You can’t watch a game in America without hearing this song played, and many commercials feature this tune. But the performer “Gary Glittier” (real name Paul Gadd) is a convicted child pornographer. Is Mr. Gadd still getting they royalties from all these performances? I have heard that in the UK his music has been practically purged from the air, but in America that song is inescapable. I don’t think Gadd’s conviction was ever widely reported or followed in America - so most people seem to have no idea who Paul Gadd is.
What makes this somewhat troubling is since Gadd has been released from prison, he has been yachting around in places that are rather suspicous for a Westerner with a history of sex offences with children (he was recently forced to leave Cambodia for instance)*. Are the royalties from that song (admittedly a very catchy tune) essentially supporting an apparently unredeemed pedophile? Or are they going to charities, child abuse victims, or a government?
Do you know of any law which deprives a convicted individual of legitimate income? It might offend you morally, but I’m struggling to imagine what law would prevent Glitter from receiving royalties for a song, since the latter is perfectly legal and has no bearing on the disgusting crime for which he was convicted.
There are laws that prevent convicted criminals from profiting from their crime, such as getting book deals etc. Unless the song has some direct link to his crim(s), then it’s a legitimate income.
Assuming Glitter never sold his publishing rights then he and Mike Leander (who is also listed by the publisher as a writer of the song) are receiving royalties for every copy sold, broadcasts, karaoke instrumentations, cover versions, as well as licencing fees any time the song has been licenced to appear in a movie, TV show or commercial. If Giltter is also the performer of the song (as opposed to cover versions), then he’s likely getting other performance rights on top of that.
When Sammy Hagar did a song a couple of years ago that used the RRP2 riff, I remember him telling an interviewer that he had to pay Glitter the royalties but wasn’t too happy about it since Glitter was in prison for kiddie porn.
**He pleaded guilty to 54 offences of making indecent photographs of children under 16 on the internet. **
I know just because someone if convicted it doesn’t mean everything they have is taken away. But if the British will basically banish his music while he remains alive, why do all the American sports leages and their advertisers keep giving this turd cash so he can go to southeast Asia (I’m sure he wasn’t in Cambodia to see Angkor Wat or to clear land mines) and indulge in his dangerous predilictions?
KGS is not necessarily incorrect with that nitpick. I’m not a lawyer but as I understand it the term “making” in this context would cover downloading images because you would be making fresh instances of them on your hard drive. The situation may be different under US Law.
It is true that Glitter is persona non grata over here these days; his music is rarely heard and his every move is tracked by the tabloids. Apparently he hasn’t been prosecuted of actual offences in the Far East but you don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out his motives for being there. If he spent his money on psychotherapy to assist in modifying his behaviour it wouldn’t seem so bad for him to have a source of income. Unfortunately he’s shown no indication of wanting to change, only to avoid scrutiny.
Agreed on the legal point. Nor am I a lawyer, but a few days ago one of the UK newspaper reports on the Townsend case quoted a police spokesman, who stressed that “making” in this context was not necessarily to be taken in the everyday sense of the word. The somewhat non-intuitive definition arises from the case of Jonathan Bowden, when an appeal court judge ruled that downloading classed as “making” an image, and this set a precedent that was applied to the Gadd case. Here is an analysis of the issue by a solicitor specializing in Internet law.
If this happened in the U.S., he could be sued in Civil Court by his victims and any income could be garnished to pay for judgments against him. Are their similar laws in the UK?
Well, he was convicted of downloading images off the internet. The victims persumably would be the children in the images. I’m not sure, under the circumstances, that civil suits would be practical, since the victims may be unaware that they were in the specific images he possesed (particulary since some may not even be residents of the UK). But I’m not an expert on the law or this case, so feel free to correct me.
Well I must admit I was ignorant, when I read he was convicted of making images, I assumed he photographed children himself with a camera.
Nethertheless, even if he isn’t a pornographer, he was someone who was doing far more than taking a occassional peek like Townsend is alleged to have done