Tommy Fleming awarded €150k in damages

dense

Tommy Fleming has been awarded €150k in damages after a TV station broadcast his Voice of Hope DVD which he sent them.

http://jrnl.ie/3515284

Now I know the Journal doesn't really do "in depth" reporting but I can't really see the damage that's been identified.

Perish the thought that other broadcasters would now refrain from playing his music after this.

Arsemageddon

I want damages from Tommy Fleming for the trauma of accidently hearing one of his songs.

retro:electro

So he sent them his DVD and then sued them when they aired it? That makes sense.

Rumpy Pumpy

He seems like a right Creeping Jesus.

mzungu

anna080 wrote: »

So he sent them his DVD and then sued them when they aired it? That makes sense.

Must have been meant as a gift only. I always thought Irish artists would welcome any kind of exposure. But there you have it.

mikeybrennan

I don't begrudge him the money as long as he doesn't
release any more songs

Jim Bob Scratcher

That will keep him topped up with fake tan for a few more years so

alchemist33

Bizarre. Supposedly being shown on this minor tv channel damaged his chances of being on a bigger tv channel. Yet he sent them a dvd himself, not thinking it beneath him then? Sounds like proper gob****ery on his part.

CFlat

They'll hardly see any of the money, the company they're suing is in liquidation. It's a bizarre case. How could you totally prove that a broadcast would damage your career? He's been on TV every Christmas for the last 20 years, well it seems that long to me.

For all he'll get it might as well have been a million.

But it was the height of cheek by a tv company to just ignore his intellectual property rights.

CFlat

CFlat wrote: »

They'll hardly see any of the money, the company they're suing is in liquidation. It's a bizarre case. How could you totally prove that a broadcast would damage your career? He's been on TV every Christmas for the last 20 years, well it seems that long to me.

Not "totally prove", only establish that it's more likely than not...civil case.

WinnyThePoo

Hopefully they learn from their mistakes and never play him again.

Erik Shin

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For all he'll get it might as well have been a million.

But it was the height of cheek by a tv company to just ignore his intellectual property rights.

Tommy Flemming and intellect in the same sentence.....never thought I'd see that to be truthful

the_syco

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Hopefully they learn from their mistakes and never play him again.

Hopefully he'll have shot himself in the foot, and no-one ever plays his music again!

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

Hopefully he'll have shot himself in the foot, and no-one ever plays his music again!

There was some Irish band, they sued to get a hat back...never heard of again.

SEPT 23 1989

wasn't he the one who bit the head off a live chicken during one of his shows?

RobbingBandit

We should send him to the US military a more sadistic form of torture than waterbording = listening to his melancholy whining.

dense

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For all he'll get it might as well have been a million.

But it was the height of cheek by a tv company to just ignore his intellectual property rights.

Would intellectual property rights not be addressed by royalties payable as opposed to a claim for damages?

Ulysses Gaze

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

wasn't he the one who bit the head off a live chicken during one of his shows?

No he choked his chicken during one of his live shows....

bodhrandude

Is that the token Irish Channel you got on Sky, always some dreadful country on that.

It's kinda hard to get angry about this judgment; firstly because I've never heard of Tommy Fleming; secondly, because it's probably a token award that will never materialise, and if Irish TV is like any other enterprise of that scale, probably owes a lot more to the banks and to Revenue that we will pay for.

Thirdly, if you read the article, it does seem like the Court (which has heard all the evidence, after all) has accepted that there was a material loss to Fleming which probably can't (or won't be) distilled into one article that attempts to attract clicks.

A lot of people want to be outraged by the news, as always. It doesn't shift newspapers (or clicks, even) to print a story that makes you go, "yeah, that's fair enough, I'm pretty neutral about that".

Arghus

Don't really see the problem with the ruling: they didn't have permission to broadcast the DVD, but did it anyway. Seems like he was entitled to some redress.

pickarooney

CFlat wrote: »

They'll hardly see any of the money, the company they're suing is in liquidation. It's a bizarre case. How could you totally prove that a broadcast would damage your career? He's been on TV every Christmas for the last 20 years, well it seems that long to me.

Could Irish TV not claim that airing the DVD, which he pretty much forced them to do (humour me) resulted in irreparable damage to their image and, ultimately, their liquidation?

gramar

How did they come up with 150k? Did they work out that to be the loss of sales as a result of people seeing the concert on TV and subsequently not buying it? The premise is sound enough as after seeing that for free who in their right mind would want to buy it.
How many people even saw the original broadcast? Who the hell are Irish TV? How is that a serious setback? What did he expect them to do with the DVD? A two-bit singer getting in a snot about ' small channel with low ratings'. Shlow down there Tommy. Delusions of fcuking granduer.

dense

Arghus wrote: »

Don't really see the problem with the ruling: they didn't have permission to broadcast the DVD, but did it anyway. Seems like he was entitled to some redress.

