Due to pending litigation? Here we go again.

[Bud Shaver]

If it wasn't for the Beach Boys drama I wouldn't have the pleasure of reading threads like this one. 


(for Banana and Louie)

The legal teams of Al and Mike
So much drama, what's not to like
No one knows just why we care
We see their lawsuits everywhere
The strangest story you ever knew
The many ways Beach Boys can sue.

[Gertie J.]

We got lawsuits in mind
Man, it's been too much time
in a suit and a tie is how I like to preen
With my lawyers sandbagging Al Jardine.

Nah, we're not gonna beat runners.

you already did. brill stuff!

[Andrew G. Doe]

Mike will end up suing himself in a tragic clerical error.

Alan already did that. 

[Jay]

Not to piss on anybody's parade, but I don't find a single ounce of anything even remotely funny about this. Every single Beach Boys fan loses out in one way or another in the end. Mike may have stopped any future plans for albums or concerts, but Al just sent us back 15 or so years. Let's just hope it doesn't take them another 20 years to remember why they still make music together.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Not to piss on anybody's parade, but I don't find a single ounce of anything even remotely funny about this. Every single Beach Boys fan loses out in one way or another in the end. Mike may have stopped any future plans for albums or concerts, but Al just sent us back 15 or so years. Let's just hope it doesn't take them another 20 years to remember why they still make music together.

Nah. SOP for the Boys. What were you expecting? A C60 in 2024? 

[The Heartical Don]

PEEENDING LITIGATION
BAAAAAD VIBRATION
NOT GOOD WEATHER
WE'RE NOT TOGETHER
LOOOOSS OF MONEY
IIIIIT'S NOT FUNNY
MIKE'S GONNA SUE YA
AL SAID "SCRE-HOO-HEW YA"

HADTA SUUUE YA
HADTA SCRUUUEW YA, JUST FOR KICKS

HADTA SUUUE YA
YEA I DID IT CUZ IM SUCH A DIK

I VISUALIZE WHAT YA GOT IS SOOO FINE
FEELS SO GOOOD WHEN WHAT WAS YOURS IS NOW MINE!

That is weird. I hear a song in my head, to be precise: a chimera existing of two songs. It's 'I Was Made To Love Her' (the WH one) into: 'Had To Phone Ya'.

 

[Mr. Cohen]

Why don't you sue us Mike and send us off to court?
On this summer's day
There's nowhere else I'd rather be

Why don't we sue the way we used to anymore?
There's a name I'd like to use
That maybe you would hate
And send a letter to my lawyer

You've been thinking 'bout some things we used to do
Thinkin' 'bout when cases were still in front of you
Back where you belong, our favorite court
Won't you listen?

Don't you understand the words
Are singing in the jury?
I wish that you would sue from here to back again

The clouds are breaking
It's a beautiful day
For a wonderful Los Angeles District Court

The sun is shining, can we just find a way?
If you just call, just call, just call
My lawyers

Through our compromise, paradise is
Just another place up on the stand

Through the common sense of it all
You had a lot to sue, you sued us all
Through the consequence of our name
Another case in time

[Jay]

PEEENDING LITIGATION
BAAAAAD VIBRATION
NOT GOOD WEATHER
WE'RE NOT TOGETHER
LOOOOSS OF MONEY
IIIIIT'S NOT FUNNY
MIKE'S GONNA SUE YA
AL SAID "SCRE-HOO-HEW YA"

HADTA SUUUE YA
HADTA SCRUUUEW YA, JUST FOR KICKS

HADTA SUUUE YA
YEA I DID IT CUZ IM SUCH A DIK

I VISUALIZE WHAT YA GOT IS SOOO FINE
FEELS SO GOOOD WHEN WHAT WAS YOURS IS NOW MINE!

That is weird. I hear a song in my head, to be precise: a chimera existing of two songs. It's 'I Was Made To Love Her' (the WH one) into: 'Had To Phone Ya'.

 

Want to hear something really weird? I can hear it to.

Get. out. of. my. head. 

[runnersdialzero]

Not to piss on anybody's parade, but I don't find a single ounce of anything even remotely funny about this. Every single Beach Boys fan loses out in one way or another in the end. Mike may have stopped any future plans for albums or concerts, but Al just sent us back 15 or so years. Let's just hope it doesn't take them another 20 years to remember why they still make music together.

