I don't think any of my reasons are obscure. All things being equal, they are the most likely. Alan and Guigsy have had 20 years to extract more money out of Oasis if they wanted to and have not. What is more likely, that they both suddenly had an epiphany and demanded money to be in the movie or because they declined to take part, the rules state that they cannot be included without their permission in any of the live stuff that they have not previously signed a release for? The later, obviously. The BBC stuff probably already has a live release so the BBC themselves can show it over and over. I'm not sure why people on this thread are trying to paint Alan and Guigsy as greedy/wanting money to appear or Noel/Liam as being cheap and removing them to avoid paying them. I don't believe either of those things and their history with other projects doesn't support this either. You are free to believe whatever you like, of course.

I have no doubt that there are plenty of greedy and vindictive people in the entertainment industry when it comes to holding footage hostage for more money or getting revenge on people by cutting them out. I don't think either of those is what is going on here. I think Alan just doesn't want anything to do with Oasis and didn't want to help them out by taking part in it. I think Guigsy is just a private person who has moved on from it. Would both of them maybe been able to be talked into it if they were offered a bunch of money? Who knows. I know that Tony did it despite what happened and I doubt he got paid very much beyond whatever is standard for that type of thing. My point was simply that this all feels like a licensing/permission thing, not a money thing:



Source: www.filmindependent.org/blog/the-filmmakers-guide-to-music-licensing/

Neither Guigsy nor Alan gave their permission to be in the film. I'm sure the band signed all kinds of releases with regards to who owns the rights to their TV/radio appearances (for instance, there is no way David Letterman has to ask their permission to show the clip of them being on his show). For the live performance stuff that the band owns or was recorded without specific permission, that statement above makes it clear that they must give you permission to use it. They didn't give permission, therefore they are not in the those clips (but the director really wanted to use those clips in the movie). The clip posted by globe does have Mat talking about how Guigsy just decided that he wouldn't do it and therefore that is himn not giving his permission.

That's fine. I agree that there are two different things here: taking part in the new interview portion and giving permission for your likeness to be used in the clips owned by the band where there is no existing signed release/permission. I never said that they were the same. We are really arguing about why they didn't give permission for the clips in question, not why they ultimately didn't take part in the film. Your opinion is that Oasis/the producers didn't offer enough money to convince Alan and Guigsy to give their permission for use of those clips even if they didn't want to be interviewed (at least that is what I can gather from your posts). My position is that no amount of money would have convinced them and it never got to the money discussion portion, as neither of them wanted to be involved for whatever their reasons are. Is it possible that the producers went back after they said they would not do the interview and tried to get there permission for those clips? Sure, but why would they not take the money for a clip that has already been seen/shown in other documentaries, etc? I admit that I am speculating that Alan's reason is spite/distaste from how his tenure in Oasis ended. I don't feel that I am speculating on Guigsy, since we know from the note he included in the Definitely Maybe 10th anniversary documentary that he just didn't want to be involved anymore. My guess is that after they couldn't get permission to be involved, the producers just avoided the issue -- simple as that. I don't think any of these opinions amounts to a conspiracy theory though -- that's a bit childish of you to say. Unfortunately there are only three or so people who know why they are not included (Alan, Guigsy and Mat Whitcross/his producers) so we will most likely never know the real reason unless someone happens to ask one of the parties involved.

Sorry if my previous posts appeared to be stated as fact -- I never claimed that and am simply questioning why people claim to know what happened where there is no public evidence of this being a failure to pay enough money to secure the permission. I believe Mat Whitcross and his statements that this never really moved beyond the initial contact with regards to getting their involvement. Nothing in what he has said shows that negotiations got far enough along where managers/agents/lawyers/etc would get involved. In fact, in that audio clip he says that ultimately Guigsy just didn't want to be involved. I agree that its open to a fair bit of interpretation as to what he was not agreeing to do -- just the new interview or something larger. I am not pushing my opinion -- I thought that I was taking part in a discussion or at least I thought that was the point of a discussion board. Again, from what I can tell, you believe/assume that it went much further beyond their initial contact/discussions about being included and got much further beyond that. I have not seen/heard any evidence presented from any interview with anyone involved to indicate that it was a breakdown in negotiations over money. I am not naive, as you so eloquently put, enough to not realize that it very well could be money and everyone is trying to save face by saying that they couldn't be found or convinced to be included. Your opinion is based on circumstantial evidence of other cases that involved failure to reach a monetary agreement for usage. If you know something privately about this specific case and can't share it for whatever reason, then that would certainly explain why you feel so strongly that it was soley about money. I don't think its fair to just assume that is what is going on here without proof. I am sorry if my previous statements seemed like I was stating facts -- I was merely trying to state that the money explanation doesn't align with the facts that we know (Guigsy not taking part in previous documentaries but being included in clips, Oasis buying both of them out of the company at their respective departures, Whitcross's interviews about getting them involved, etc). As to why they were edited out -- you are right that it is a bit of speculation on my part as to what lead the producers to remove both of them and anything either of us could come up with would just be a theory/conjecture, other than permission was not given for whatever reason.

