Did Mike ever try to get the legal right to record under the BB name (post '98)?

[SurfRiderHawaii]

it's highly unlikely that Carl's estate would give up earning several hundred thousand dollars every year Mike tours (and doing nothing active towards it) on a point of artistic integrity.

Important to note the word "several" in the statement above. That could mean plausibly anywhere from $200,000 (more than $100,000) to $900,000. I strongly suspect the amount paid is toward the bottom of that range.

Remember too that Mike is 25% of BRI, so he is also paying himself.  When I did the calculations based on Mike's court documented statements on tour revenue, after taxes, it is in the area of $125,000 each to the 4 BRI shareholders. Just a piee of the pie along side licensing, music sales, etc.

Based on figures that are at least 10 years old.

Very true.  Revenue might have doubled.  Mike is a touring machine. And I bet he is responsible for selling a lot of CDs and T shirts.

[HeyJude]

I reviewed all the post 99 court docs about a year ago and am fairly certain Miie's licene is nonexclusive.  Case in point, BRI issued a license for the C50 reunion. Evidence being Mike's complaints about lack of control. If the reunion had been under Mike's license, he would have called all the shots.

Commonsense tells you Mike's license is exclusive: if it were not, Alan would be playing his shows as The Beach Boys as well, wouldn't he ? The reunion was a one-off exception that all factions agreed to.

Semantics.  BRI could issue Al a license to tour as "A TRIBUTE TO THE BEACH BOYS STARRING AL JARDINE". Al would have to pay BRI the same % as Mike does The court docs specically say Mike's license is non-exclusive.

Could BRI license Al to tour as "The Beach Boys featuring Al Jardine  " ? Yes. But due to Mike litigious nature/history, BRI isn't going to do that.

It's there in black & white: Alan decided he didn't need a BRI approved license, exclusive or non- and tried to get away with paying a lot less than the sums required by BRI. He soon found out he was wrong. it was BRI who sued him, not Mike (and yes, as Alan is a voting member of BRI he was indeed technically suing himself !). As he has several times in the past, Alan engineered his own problem here. The situation back then was very straightforward: play by the rules and pay us what the license says, you can bill yourself as "The Beach Boys". Try to pull a fast one, we will sue your ass, and in this case "we" included Brian & Carl's estate as well as Mike, under the BRI mantle.

And yes, Mike's license was non-exclusive - then. It's been exclusive, i.e. only he can tour as The Beach Boys, for many years.

It is interesting to note that there must have been some genuine confusion as to whether Al had a valid license in 1999. He was able to tour through most of 1999 as "BBFF." I'm guessing it wasn't until Mike got an "exclusive" license that they were able to get the courts to grant an injunction against him.

I only point this out to suggest that, if the courts were unsure as to whether Al had a valid license during some or most of 1999, then he may not have been actively engineering his own demise so much as being eventually shot down by the exclusive license.

[Nicko1234]

BRI is a corporation.  It was all done via licensing and contracts.  The C50 license gave Joe Thomas a lot of power, including the live album he botched up. Mike kinda had no choice because BRI issued the license for the C50. You argue my point. The C50 license was a  negotiated deal. If Mike had an  exclusive license, he would have  had ALL the power in dictating the C50 tour. But his license is non eexclusive so they all negotiated something.

No. Just no.  

Mike kinda had no choice? Of course he did as proved by the fact that the tour ended and he is back using The Beach Boys name.

No, Mike would not have had ALL the power because Brian`s management would never have agreed to it.

Your theory only works if a Beach Boys tour can occur without Mike wanting it to happen. Mike wanted the C50 tour to occur.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Once more, for Gregg's especial benefit seeing as he's currently hard of comprehending: Mike's license to tour as "The Beach Boys" is exclusive and has been for a good few years. Just because you've not seen any documentation saying so doesn't mean it isn't so. The C50 tour was an exceptional circumstance for which the "Love License" was temporarily suspended for a set and agreed term.

[HeyJude]

it's highly unlikely that Carl's estate would give up earning several hundred thousand dollars every year Mike tours (and doing nothing active towards it) on a point of artistic integrity.