If I didn't laugh about it, I'd surely cry about it. ;(

Also, you're (again) talking like Al is the only one to say something not cool, here. I don't get it.

[leggo of my ego]

If I didn't laugh about it, I'd surely cry about it. ;(

dittoes.

[leggo of my ego]

That is weird. I hear a song in my head, to be precise: a chimera existing of two songs. It's 'I Was Made To Love Her' (the WH one) into: 'Had To Phone Ya'.

 

Really? Im more like picking up the chorus to "A Thing or Two" for runnerz bit.
I guess it could depend on which BB album you listened to recently.  

Had to Phone Ya is exactly what I had in mind, figured it would be obvious.

[absinthe_boy]

My reading of the situation is like this:

The original C50 tour was agreed by all parties to be something like 50 dates. Then during the early stages of the tour Brian agreed to some more dates including the final gigs in London. At this point Brian was having his back pain and still getting into things and he is known to have agreed to those extra dates "and no more".

Meanwhile, M+B had already booked some post-C50 dates for their own band, as per the agreement that after Wembley the C50 celebration would be over.

However, everyone including Brian was having a great time by the time the tour ended that the non-touring Beach Boys (Brian, Al, David and Brian's band) were perfectly happy to continue longer or to do some more dates in 2013. However, crucially the last communication Mike was aware of was "A few more dates including London and no more". So he went and pushed ahead with the pre-existing M+B band.

It's all rather a sad misunderstanding.

Now, why Mike might be suing anyone at this point is conjecture. It's been established that Brian and co can call themselves former or erstwhile Beach Boys in their publicity and can mention that they play Beach Boys songs. What they cannot do is put the phrase "Beach Boys" in the name of their band. After the Daily Mail fiasco where Mike was laughed out of court I doubt he'd try that on again. He's fond of his lawyers but he's not actually stupid.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Now, why Mike might be suing anyone at this point is conjecture. It's been established that Brian and co can call themselves former or erstwhile Beach Boys in their publicity and can mention that they play Beach Boys songs. What they cannot do is put the phrase "Beach Boys" in the name of their band. After the Daily Mail fiasco where Mike was laughed out of court I doubt he'd try that on again. He's fond of his lawyers but he's not actually stupid.

Is Mike suing anyone ?  Suppose - and I grant it's a radical idea, involving considering the available evidence in isolation without any spin or bias, but indulge me - it's Brian et al bringing the suit ? The wording of the piece gives no clues as to who is suing who. In fact, if anything, the author appears to imply that the litigation isn't pending but actually in progress.

[absinthe_boy]

Now, why Mike might be suing anyone at this point is conjecture. It's been established that Brian and co can call themselves former or erstwhile Beach Boys in their publicity and can mention that they play Beach Boys songs. What they cannot do is put the phrase "Beach Boys" in the name of their band. After the Daily Mail fiasco where Mike was laughed out of court I doubt he'd try that on again. He's fond of his lawyers but he's not actually stupid.

Is Mike suing anyone ?  Suppose - and I grant it's a radical idea, involving considering the available evidence in isolation without any spin or bias, but indulge me - it's Brian et al bringing the suit ? The wording of the piece gives no clues as to who is suing who. In fact, if anything, the author appears to imply that the litigation isn't pending but actually in progress.

to be fair AGD, we don't know who's suing who. Just an assumption going on prior behaviour. You are quite correct that there is no identification of who might be suing who.

[Cyncie]

Now, why Mike might be suing anyone at this point is conjecture. It's been established that Brian and co can call themselves former or erstwhile Beach Boys in their publicity and can mention that they play Beach Boys songs. What they cannot do is put the phrase "Beach Boys" in the name of their band. After the Daily Mail fiasco where Mike was laughed out of court I doubt he'd try that on again. He's fond of his lawyers but he's not actually stupid.

Is Mike suing anyone ?  Suppose - and I grant it's a radical idea, involving considering the available evidence in isolation without any spin or bias, but indulge me - it's Brian et al bringing the suit ? The wording of the piece gives no clues as to who is suing who. In fact, if anything, the author appears to imply that the litigation isn't pending but actually in progress.

In one of his previous recent interviews, Al commented that they were wanting to refer to themselves as Beach Boys in some way, but were pretty sure of a resulting lawsuit. The assumption was that Mike would sue to stop it, but it's always possible that Brian et al would need to sue to gain that right. The link was posted here. I'd look it up, but I'm headed out to work.

