Hi, Would be interested to hear thoughts, particularly from anyone with any music industry legal knowledge (relates to a UK act) but knowledge if how this situation would translate in other countries would be helpful. It is an alleged real life situation, and because it is alleged , I'm not going to name anyone. How is this situation likely to have arisen? A successful and influential act of the past 30 years, or so would generally ascribe the songwriting credits to the whole band rather than individual members. This band would later change this in recent years (although these years don't constitute the majority of their recorded output by any stretch of the imagination) A couple of years ago, the band sold 50% of its back catalogue. However, one person, who has previously been denoted as one of the band members on its most prominent records, is allegedly (by thus person's son) 'cut out' of the deal, after being temporarily being fired. It would be difficult to argue that this person didnt significantly contribute to the group's output and musical direction, even though he joined around 1990, rather than at the very beginning. Another (deceased) member's estate representatives is in on it, along with the two most constant members. Adding further fuel, is the allegation that the subsequent death of the guy who was 'cut out' was due to intense drinking exacerbated by this situation. How could someone who was publically named as a band member for its most celebrated years, when they credited songwriting to the whole band, be 'cut out' ? Is it like in business, when a publically defined business name isn't necessarily the same as its legal entity? Oh, and the guy who was allegedly 'cut out' had the same manager as those alleged to have 'cut'him 'out'. Apologies if this is a little long. Interested to hear some thoughts.
Typically, there are two saleable parts to an artist’s catalogue: the copyrights in their songwriting and the copyrights in their sound recordings. These parts may or may not be sold together, and it’s not clear from your post whether the artist has sold one or both. In either case, when an artist sells copyrights to another entity, the buyer will almost certainly require the artist to warrant that the rights they’re selling are actually theirs to sell. So if a complainant were to successfully sue the buyer for taking revenue that rightfully belonged to the complainant, the buyer would be able to seek recompense for any payout from the seller. Generally, songwriting copyrights tend to be well documented for professional artists. Because they commonly represent regular streams of income, labels and artist management both take efforts to nail them down. If someone has an issue with how a particular authorship is registered, that’s likely to come up pretty quickly after the recording is released, as the contributor will soon realize they’re not getting money they’re expecting. I suspect that claims of wrongdoing here made years later by heirs of the original contributor are going to be difficult to back up. As for sound recordings, when an artist is signed to a major label, their label contracts usually spell out exactly who owns any recordings made during the term of the contract. (Often, that’s the label, and in the case of an artist that’s later able to earn or purchase their recordings from the label, that would be well documented too.) Independent artists might be a bit more haphazard here. I would expect that most claims here would involve recordings owned by the legal entity that is the band while the band itself doesn’t have good documentation saying who the band legally is at any given moment. I’m guessing that it’s this last circumstance that you’re likely describing. These things can indeed be very challenging to work out years later, especially after some of the principals have died. The claimant will likely need to prove that the band member had legal standing in the band, and unless they have documentation, that’s probably going to be very difficult. (Just being a performer in the band isn’t enough, even if they’re highly visible.)
My advice would be to hire a lawyer rather than to solicit free legal advice from an audiophile forum. You’re not going to get a meaningful answer here. For one reason, you haven’t provided sufficient information. The situation as you’ve described it is complicated, but sounds to ultimately boil down to the question of whether the person had previously been credited with ownership/an income share of the actual copyrights that were sold, or had not been. There is not nearly enough information given here to be able to try answering that question (although it sounds like his dad “contributed to the group’s musical direction,” rather than actually writing songs). I understand that you/the son may not want to pay for a lawyer, but the answers you might get here could potentially incorrectly discourage him from pursuing a claim that could be valid. (Stop and read that last sentence again.) Just talk to a lawyer.
Were songwriting credits shared by the group, or specific to who brought the song in? Who owns the band’s name? Is/was it set up like a corporation where each member had a share? He was fired, is there paper work severing relationship? Was there a final payment received, which may have been in lieu of future rights?
I didn’t want to intrude I just remembered a similar scenario in the Damned between Rat Scabies and Captain Sensible. But I’m not sure, it was mentioned in an interview for their album last year!
He was apparently fired for making mistakes at a gig, after having cancer surgery, and told to sort himself out or not come back. This is quite ironic considering the whole band's image had been about drugs and partying. He had become an alcoholic, a functioning one apparently,but according to this deceased's son, getting cut out of the selling of the back catalogue tipped him over the edge and he drank more. 'Allegedly' the first time he heard about being 'cut out' of the deal was reading it in the press! Thanks, I think what this suggests is for example, if someone is named as a band member on a recording, and that same recording states that all music is written by (name of band), there may be are other legal aspects behind closed doors that might define who is considered an actual member (perhaps something in the contract). Otherwise,seems like this person was an unfortunate casualty of the music business.
That's fine. I'm sure this is one of many situations where agreived people don't feel they've had their share. I should probably refrain from mentioning any names, but you will definitely know the group. JAMC related.