Important to note the word "several" in the statement above. That could mean plausibly anywhere from $200,000 (more than $100,000) to $900,000. I strongly suspect the amount paid is toward the bottom of that range.

Remember too that Mike is 25% of BRI, so he is also paying himself.  When I did the calculations based on Mike's court documented statements on tour revenue, after taxes, it is in the area of $125,000 each to the 4 BRI shareholders. Just a piee of the pie along side licensing, music sales, etc.

Based on figures that are at least 10 years old.

Very true.  Revenue might have doubled.  Mike is a touring machine. And I bet he is responsible for selling a lot of CDs and T shirts.

It matters not much, but I'm assuming licensed merchandise is handled differently. Usually, companies make that stuff by licensing the trademark from BRI. I would imagine Mike's touring operation simply acts as a vendor of the merchandise. I could be wrong. They may make it in-house or order it in-house and incorporate it directly into touring revenue.

[HeyJude]

BRI is a corporation.  It was all done via licensing and contracts.  The C50 license gave Joe Thomas a lot of power, including the live album he botched up. Mike kinda had no choice because BRI issued the license for the C50. You argue my point. The C50 license was a  negotiated deal. If Mike had an  exclusive license, he would have  had ALL the power in dictating the C50 tour. But his license is non eexclusive so they all negotiated something.

No. Just no.  

Mike kinda had no choice? Of course he did as proved by the fact that the tour ended and he is back using The Beach Boys name.

No, Mike would not have had ALL the power because Brian`s management would never have agreed to it.

Your theory only works if a Beach Boys tour can occur without Mike wanting it to happen. Mike wanted the C50 tour to occur.

I suppose a more nuanced way of saying it might be that in terms of touring a full reunited group, Mike did not have all the power.

But in terms of touring as "The Beach Boys", and/or being able to fall back on that if anything else ends or falls through, Mike does have pretty much all the power (aside from new BRI corporate votes). This is the very power he wielded in going back to his own thing in 2012.

[Nicko1234]

The lawsuits back in 1999-ish seemed to strongly imply that Al going out as even "BBFF" was taking profits away and confusing people. They were hunting down people that attended the February 1999 Strawberry Festival gigs trying to find people who felt they had been duped by Al's band, etc.

That's why the idea that BRI was offering "non-exclusive" licenses to all at any point seems weird. BRI argued in court that having more than one band with even variations on the name was confusing the marketplace.

I think that`s partly because he was using different booking agents to the ones that were demanded but mainly just because he wasn`t paying any money to BRI. If the groups had been playing in different parts of the country or even the world and Al had been paying the required $$$ then I doubt Carl`s estate would have had an issue with things.

[southbay]

nm

[SurfRiderHawaii]

If some promoter offered Brian and Al $100 million to tour as the Beach Boys for 40 shows, a license would be issued.  But that isn't going to happen. BRI is a corporation that does what is in the besst financial interests of BRI.

Right now, that is Mike's touring Beach Boys. If it were more lucrative to have two bands, they would do it. But it isn't.  Confusion in the marketplace, bad press, it would drive down attendence overall I expect.

[Nicko1234]

If some promoter offered Brian and Al $100 million to tour as the Beach Boys for 40 shows, a license would be issued.  But that isn't going to happen. BRI is a corporation that does what is in the besst financial interests of BRI.

Right now, that is Mike's touring Beach Boys. If it were more lucrative to have two bands, they would do it. But it isn't.  Confusion in the marketplace, bad press, it would drive down attendence overall I expect.

What is this based on though?

[Andrew G. Doe]

If some promoter offered Brian and Al $100 million to tour as the Beach Boys for 40 shows, a license would be issued.  But that isn't going to happen. BRI is a corporation that does what is in the besst financial interests of BRI.

Ignoring the undeniable fact that no promoter in their right mind would do anything so stupid, no, a license would not be issued just like that: there would be a special meeting of BRI shareholders, called presumably by Brian and/or Alan, there would be (doubtless heated) debate and a vote would be taken. That's why BRI is a corporation and not the musical equivalent of a dictatorship. Gregg seems to inhabit a world where, if he wants something to happen, why, Shazaam ! - it happens ! If only... if only... so many things would be so very different. 

