form One Direction.

The fledgling stars had already attracted a global fanbase in the millions: a juggernaut that was drawing comparisons to 1960s Beatlemania, even though they had yet to release a song.

Now that was about to change. The band’s debut single, What Makes You Beautiful, was launching the following week – and I was there to interview the boys behind it.

Although they had seemed like sweet young things when we had briefly met at the Fountain Studios in Wembley, north-west London, during their X Factor live shows the previous year, I had expected these precocious adolescents to now be full of self-importance at their growing fame.

How wrong I was.

I arrived to find five handsome young men politely waiting to greet me, but one of them stood out thanks to his cute curly hair and his charming, talkative manner.

No, not Harry Styles – the only ex-1D member who has gone on to forge a successful, long-term solo career – but Liam Payne. Dressed down in a navy hoodie and jeans, Liam wrapped me in a warm hug and excitedly introduced me to his bandmates – Styles, Louis Tomlinson, Niall Horan and Zayn Malik – in his strong Wolverhampton accent.

Looking younger than his 18 years, Liam told me how badly he was missing his beloved mum Karen’s cooking – so much so that he had resorted to eating chicken dippers warmed up in the microwave.

Living as he was out of suitcases in hotels, he asked me for ironing tips as he had yet to learn how to use one – and said he still spent much of his free time playing Nintendo.

He admitted that he had practised putting his hands behind his back and trying to sing like his hero Liam Gallagher, the snarling Oasis frontman. ‘I probably looked a bit stupid though,’ he said.

He also spoke lovingly about West Bromwich Albion, the football team he had supported since he was a young boy – though he regretted that he no longer had time to cheer them on in person.

As for girls, Liam told me he preferred shy and quiet ones, although he revealed he’d fallen in love with X Factor’s 2006 winner Leona Lewis, while he found singer Tulisa Contostavlos ‘really, really hot’.

Overall, he struck me as an innocent abroad – a child, really – who seemed too vulnerable a soul to last long in the cut-throat music world.

As the years passed, I met Liam many times at industry events and in chance encounters – and I never shook that worrying sense that he was, in some ways, a lost little boy.

I could never have known, of course, that just 13 years after our first interview, Liam would perish in the most terrible circumstances – following a long spell of torment, scandal and drink and drug abuse.

His descent into addiction had been playing out, in public and in private, for years – worsened by his fragile emotional state.

Many had tried to help him quit the substances that were destroying his life, but to no avail: following his death in Buenos Aires’s five-star CasaSur hotel on Wednesday evening, what appeared to be cocaine and heroin paraphernalia were found in his wrecked suite, with its smashed TV and half-drunk flutes of champagne.

It was a squalid end for one of the most famous young men in the world, so adored by ‘Directioners’ that he insisted he couldn’t leave his hotel without a large security detail (although it’s worth pointing out that other former bandmates, including the global megastar Styles, often travel without huge entourages).

So where did it all go wrong for him – and how did that smiling boy I met all those years ago, rough around the edges as he was, come to such a terrible end?

There is no doubt that he struggled, even more than his bandmates, with that explosive early fame and notoriety.

In a candid moment at 2014’s Brit Awards, Liam told me how difficult he found it to be unable to blend into a crowd. The band’s relentless schedule had taken its toll on him, as had the long months away from home.

He often wished, one of his friends later told me, that he had gone to university like many of his schoolmates.

Of course, Liam came to enjoy a lifestyle unimaginable to his old contemporaries at St Peter’s Collegiate, his Church of England secondary school in Wolverhampton.

Despite his insatiable appetite for drugs, his large property portfolio, his endless jaunts on private jets, taste for high fashion and luxury hotel stays, his bank balance was still thought to be in the millions when he died.

For all his fears that he had peaked so young, he still had decades ahead of him – and ample time to grow into the contented father to Bear, his son with Girls Aloud star Cheryl Tweedy, his friends and family longed for him to become.

But I can reveal that behind that smiling, cherubic face, Liam had suffered serious trauma in his childhood: a shadow from which he felt he could never escape and whose full details the Mail has chosen not to publish.

One friend told me: ‘Before he even began his showbiz career, he had demons from his formative years. He struggled with that and never quite got over it. He was in a band with four other guys, he could get any girl he wanted and he was earning millions – but he struggled to enjoy any of it.’