He was chancing his arm sending it to them then if he didn't want them to broadcast it.

He was obviously looking for promotion of some sort from the station, and must have thought it was worth sending them the DVD but later decided he didn't like the promotion he got.

Cake and eat comes to mind .

gramar

The Judge is clearly a fan which would make you wonder if he is of sound enough mind to be presiding over court cases in the first place.
"a talented artist" There must have been guffaws in the court room when that was read out. I'd say more than a few were threatened with contempt of court. Not least of all Tommy himself.

darkdubh

I'd say his biggest fans are middle aged women who believe in guardian angels and psychics.

gramar

gramar wrote: »

The Judge is clearly a fan which would make you wonder if he is of sound enough mind to be presiding over court cases in the first place.
"a talented artist" There must have been guffaws in the court room when that was read out. I'd say more than a few were threatened with contempt of court. Not least of all Tommy himself.

Dear Jesus. The things people just pluck out of thin air!

This is how Court works. The case was uncontested. So the only evidence submitted about his ability would have been unchallenged. A Judge can only go on the evidence tendered, so if it's all one way, he must go that way.

Where are you getting these "Judge may not be of sound mind" and "people threatened with contempt of Court" ideas? Did you completely make that up?

dense

dense wrote: »

He was chancing his arm sending it to them then if he didn't want them to broadcast it.

He was obviously looking for promotion of some sort from the station, and must have thought it was worth sending them the DVD but later decided he didn't like the promotion he got.

Cake and eat comes to mind .

U2 will give interviews and tickets to someone like Dave Fanning all the time. But if RTE broadcast their latest video without permission or licence, they'd be more annoyed than when they wanted their hat back.

gramar

Deleted User wrote: »

Dear Jesus. The things people just pluck out of thin air!

This is how Court works. The case was uncontested. So the only evidence submitted about his ability would have been unchallenged. A Judge can only go on the evidence tendered, so if it's all one way, he must go that way.

Where are you getting these "Judge may not be of sound mind" and "people threatened with contempt of Court" ideas? Did you completely make that up?

It's only a bit of fun Conor!

mikeybrennan

Have any of the viewers been compensated yet?

mzungu

mikeybrennan wrote: »

Have any of the viewers been compensated yet?

Local TV? Are we even sure there was viewers? Drunken students don't count!

dense

[Deleted User] wrote: »

U2 will give interviews and tickets to someone like Dave Fanning all the time. But if RTE broadcast their latest video without permission or licence, they'd be more annoyed than when they wanted their hat back.

I'd have thought that if an "artist" was just starting out playing in local pubs they'd have been quite honored to have their latest offering played on TV. But no, it's damaged something now.

Does he similarly object to his videos appearing on YouTube I wonder?

There's the very same damages to be sought there too on the grounds of abuse of intellectual property and that his permission wasn't given for their broadcast but of course Google isn't as soft a touch as IrishTV.

It's things like this looking for hats back and looking for damages like this that put people right off bands and artists.

dense

mzungu wrote: »

Local TV? Are we even sure there was viewers? Drunken students don't count!

Potentially millions of viewers.

Anyone exposed to that DVD could have been put right off Tommy by seeing it.

That shortfall in income is now protected by the €150k compensation. How €150k was arrived at is anyone's guess.

Me, I think he should have hit them for millions.

dense

dense wrote: »

I'd have thought that if an "artist" was just starting out playing in local pubs they'd have been quite honored to have their latest offering played on TV. But no, it's damaged something now.

Possibly. But while I may not be a fan, Tommy Fleming is a long way from starting out in pubs.

dense wrote: »

How €150k was arrived at is anyone's guess.

Unlikely "anyone's guess". More likely evidence that was given by an Accountant and, as the defendant failed to turn up, went unchallenged.

gramar

dense wrote: »

Potentially millions of viewers.

Anyone exposed to that DVD could have been put right off Tommy by seeing it.

That shortfall in income is now protected by the €150k compensation. How €150k was arrived at is anyone's guess.

Me, I think he should have hit them for millions.

A 100k was for damages related to intellectual property rights.

How much would he actually earn from the sale of a DVD? A fiver?
100,000/5 = 20,000. I don't think Tommy would shift 20,000 DVDs if he had a bulldozer.

gramar

gramar wrote: »

How much would he actually earn from the sale of a DVD? A fiver?
100,000/5 = 20,000. I don't think Tommy would shift 20,000 DVDs if he had a bulldozer.