That, or he has inside knowledge of the corporate workings of BRI that puts the rest of our feeble assumptions to utter shame. 

[SurfRiderHawaii]

If some promoter offered Brian and Al $100 million to tour as the Beach Boys for 40 shows, a license would be issued.  But that isn't going to happen. BRI is a corporation that does what is in the besst financial interests of BRI.

Ignoring the undeniable fact that no promoter in their right mind would do anything so stupid, no, a license would not be issued just like that: there would be a special meeting of BRI shareholders, called presumably by Brian and/or Alan, there would be (doubtless heated) debate and a vote would be taken. That's why BRI is a corporation and not the musical equivalent of a dictatorship. Gregg seems to inhabit a world where, if he wants something to happen, why, Shazaam ! - it happens ! If only... if only... so many things would be so very different.  

That, or he has inside knowledge of the corporate workings of BRI that puts the rest of our feeble assumptions to utter shame.  

If there is a BRI vote, and a majority votes to issue Brian and Al another license, in legalese, Andy, that makes Mike's license non-exclusive. Despite court documents stating the license is non-exclusive, we only have your say so that it is exclusive. As to the C50, that another license was issued by BRI, for the BBs name, not in control of Mike Love, is actual evidence that Mike's license is non-exclusive. You obviously don't understand the concept.
 
This may help enlighten you: http://www.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html

I can understand these kind of business concepts, legalese, corporate issues are beyond your normal sphere of knowledge. Not having to do with recording dates, horse races and such.

I seem to have as much inner knowledge of BRI as you do Andy. I believe it was you, on the BBB Board, who was offering to take bets that Al was playing with Mike after a poster stated the contrary. Would think you, of all people, would know better.

Edit: Here is your post, " Re(7): Al Jardine not appearing 7/5
Posted on June 10, 2014 at 19:26:53 by AGD

Let's wait and see who shows on the 5th. I'm willing to wager a small sum that Alan will be there. Of course, I don't have any such high-placed sources.

Or do I...  "

Obviously, you don't. But atleast you figured how to spell my name correctly Andy. Bravo!  

[Nicko1234]

If there is a BRI vote, and a majority votes to issue Brian and Al another license, in legalese, Andy, that makes Mike's license non-exclusive. Despite court documents stating the license is non-exclusive, we only have your say so that it is exclusive. As to the C50, that another license was issued by BRI, for the BBs name, not in control of Mike Love, is actual evidence that Mike's license is non-exclusive. You obviously don't understand the concept.
 
This may help enlighten you: http://www.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html

I can understand these kind of business concepts, legalese, corporate issues are beyond your normal sphere of knowledge. Not having to do with recording dates, horse races and such.

I seem to have as much inner knowledge of BRI as you do Andy. I believe it was you, on the BBB Board, who was offering to take bets that Al was playing with Mike after a poster stated the contrary. Would think you, of all people, would know better. Knowing you, you have already gone back and modified your comments there. Nothing burns you more than being wrong. 

Atleast you figured how to spell my name correctly Andy. Bravo! 

This is a genuine question, but can you give a link to a recent legal document or ruling stating that the licence is non-exclusive? I think another poster asked earlier but it would help to clarify things...

AGD certainly isn`t the only one who has stated that Mike does have an exclusive licence though. It has been printed numerous times in the past.

The C50 tour certainly isn`t proof of what you are saying on its own.

And the comments about horse racing don`t really add anything do they?

[SurfRiderHawaii]

If there is a BRI vote, and a majority votes to issue Brian and Al another license, in legalese, Andy, that makes Mike's license non-exclusive. Despite court documents stating the license is non-exclusive, we only have your say so that it is exclusive. As to the C50, that another license was issued by BRI, for the BBs name, not in control of Mike Love, is actual evidence that Mike's license is non-exclusive. You obviously don't understand the concept.
 
This may help enlighten you: http://www.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html

I can understand these kind of business concepts, legalese, corporate issues are beyond your normal sphere of knowledge. Not having to do with recording dates, horse races and such.