The Procol Harum ruling so many years after the act of creation leads me to think a UK court might be sympathetic to a clear and well presented case.
This is what the son said at the inquest of his dad's death. 'After joining the band, dad had started out as an equal member of ***** ***** but he was gradually cut out from getting any songwriting credits, then touring and merchandise profits, eventually just being paid per gig. My dad was so much more to the band than just a session man, his keyboards were an integral part of their sound on every album, and he had always been a spokesperson, doing countless press interviews for the band over the years.”
That lengthy quote in the previous post is obviously Googleable, so I looked into some of the details. According to NME, the band’s three primary songwriters collectively sold 50% of their songwriting and 100% of their performance rights to BMG. If the sale did not include any rights owned by the keyboard player—and it couldn’t have included them without his participation—then unless he had previously transferred some of his rights to those three, or otherwise sold them himself, his estate still owns 100% of his songwriting copyrights and performance rights. The complaint of being “cut out” therefore seems to mean that he and/or his estate wished that his rights had been included in the sale so he could have cashed out when they did. Is that a valid complaint? Not legally—the other three would have had no obligation to include him in their deal, and BMG certainly wouldn’t have valued his rights the same as theirs anyway. (I’m not familiar with the band, but I checked the credits on their first five albums, and the keyboard player had no songwriting credits until their fifth album, where he had cowrite credits on all but the cover song.) Further, if BMG really wanted his rights, I’m sure they’d have brought him into the deal, or at least offered him a separate deal. It’s certainly a sad story, but I don’t see any obvious wrongdoing here.
OK, pretty easy to work out who this is because there was a thread about it on here (edit - OK someone just went out and named him as I was typing!). As he wasn't an original member of the band, it's possible that a contractual/legal arrangement existed before his participation began. I would investigate if he was ever a member of any of the limited companies the group formed and, if so, was his removal completed legally.
When the musician's son told his story, I was hoping that this was the beginning of the group's vocalist getting what's been coming to him for a long time. There are some deeply concerning stories about him. Perhaps silences can be bought after all, perhaps not.
I must correct my original post here. Yes you are right. he didn't have songwriting credits until later, which is strange because he was massively impactful on their sound on those 90s releases. In fact one of the three who was included in on the deal (also now deceased) didn't actually play on one of their late 90s albums at all. Anyway, the back catalogue sale did include those releases that he had co-writing credits for. There is probably more to the story,but so far, none of the two surviving members, (who constitute the band) and were in on the deal have said anything,so the only thing to go by is the account of a grieving son, as he relates what his dad told him.
I'd be interested to hear more. Met him a few times. I know the backing singer (not going to name her!) who also died relatively recently also felt badly-treated. Interesting that when Irvine Welch spoke about it, he aimed fire at the 'music industry' rather than at the band. Was never 100% convinced by (singer) whose it could be argued was the weakest link, despite it all being about him. Good points!
Was the father able to read and write music? Might there be notes, demoes around showing creation of tunes not credited? If the dad had chops and banged to the next level stuff that was brought in as spare demoes it might be able to be argued he should be credited. That would have been easier when the dad was alive. Otherwise they will need serious proof.
Yes, but not his portion of those copyrights. Only he can sell those. Take one song: Star, credited to Gillespie, Innes, Young, and Duffy. Prior to the sale, when royalties were paid for playing that song, 25% of the payment would go to each guy. After the sale, in which Gillespie, Innes, and Young sold 50% of their songwriting to BMG, that royalty payment would be split with 37.5% to BMG, 25% to Duffy, and 12.5% to each of Gillespie, Innes, and Young. Duffy didn’t lose a thing—he just didn’t get to trade 12.5% of that payment for cash in 2022.
Unless there was a paperwork mistake or overreach after the sale. Which needs to be clarified, I guess. So the son is either receiving nothing or still the father’s share, but would have liked the lump sum buyout?
It's difficult to know what actually went on, because the only allegation (and it is a deeply sad statement) has come from greiving 19 year old son,who is relating what his late father told him. What isn't clear is, for example where a record credits the whole band, how his share in it is being distributed in the wake of 50% of the rights being sold in the interests of only 3 members (one represented by the estate of anothe deceased).
It ultimately sounds like Levon Helm’s continual complaint: “I contributed to the recordings, therefore I should be entitled to a share of the songwriting.” No, your contributions to the recording are why you get artist royalties from the record label (if you do). If every person who contributed to a recording of the song should get songwriting royalties, then every musician who recorded a cover version of the song should get a share of the songwriting. Which makes no sense. I don’t know the real story here (it sounds like only a couple of living people do), but the music industry is full of bitter people who feel like they’ve been done wrong. Sometimes they legitimately have been, but other times they’re just unhappy because they didn’t make as much money as they wanted. In the surface, I do find the claims of, “My dad got kicked out of the band for being an alcoholic, but he became an alcoholic because he was treated so badly by the other guys in the band” to be a little difficult to accept.