I can vouch for that: of all the 1D members, Liam seemed by far the most uncomfortable with his fame and fortune.

I would see him most years at the Brits, where at first he would dash over to say hello, often reminding me that he had enjoyed me asking him ‘fun questions’ at our first interview.

Yet as time went on, his chaotic living began to catch up with him, and his manner became ever more unpredictable.

In February 2013, at a Brit Awards afterparty organised by his music label at the upmarket Arts Club in Mayfair, I saw him drunkenly dancing with his bandmates – by far the most bleary-eyed of them.

That December, I bumped into him in the Kurt Geiger shoe shop in Canary Wharf, east London, where he was buying his then girlfriend Sophia Smith – a former school sweetheart – a pair of boots for Christmas.

Gone was his carefree demeanour of just two years earlier, he now seemed strikingly shy. He told me he had bought a penthouse flat in the Docklands, and at my insistence, he posed for a picture with me before dashing off.

During 2013’s Take Me Home tour, the band performed an average of a concert every two days, completing 124 dates between February and November. That, I’m told, put unbearable pressure on Liam, who would often say that he ‘just wanted to be normal’.

Of course, the fame came with perks – women chief among them. Liam’s best-known romance was with Cheryl, who was ten years his senior, which had begun in 2016 following her split from her French husband Jean-Bernard Fernandez-Versini.

They quickly became the most talked-about couple in showbiz –and only six months after they were confirmed to be an item, Cheryl revealed she was expecting their baby.

For Liam, however, the pregnancy was a huge shock: he was, he allegedly told friends, not ready to become a dad.

With 1D having gone on ‘permanent hiatus’ in 2016, he was trying to launch his solo career, and becoming a father – especially to a woman a decade older than him –was not part of his plans.

He told friends that he felt like Cheryl, who was 33 when Bear was born, had used him so she could have a baby.

When Bear, now seven, was born in 2017, Cheryl grew increasingly fed up that she was stuck at home with the baby while Liam was away jet-setting.

‘Liam was flying around the world promoting his music,’ said a friend. ‘He was in the zone Cheryl had been in ten years before with Girls Aloud. It led to some furious rows.

‘He began using private jets so he could get home quicker, but it wasn’t enough. Cheryl wanted a proper family unit and Liam just could not give it to her. Things got really bad and tempestuous. Liam was a young lad in his early 20s and he just wasn’t ready for it all.’

Inevitably, they split up – giving Liam even more time to ‘go off the rails’, as one former associate of the star describes it.

Even when they were co-parenting, Cheryl desperately hoped that Liam and Bear would develop a strong father-son bond, despite Liam’s addiction issues.

‘Cheryl knew what a state he was in,’ says a source. ‘She wished she could make it better.’

And she wasn’t alone in that wish: as Liam turned from being a cheerful teenager into a tormented, angry young man, many of those closest to him tried unsuccessfully to rescue him.

He was dropped by more than one of his managers due to his erratic behaviour and his failure to turn up to work engagements.

In September 2017, Cheryl, Liam and Bear went on a luxury holiday to Majorca: a birthday treat for Liam. But he injured himself while drunk.

As the years went on, he only got worse.

In 2022, a gurning Liam appeared to be high on drugs at a post-Oscars party in Hollywood. In footage that went viral for all the wrong reasons, he replaced his Wolverhampton twang with a bizarre Los Angeles accent.

One friend of Liam’s called me in horror to share their fears that he ‘really wasn’t OK’. Last year, Liam moved to a sprawling mansion near the Buckinghamshire town of Chalfont St Giles to be further away from the temptations of London and closer to Bear, who lived nearby with Cheryl.

However, neighbours tell me that he brought his problems with him. They would often spot him coming home in the early hours in chauffeur-driven cars, often with women in tow.

While I’m told he tried to see Bear regularly, his unpredictable lifestyle frequently made this impossible. Instead, Cheryl was largely left to bring up the little boy alone with the help of her mother Joan.

Liam’s new home was also close to a woman who some describe as his fairy godmother – the Olympic heptathlon gold medallist Denise Lewis.