I seem to have as much inner knowledge of BRI as you do Andy. I believe it was you, on the BBB Board, who was offering to take bets that Al was playing with Mike after a poster stated the contrary. Would think you, of all people, would know better. Knowing you, you have already gone back and modified your comments there. Nothing burns you more than being wrong. 

Atleast you figured how to spell my name correctly Andy. Bravo! 

This is a genuine question, but can you give a link to a recent legal document or ruling stating that the licence is non-exclusive? I think another poster asked earlier but it would help to clarify things...

AGD certainly isn`t the only one who has stated that Mike does have an exclusive licence though. It has been printed numerous times in the past.

The C50 tour certainly isn`t proof of what you are saying on its own.

And the comments about horse racing don`t really add anything do they?

I put all those links in the last thread where this was all  previously hashed out. As Andy likes to say, the board has a search function.

PS - I love to talk horse racing.   

[Nicko1234]

If there is a BRI vote, and a majority votes to issue Brian and Al another license, in legalese, Andy, that makes Mike's license non-exclusive. Despite court documents stating the license is non-exclusive, we only have your say so that it is exclusive. As to the C50, that another license was issued by BRI, for the BBs name, not in control of Mike Love, is actual evidence that Mike's license is non-exclusive. You obviously don't understand the concept.
 
This may help enlighten you: http://www.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html

I can understand these kind of business concepts, legalese, corporate issues are beyond your normal sphere of knowledge. Not having to do with recording dates, horse races and such.

I seem to have as much inner knowledge of BRI as you do Andy. I believe it was you, on the BBB Board, who was offering to take bets that Al was playing with Mike after a poster stated the contrary. Would think you, of all people, would know better. Knowing you, you have already gone back and modified your comments there. Nothing burns you more than being wrong. 

Atleast you figured how to spell my name correctly Andy. Bravo! 

This is a genuine question, but can you give a link to a recent legal document or ruling stating that the licence is non-exclusive? I think another poster asked earlier but it would help to clarify things...

AGD certainly isn`t the only one who has stated that Mike does have an exclusive licence though. It has been printed numerous times in the past.

The C50 tour certainly isn`t proof of what you are saying on its own.

And the comments about horse racing don`t really add anything do they?

I put all those links in the last thread where this was all  previously hashed out. As Andy likes to say, the board has a search function.

PS - I love to talk horse racing.   

Would that be the same thread where you said that Brian and Al were going to vote to take away the licence from Mike and could make a fortune touring as the BBs themselves? 

[guitarfool2002]

A few points stand out, if I could describe them.

First - It's old ground, kicking the dead horse, et al...But the very issue, in fact what may be the main issue behind the "exclusive" naming rights that involved Al getting taken to court caused more confusion in 2012 for some venues and booking issues than I think was even a pressing issue with people buying tickets to one of Al's Family & Friends shows and thinking they were seeing the full Beach Boys or something. Yet from the advertising and listings in the wake of C50, there was some confusion there which was even reposted and discussed here, to the point where some venues were using the 50th promo photos to incorrectly bill a show. Place blame accordingly. I don't like the term "ironic", but doesn't that apply here? 

Second - Others have described the way BRI gets compensated for these various shows and the revenue they generate. It seems a pretty fair split that everyone agrees on, if you use the name you split up some of the revenue with BRI, just like any license or franchise.

Now if Al, let's say, were to hypothetically start billing a tour again as "Al Jardine of The Beach Boys", or even if David Marks were to do a tour as "Original Beach Boy David Marks" or whatever other incarnations could be thought of...First, do we really think fans would be confused as to who or what they were buying tickets to see? Second, if it's bringing revenue into BRI's coffers, no matter how big or small the tour and as long as there is at least one legitimate band member who can be called an original Beach Boy, why would that be objectionable to have even more revenue generated for the corporate interest and the board members who share the take?

We could flip the scenario and suggest Mike could be collecting revenue from Al's touring while still doing his own tours, I seriously doubt there would be fans confused about who they were buying tickets to see...how would that be objectionable if it's mainly an issue of finances? (Understand I realize the issue originally involved how much the F&F tour was going to split with BRI or pay BRI, but still...)

[Andrew G. Doe]

If there is a BRI vote, and a majority votes to issue Brian and Al another license, in legalese, Andy, that makes Mike's license non-exclusive.