Calm down guys.
I agree with oasisunited about only a few people know the truth why Alan and Guigsy were removed from footage.
If they don't want to get involved with any future Oasis releases and didn't give a permission to their image to be used in any Oasis footage, so it be.

At this point I don't care if they will ever release Knebworth or not.
Matt Whitecross using Columbia in Supersonic with 5 lads landing by a helicopter and entering stage was something very special and I can live with it, without any hope for Knebworth release.

I was just going on what Mat said in that and various other interviews about this. I am no expert.

If you have a look at this:

www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Home/Advice/Recording-Broadcasting/Copyright-and-Performers-Rights-FAQs

It does state:

Performers’ rights FAQs
What are performers’ rights?

Rights conferred on a performer over the exploitation of his/her performance.

What is a performance?

Under CDPA s180(1) ‘Performance’ is defined as:

a) a dramatic performance (including dance and mime);

b) a musical performance;

c) a reading or recitation of a literary work;

d) or a performance of a variety act or any similar presentation which is, or insofar as it is, a live performance given by one or more individuals.

Which performances qualify for protection?

The performance must be given by a qualifying individual or take place in a qualifying country (similar to the qualification requirements for copyright see above).

What are performers’ non-property rights?

In short, the rights are:

Not to be recorded live (except for private use).
Not to be broadcast live.
Not to be recorded off a live broadcast (except for private use).
The so-called “use it or lose it” right.
The right to supplementary annual remuneration.


Anyway, hopefully one day Alan and Guigs will reach some kind of peace re their time with the band a realise they were part of something special so we can get a full release of things like Knebworth.

Just release it with Alan and Guigsy edited out, simple. I'd still by it

I re-listened to the interview and two things struck me:

1) To your point globe, Mat does specifically go into the difference/impact on a filmmaker that having a clip with someone performing music makes vs just video someone walking down the street. My take based on how he is describing it is that he really wanted to use those scenes and without permission, they had to resort to the editing.
2) He mentions that both Guigsy and Alan didn't give permission not because of the band members, but because of issues with "management and the entourage around the band." It would be interesting to know exactly what each of them has issues with. For Alan, we can guess that it is still how the management (Ignition) handled letting him know that he was out of the band, as his brother Steve has been vocal about that being the thing that upset Alan the most at the time. As for Guigsy, I have never heard/read/seen anything that indicated he has a problem with either the management or the people around the band. Quite interesting and it would have been great to get his side of the story and what changed for him. I guess we can only hope that it comes out at some point.

popeyebonaparte So Mat Whitecross was on the Oasis Podcast recently (https://audioboom.com/posts/7174160-supersonic-director-mat-whitecross) and he finally addressed this, at least in more detail than previously in other interviews. At about 30:40 in, he discusses why they had to remove Guigsy and Alan. Basically, they didn't ever get permission and therefore had to remove Alan and Guigsy, especially due to different laws in different regions regarding usage. He states that Guigsy did not give permission because he still is mad at Ignition for some reason (a little bit earlier in the podcast he talks about this). Mat also states that Guigsy is thinking about writing a book, which would be awesome to get another point of view from the inside.

Honestly I don’t really care for a Knebworth release anymore, the bootlegs serve their purpose which the Oasis YouTube channel even acknowledges and if they were going to go to the lengths of doing an official release I’d much rather it included the supporting acts performances (if they even exist) as one big package

The permission would apply to any footage of them performing live that they had not previously given permission to use their likeness in. The assumption here is that things like the performance on The Word and other shows would have already dealt with this back when they appeared there the first time. Other things, like the rehearsal tapes and Knebworth footage which has not already been released (and therefore does not have the agreement in place with the performers) still needed to get permission prior to inclusion. This does not cover things where they are not performing live, like the voice over you hear from Guigsy talking about Definitely Maybe's release, so they were able to use that without additional permission -- they would only need permission from whomever owns the recording itself.

It would be great if we got a Knebworth dvd release next year for the 25th anniversary as it would be great to have it for my collection.
However if we don't get it or ever get it then fair enough.