Her husband Steve Finan worked with Liam for several years and the couple were at his side through some of his most difficult times – including his fall-out with Cheryl.

He would often stay at their home as they battled to keep him sober.

‘Liam adored Denise,’ says a source. ‘She mothered him and really tried to support him.’

Yet in recent months, his life was clearly spiralling out of control. His on-off girlfriend, Maya Henry, 23, had recently hired lawyers to send a ‘cease and desist’ letter to the star, accusing him of repeatedly contacting her and her loved ones.

Liam’s friends insisted he was angry and upset at her, adding that her behaviour was due to her wanting to publicise her new book.

And only last week, I’m told Liam had a huge row with his manager over his forthcoming album, whose release – to Liam’s fury – had been delayed because it was deemed ‘too poppy’.

A source said: ‘There was a blazing row and the album was put back again. The single from it had flopped and there were concerns. Liam desperately wanted that album to come out: despite everything, he thought of himself as a musician.’

To make matters even worse, just a few days ago Liam’s record label dropped him.

Another source said: ‘People begged him to get help and suggested that he went to Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings, but he wouldn’t take them up on it.’

His most recent girlfriend was Texan model Katie Cassidy, whom he thought might have been The One. She too had tried to help him, but left Argentina to return to the US two days before he died.

‘Lots of people cared for Liam,’ said a source. ‘He had so much love around him.’

Yet all the love in the world was not enough to rescue this desperately unhappy young man, who for all his fame and fortune could never escape the demons that haunted him from his lost, tormented youth.

www dailymail co uk/tvshowbiz/article-13972405/Liam-Paynes-childhood-trauma-having-baby-young-Cheryl-bring-stability-saved-KATIE-HIND html

Thank you for this. Plenty of interesting insights here.

[louisupdates]

houseofsolomag @upsahlmusic stars on the cover of Diversity Issue

[Diversity Winter Issue 2023] | Link in bio for pre-order

Photo and text @abeikuarthurhos

Fashion @margherita_alaimo

Make up @dupuys_muaofficial

Hair @ohmane @afrankagency

Photo assistant @thetwgallery @tomfilipefilm

Video: @dsgn.by.kinkwesy

Fashion assistants @ameliatconnolly and Alex

Publisher @artupublishing

Thanks to @sonymusicuk @rcalabelgroupuk @rca_promotionsuk

#houseofsolomag #upsahl #28clothing #louistomlinson

[Upsahl wears 28Clothing for the recent House of Solo photoshoot. Upsahl is an American musician signed to Arista Records, a division of Sony Music.]

[miley-cyrus-news]

@guccibeauty: Transforming imagination into reality.

The iconic Hollywood backdrop welcomes Miley Cyrus into a dream world for the latest campaign for the new Gucci Flora Gorgeous Orchid Eau de Parfum by Sabato De Sarno.

Creative Director: Sabato De Sarno

Artistic Director: Riccardo Zanola

Art Direction: Lolita Jacobs & Jean-Baptiste Talbourdet-Napoleone

Directors: Jacob Bixenman and Marcell Rév

Music: ‘Flowers’ by Miley Cyrus

Written by Miley Cyrus, Michael Pollack, Gregory Aldae Hein

Publishing administered by Concord Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music France,

Sony Music Publishing France

Courtesy of Columbia Records

#GucciBeauty #GucciFlora #MileyCyrus

[dreamings-free]

October 4th 2024 by Andre Paine

Sony Music Publishing has signed multi-genre songwriter and producer Julian Bunetta to a global publishing agreement.

With an expansive body of work that has exceeded 30 billion streams, Bunetta is a key collaborator with top talent including Sabrina Carpenter, Teddy Swims, Thomas Rhett, One Direction, Niall Horan, Rudimental and many others.

-> full article here on musicweek.com

[microlyric]

Right As Rain Song Lyrics In English- Adele

Right As Rain friends if you are Looking Right As Rain song lyrics then you landed right place so don’t worry relaxed and enjoyed the Adele album all songs lyrics peacefully at one place. You can find and read this lyrics easily in any smartphone and Tablet such as Samsung, Motorola, Sony, Xiaomi, Vivo, Oppo, LG, Huawei, Asus, Lava, Micromax, iTel, Nokia, Oneplus, iphone, HTC and other devices.…