[absinthe_boy]

As I understand it, and AGD would be the oracle here, BRI licences the rights to "The Beach Boys" name to 'The Mike & Bruce' show. Brian Douglas Wilson is a voting member of BRI and therefore a part of the decision to grant that license.

If he, Al and Dave now wish to use the moniker "The Beach Boys" they could await the next time the license is up, or they could presumably launch legal action. I am unsure what grounds they might do so. You could argue there are more "original" Beach Boys in in Brian's band as it is currently touring and recording but that's not really the point, legally speaking. The license is owned or leased to Mike.

Reminds me of Yes and ABWH.....

[Andrew G. Doe]

If Brian & Co. tried to refer to themselves as "The Beach Boys", or used the Double-B phrase in the prime advertising, they would most certainly be sued.

By Brother Records Inc., who hold the trademark. Contrary to what has been stated in reviews of the recent BBAD gigs, Mike doesn't own the name: it's licensed to him by BRI (yeah, we all know that here but a wee reminder of the facts never hurts). If they wanted to 'regain' the right to use the marquee name (an act they've not apparently contemplated for some 15 years), they wouldn't have to resort to lawsuits - just call an emergency meeting of the voting members of BRI and table a motion to revoke the license.

Except, they won't do that: there's no point, because Mike won't vote against himself, and Carl's estate won't kiss goodbye to a nice six-figure annual income on a point of (questionable) artistic integrity. So, vote tied at 2-2, status quo remains.

[Andrew G. Doe]

As I understand it, and AGD would be the oracle here, BRI licences the rights to "The Beach Boys" name to 'The Mike & Bruce' show. Brian Douglas Wilson is a voting member of BRI and therefore a part of the decision to grant that license.

If he, Al and Dave now wish to use the moniker "The Beach Boys" they could await the next time the license is up, or they could presumably launch legal action. I am unsure what grounds they might do so. You could argue there are more "original" Beach Boys in in Brian's band as it is currently touring and recording but that's not really the point, legally speaking. The license is owned or leased to Mike.

Reminds me of Yes and ABWH.....

Mike & Bruce have the BB name for touring only - they cannot release anything as by The Beach Boys (nor can Brian or Alan).

[SloopJohnnyB]

Oh, bring it on. Popcorn, anyone?  

What's the difference. There are no 'reunion' projects on the horizon that we know about.

Most involved are millionaires many times over. I'm sure Carl's estate will be taken care of no matter what the outcome over the naming rights. David is the new (old) guy in. I'm sure he'll benefit as well. Maybe Blondie, too.

All I want is all involved to keep recording albums as 'The Beach Boys'. I'm sure Capitol records would like to see that, too. That's not happening right now. I like Mike and Bruce but I've got to side with Brian's camp here.

Share the name! At least let Brian's group use 'original Beach Boys members' or something. 'Founding members' is more like it. Unless Blondie gets more involved.  

[Bean Bag]

All I want is all involved to keep recording albums as 'The Beach Boys'. I'm sure Capitol records would like to see that, too.

Yep.

If they can get together (every year or so) and record a new Beach Boys album, there's really nothing else that concerns me with regard to their current situation.  They can sue each other all day -- it's their business.  I really don't care if there's two, three or four different camps touring playing "Fun, Fun, Fun" and "Barbara Ann."  Sure... it's silly, confusing and underscores their wacky legacy -- but whatever they need to do to enjoy themselves, have-at-it.

Just give me some new albums.  We've got a LOT of missed opportunities and lost decades.  This was a pretty decent record -- I would like a few more before it's all over.

[Jim V.]

If Brian & Co. tried to refer to themselves as "The Beach Boys", or used the Double-B phrase in the prime advertising, they would most certainly be sued.

By Brother Records Inc., who hold the trademark. Contrary to what has been stated in reviews of the recent BBAD gigs, Mike doesn't own the name: it's licensed to him by BRI (yeah, we all know that here but a wee reminder of the facts never hurts). If they wanted to 'regain' the right to use the marquee name (an act they've not apparently contemplated for some 15 years), they wouldn't have to resort to lawsuits - just call an emergency meeting of the voting members of BRI and table a motion to revoke the license.