If... and if my mother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. Hasn't been any such vote - i.e. to offer anyone except Mike a license - for close on 15 years, nor will there be.

Despite court documents stating the license is non-exclusive, we only have your say so that it is exclusive. As to the C50, that another license was issued by BRI, for the BBs name, not in control of Mike Love, is actual evidence that Mike's license is non-exclusive. You obviously don't understand the concept.

You think I'd be dumb enough to incorrectly state that as fact, knowing who's monitoring this forum ? Those documents are close on 15 years old and refer to Alan's attempt to twostep sidestep paying BRI a reasonable licensing fee. Things have moved on since then. And care to cite your source that another license was issued for 2012 by BRI ? First I've heard of it. Like I said, in your world just wanting something to happen makes it... happen. Maybe you should try applying it to another scenario. 

LA Times, 10/5/12: "“The name ‘The Beach Boys’ is controlled by Brother Records Inc., which was founded by the original members of the Beach Boys and whose sole shareholders voted over a decade ago to grant me an exclusive license to tour as ‘The Beach Boys.’”"

Says so in Stebbins' book too, so it must be true. No-one's stood up and said "no, it's not" and lest we forget, The Beach Boys can be very litigious people.

[Andrew G. Doe]

And the comments about horse racing don`t really add anything do they?

To explain - apparently because I earn my crust working as a bookmaker (William Hill, since you asked), that makes me one who trades in human misery, not to mention directly responsible for the (alleged) fact that Gregg's uncle blew the family fortune down at the racetrack one day. That's a pretty fair example of his level of reasoned argument.  

[SurfRiderHawaii]

If there is a BRI vote, and a majority votes to issue Brian and Al another license, in legalese, Andy, that makes Mike's license non-exclusive.

If... and if my mother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. Hasn't been any such vote - i.e. to offer anyone except Mike a license - for close on 15 years, nor will there be.

Despite court documents stating the license is non-exclusive, we only have your say so that it is exclusive. As to the C50, that another license was issued by BRI, for the BBs name, not in control of Mike Love, is actual evidence that Mike's license is non-exclusive. You obviously don't understand the concept.

You think I'd be dumb enough to incorrectly state that as fact, knowing who's monitoring this forum ? Those documents are close on 15 years old and refer to Alan's attempt to twostep sidestep paying BRI a reasonable licensing fee. Things have moved on since then. And care to cite your source that another license was issued for 2012 by BRI ? First I've heard of it. Like I said, in your world just wanting something to happen makes it... happen. Maybe you should try applying it to another scenario. 

LA Times, 10/5/12: "“The name ‘The Beach Boys’ is controlled by Brother Records Inc., which was founded by the original members of the Beach Boys and whose sole shareholders voted over a decade ago to grant me an exclusive license to tour as ‘The Beach Boys.’”"

Says so in Stebbins' book too, so it must be true. No-one's stood up and said "no, it's not" and lest we forget, The Beach Boys can be very litigious people.

I would refer you to something MORE offical, such as the multiple Court rulings re: Love vs. Jardne. Each and every ruling states Mike was issued a "non-exclusive license". Your quote of Stebbins is laughable.  It doesn't say Sole, or Exclusive. As usual, don't let the facts get in the way of a good argueement! I have seen Mike's license framed a dozen different ways in print. Many erroneously even state Mike owns th name.

Just because Mike has the only license at the moment doesn't make it exclusive. That not so subtle distinction seems beyond the grasp.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

And the comments about horse racing don`t really add anything do they?

To explain - apparently because I earn my crust working as a bookmaker (William Hill, since you asked), that makes me one who trades in human misery, not to mention directly responsible for the (alleged) fact that Gregg's uncle blew the family fortune down at the racetrack one day. That's a pretty fair example of his level of reasoned argument. 

A clear reference to your promotion of the M/B UK shows following horse raises. Me thinks you are hypersensitive about your profession. Seeing you suffer such angst over it, maybe you should try a new profession.  Maybe go get your BA, then MBA, and learn about how corporations work, licensing and such things. 