You'd be amazed at the numbers shifted by those harmless middle of the road Irish singers. I think Daniel O'Donnell has broken all kinds of UK albums sales records. There is a massive market for schmaltz and Irish Americans who want to see some fellow walking his dog while singing some harmless ballad.

gramar

Deleted User wrote: »

You'd be amazed at the numbers shifted by those harmless middle of the road Irish singers. I think Daniel O'Donnell has broken all kinds of UK albums sales records. There is a massive market for schmaltz and Irish Americans who want to see some fellow walking his dog while singing some harmless ballad.

schmaltz :pac:

The question is though the sales he lost through the broadcast of the DVD on a fairly obscure TV channel.

To top if off, none of the songs that he claims intellectual rights to are his...'you raise me up'...'morning has broken'...'bridge over troubled water'...Did ya write them yerself Tommy..did ya?

KungPao

Never heard of him.

I'm supposing he thinks he's a bit of a big shot now, doing gigs in the large venues and being on TV with Tubridy? And this DVD is from a time when he did Joe Dolan covers in Jonny Murphy's Bar and Lounge in Ballygobackways? Thus harming his current image?

Or is it supposed losses in DVD sales?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

mzungu wrote: »

Must have been meant as a gift only. I always thought Irish artists would welcome any kind of exposure. But there you have it.

Why? What has being Irish got to do with it exactly?

dense

Getting to the nub of it now:


"The Judge also noted that the plaintiffs had expended money on hiring extra staff, marketing and advertising to redress the drop in ticket sales caused by the defendant's breach."

So instead of the promo DVD promoting him the judge agreed that it caused a serious drop in ticket sales after it was broadcast.

Makes sense.

Could have went the other way just as easily.
The viewers, having seen it and been so impressed with it, might have bought up all the tickets for the live shows.

Didn't happen though.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/singer-tommy-fleming-awarded-150k-for-serious-setback-with-copyright-breach-35970181.html

wonderwall900

I must be still relatively with it and hip with the cooler kids. I had to Google him.

mzungu

Esme Grumpy Stockholder wrote: »

Why? What has being Irish got to do with it exactly?

It could be any country where there is a relatively small music industry. Getting your name out there is tough, so most musicians welcome any media outlet playing their music. Obviously I'm not talking about U2, but rather the journey men and women that are out there plugging the circuit. They would make up a good chunk of the Irish music scene across all genres.

dense

Arghus wrote: »

Don't really see the problem with the ruling: they didn't have permission to broadcast the DVD, but did it anyway. Seems like he was entitled to some redress.

Bit silly. Read on.

Imagine a radio station receiving a Tommy Fleming CD and airing it.

Would this present a similar problem for Tommy?

Highly unlikely.

The artist then claims loss of ticket sales as a result of the CD being aired and sues for damages.

Would he win?

Highly unlikely.

That's what this case distills down to, except it was a two bit TV station as opposed to hick two bit local radio stations that he thrives on.

The judge didn't think it through.
Country n' Irish n' Western n' Worship music.

Tommy was superb when he was a singer with the brilliant De Danann back in the 1980s/90s. The Hibernian Rhapsody album (1996) was very fresh (it included a trad version of Bohemian Rhapsody and also a great very rare version in the Irish of Nessun Dorma, Fios na Síochána). He has no trouble hitting the high notes. He lost much of that street cred when he started doing the Knock stuff. A waste of his talent and proven creativity in interpreting songs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icNKgwDpTrg

dense

dense wrote: »

Imagine a radio station receiving a Tommy Fleming CD and airing it.

Would this present a similar problem for Tommy?

Possibly, if they had agreed to give the first broadcast rights to a competitor station?

I remember a big deal having been made in the past of the fact that U2 gave 'first broadcast' of singles to 2FM/ Network 2.

You can be pretty sure that U2 would have been annoyed if TV3 or Tipp FM abused the process by broadcasting those songs beforehand.

And YES, I am comparing Bono to Tommy Fleming. Both are insufferable gobsh1tes.

dense

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Possibly, if they had agreed to give the first broadcast rights to a competitor station?

I remember a big deal having been made in the past of the fact that U2 gave 'first broadcast' of singles to 2FM/ Network 2.

You can be pretty sure that U2 would have been annoyed if TV3 or Tipp FM abused the process by broadcasting those songs beforehand.

And YES, I am comparing Bono to Tommy Fleming. Both are insufferable gobsh1tes.

Different scenario though.
There was no staged industry "row" over who was going to have first dibs on this masterpiece.

He just blamed poor ticket sales on the broadcast of his DVD.

I wonder will he in the future try to blame poor ticket sales on the court case.
Could win easily if he can arrange the same judge again.