|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 25, 2008 14:23:57 GMT 7
Former Smashing Pumpkins James Iha and D`Arcy Wretzy-Brown are suing Virgin Records for doing a deal with Billy Corgan for the release of their music as a ringtones and downloads without consulting them. The suit was filed this week in the LA Superior Court. The suit accuses the label of not paying them for their work on Smashing Pumpkins albums for digitally delivered music. Iha left Smashing Pumpkins when the band dissolved in 2000. Wretzky-Brown left one year earlier. Lead singer Billy Corgan signed the digital deal with their label in 2005, five years after the demise of the band and last year, he reformed the band without them. `To date, Virgin continues to engage in the exploitation of electronic transmissions of the band`s recordings without plaintiffs` consent,` their lawsuit states. The pair also sued the label earlier this year for using their music without consent in television commercials for Pepsi and Amazon. undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=5762 |
|
|
|
Post by SPchick on Jul 25, 2008 17:22:54 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by brendo on Jul 25, 2008 18:37:29 GMT 7
wait, i thought it was billy and jimmy who sued virgin for the pepsi/amazon thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunky on Jul 25, 2008 19:53:15 GMT 7
Yeah so did I, thats what Billy said to us too. He said about the Metro DVD was held up because of the record company they were suing at the moment ... not meaning James and D'arcy. Its most likely Undercover getting that part wrong. As for James and D'arcy suing Virgin, well Im sure unless Billy had control over it all he didn't need their permission. What is it to them anyway, they turn their back on the band and didn't want to have anything to do with it ... yet they are pissed off. Also over at Hipsters United they had a link to this: www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0724_pumpkins.pdfIts the actual legal document ... how they got it, no idea. |
|
|
|
Post by stephenbayne on Jul 26, 2008 11:08:46 GMT 7
Great, so now Billy's name will be draged through the mud by the music press who are always chomping at the bit to take a steamy one on Billy at any given opportunity even though this isn't even really about him. Billy may be an arsehole but at least he's talented. What's James and D'Arcy's excuse?
|
|
|
|
Post by scotopic lux on Jul 27, 2008 8:39:41 GMT 7
As for James and D'arcy suing Virgin, well Im sure unless Billy had control over it all he didn't need their permission. What is it to them anyway, they turn their back on the band and didn't want to have anything to do with it ... yet they are pissed off. I understand that statement, but still - If you were in a band (obviously a sometimes difficult band to be in) for a big chunk of your life, and then you leave that band - does that void all of your input for future use and recognition of the music you made during that time? It does depend on how, legally, the ownership of the music is divided amongst the band members though i suppose. Just sad to see things like this happen. |
|
|
|
Post by sunky on Jul 27, 2008 10:43:31 GMT 7
Yeah i guess its not the song writing part of it, its the performance rights of it. They performed those songs and they are still entitled to a share, and input. I guess Im just pissed off because its dragging Billy's name through mud again ... yet again he is the bad guy for not including them.
|
|
bonno
cherub rocker
Posts: 87
|
Post by bonno on Jul 28, 2008 17:15:43 GMT 7
i didnt know james' middle name was yoshinobu!
|
|
|
|
Post by the viper on Aug 9, 2008 8:12:13 GMT 7
Bit rich of D'Arcy and James to come back crawling for some cash now.
But reading the documents filed, Virgin may have a tough time escaping any penalties, because they arguably have done the wrong thing by not gaining their consent. Let's hope they settle and we can get on with things.
I would have thought Billy was smart enough at the time (in 2005) to know that D'Arcy and James had to provide their consent as well though - especially if the contract had not yet expired (thought this was about 2007). Billy's lucky they aren't suing him directly.
|
|
|
|
Post by stubert9 on Aug 11, 2008 20:53:30 GMT 7
If he wrote the songs shouldnt the copywrite belong to him?
|
|
|
|
Post by brendo on Aug 12, 2008 15:42:41 GMT 7
lets see if i remember this correctly:
copyright law is an area where it could go a few different ways. if the deal with the label was done in 2005, then it's quite possible that the rights to the songs were still under control of the publisher, which would have been virgin. retention period is about 7 years usually.
or that could be completely wrong. so yeah, it's a huge grey area and we can't really speculate.
but yes, the copyright and therefore the royalty goes to the songwriters, not performers, in most territories. and it's up to the performer to claim the performance royalty from the performing rights associations of the relevant countries where performance royalties ARE paid e.g. britain.
the mechanical royalty would be going to virgin records. the songwriting royalty to the songwriter/s. performance royalty: sometimes, not always.
|
|
|
|
Post by the viper on Aug 12, 2008 17:53:32 GMT 7
If he wrote the songs shouldnt the copywrite belong to him? Yeah Billy should own the copyright to the songs (but sometimes this is signed over to record companies. Don't forget that in a work environment, what an employee creates or invents almost always is actually owned by the employer). But that being said, this isn't a case about copyright and intellectual property issues. It's about breach of contract, which is entirely different again. Virgin agreed to give the band control over the songs and how they were used - but only on the basis that any decisions would be made with the mutual consent of all band members. Virgin dishonoured that agreement when they made the deal with Billy - essentially, behind the backs of D'Arcy and James - who were given equal power in making decisions about the songs. |
|
|
|
Post by stubert9 on Aug 13, 2008 18:37:13 GMT 7
If he wrote the songs shouldnt the copywrite belong to him? Yeah Billy should own the copyright to the songs (but sometimes this is signed over to record companies. Don't forget that in a work environment, what an employee creates or invents almost always is actually owned by the employer). But that being said, this isn't a case about copyright and intellectual property issues. It's about breach of contract, which is entirely different again. Virgin agreed to give the band control over the songs and how they were used - but only on the basis that any decisions would be made with the mutual consent of all band members. Virgin dishonoured that agreement when they made the deal with Billy - essentially, behind the backs of D'Arcy and James - who were given equal power in making decisions about the songs. Ah i see now. Yeah then good on 'em they were involved with the production so they should deserve the partial rights to the royalties. |
|