But shame on you for delving into my family background and posting about it. This is none of your business sir! It is beyond me how OSD gets banned while you continually insult people in a multitude of ways.

[Nicko1234]

I would refer you to something MORE offical, such as the multiple Court rulings re: Love vs. Jardne. Each and every ruling states Mike was issued a "non-exclusive license". Your quote of Stebbins is laughable.  It doesn't say Sole, or Exclusive. As usual, don't let the facts get in the way of a good argueement! I have seen Mike's license framed a dozen different ways in print. Many erroneously even state Mike owns th name.

Just because Mike has the only license at the moment doesn't make it exclusive. That not so subtle distinction seems beyond the grasp.

Again though, can you post a link to a recent statement or court ruling?

I don`t think anyone denies that in 1998 Mike was issued with a non-exclusive licence but it would be interesting to see more recent court documents stating that nothing changed afterwards.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I would refer you to something MORE offical, such as the multiple Court rulings re: Love vs. Jardne. Each and every ruling states Mike was issued a "non-exclusive license". Your quote of Stebbins is laughable.  It doesn't say Sole, or Exclusive. As usual, don't let the facts get in the way of a good argueement! I have seen Mike's license framed a dozen different ways in print. Many erroneously even state Mike owns th name.

Just because Mike has the only license at the moment doesn't make it exclusive. That not so subtle distinction seems beyond the grasp.

Again though, can you post a link to a recent statement or court ruling?

I don`t think anyone denies that in 1998 Mike was issued with a non-exclusive licence but it would be interesting to see more recent court documents stating that nothing changed afterwards.

I guess you weren't able to figure out the search function. You don't PM, can't use the search function, and apparently,  can't use Google.

I was just reviewing that old thread. Funny,  back then, given links, you continued to argue and argue. Like a broken record. Believe what you want Nicko.

[Andrew G. Doe]

But shame on you for delving into my family background and posting about it. This is none of your business sir! It is beyond me how OSD gets banned while you continually insult people in a multitude of ways.

Didn't delve - you told me.  

[SurfRiderHawaii]

But shame on you for delving into my family background and posting about it. This is none of your business sir! It is beyond me how OSD gets banned while you continually insult people in a multitude of ways.

Didn't delve - you told me. 

Via PM. Bad, bad boy. But you did delve, as you well know!

[Andrew G. Doe]

Regarding your documentation claiming to prove Mike's license is non-exclusive, it does nothing of the sort, as it all refers to the original 1998 case and it's (considerable) fallout. The later awarding Mike of an exclusive license isn't so much as alluded to in the papers because, understandably, it has nothing to do with the original plaint as brought by Alan. To bring it down to a basic level, it doesn't say Mike has an exclusive license but neither does it say he hasn't, because it has no relevance to the case in question, viz., Alan's attempt to evade playing BRI the sums required for a non-exclusive license as proposed in late 1998. I note you've avoided commenting on Mike's own statement, in the LA Times no less, that in 2012 he'd had an exclusive license for over a decade. In his reply, Brian contested several of Mike's statements, but having an exclusive license wasn't one of them.

"I would refer you to something MORE offical, such as the multiple Court rulings re: Love vs. Jardne. Each and every ruling states Mike was issued a "non-exclusive license"."

Yes, they surely do - in every single case, in reference to the 1998 agreement:

"In 1998, BRI issued a non-exclusive license to Michael Love, an original member of The Beach Boys, to use the band's trademark." (432 F. 3d 939 - Brother Records Inc v. Jardine, Filed December 19, 2005 - note, BRI, not Mike Love)

"BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”)." (Brother Records v Jardine, No. 01-57095. Decided: January 28, 2003)

This one, also from the document quoted above, is especially interesting (emphasis mine): "The district court concluded that Jardine raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Jardine had a non-exclusive license, which expired by its own terms on December 31, 1999" So, any and all non-exclusive license issued by BRI in fall 1998 automatically ended by the end of the next year. That BRI then proceeded to take legal action against Alan in January and March of 2000 to prevent him using the BB name in his bands and advertising could be taken as an indication that Mike's exclusive license was granted in early 2000.

Or not, but the fact is, Mike has an exclusive license and has for some years.