Except, they won't do that: there's no point, because Mike won't vote against himself, and Carl's estate won't kiss goodbye to a nice six-figure annual income on a point of (questionable) artistic integrity. So, vote tied at 2-2, status quo remains.

I know nothing of the corporate stuff, but would a 2-2 tie ensure the status quo remaining? Does Mike have the license in perpetuity, barring a vote to take it away, or do they renew it every so often. Because if it does come up for renewal, it would seem as though a tie would benefit those who don't want him to keep using the name.

[Sheriff John Stone]

If Brian & Co. tried to refer to themselves as "The Beach Boys", or used the Double-B phrase in the prime advertising, they would most certainly be sued.

By Brother Records Inc., who hold the trademark. Contrary to what has been stated in reviews of the recent BBAD gigs, Mike doesn't own the name: it's licensed to him by BRI (yeah, we all know that here but a wee reminder of the facts never hurts). If they wanted to 'regain' the right to use the marquee name (an act they've not apparently contemplated for some 15 years), they wouldn't have to resort to lawsuits - just call an emergency meeting of the voting members of BRI and table a motion to revoke the license.

Except, they won't do that: there's no point, because Mike won't vote against himself, and Carl's estate won't kiss goodbye to a nice six-figure annual income on a point of (questionable) artistic integrity. So, vote tied at 2-2, status quo remains.

I know nothing of the corporate stuff, but would a 2-2 tie ensure the status quo remaining? Does Mike have the license in perpetuity, barring a vote to take it away, or do they renew it every so often. Because if it does come up for renewal, it would seem as though a tie would benefit those who don't want him to keep using the name.

And....we're making (or maybe not) a big assumption that Brian even wants the Beach Boys' name. I don't think so, not at this stage of his physical and emotional life, but I wouldn't put anything past Melinda, and I don't mean that in a critical way.

However, it is a bit odd that for this recent "Brian Wilson Show", there was not a single Brian Wilson solo song performed, all Beach Boys' songs. I wonder what that tells you about how Brianandhiswifeandmanagers feel about his solo material? Just saying....

[ontor pertawst]

It's weird that on a joint tour with Jeff Beck and featuring 3 other Beach Boys who have to do some leads on BB songs, the setlists sometimes get a bit too tight to include Your Imagination and Goin' Home? I betcha some come back into the set anyway. BW mentioned it in an interview today.
  
Then someone can say: "I went to this show to see Brian, Al, David, and Blondie sing Beach Boys songs! Why is Melinda forcing them to sing solo Brian Wilson songs? People want to hear the hits! They should've given another song to Blondie or David! She's trying to big up Brian Wilson at the expense of the Beach Boys legacy -- I wouldn't put anything past her!"
 

[CenturyDeprived]

Mike & Bruce have the BB name for touring only - they cannot release anything as by The Beach Boys (nor can Brian or Alan).

Which I'm sure most people would agree is a good thing.

But makes me wonder: if M&B were legally allowed under the contract to release recorded product as being "by The Beach Boys", would they have released any new "BB" albums during the '98-'11 period? Would "Santa's Going to Kokomo" have been a "Beach Boys" song? My guess is yes.

[Andrew G. Doe]

If Brian & Co. tried to refer to themselves as "The Beach Boys", or used the Double-B phrase in the prime advertising, they would most certainly be sued.

By Brother Records Inc., who hold the trademark. Contrary to what has been stated in reviews of the recent BBAD gigs, Mike doesn't own the name: it's licensed to him by BRI (yeah, we all know that here but a wee reminder of the facts never hurts). If they wanted to 'regain' the right to use the marquee name (an act they've not apparently contemplated for some 15 years), they wouldn't have to resort to lawsuits - just call an emergency meeting of the voting members of BRI and table a motion to revoke the license.

Except, they won't do that: there's no point, because Mike won't vote against himself, and Carl's estate won't kiss goodbye to a nice six-figure annual income on a point of (questionable) artistic integrity. So, vote tied at 2-2, status quo remains.

I know nothing of the corporate stuff, but would a 2-2 tie ensure the status quo remaining? Does Mike have the license in perpetuity, barring a vote to take it away, or do they renew it every so often. Because if it does come up for renewal, it would seem as though a tie would benefit those who don't want him to keep using the name.

2-2 means there's no  majority in favor of change. Thus, there is none. Bit like a championship boxing match that's scored a tie: the champ wasn't beaten, ergo remains the champ.