Al Jardine says there's a BAD conflict w/Mike. Aka: The welcome back AGD thread

[runnersdialzero]

M. WILSON: He's got some Bruce with him...

 B. WILSON: Bruce Johnston.

"Some Bruce." Classic.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I think we may be talking about two different things, or I maybe I don't get it. If you don't need a license for a fair use of the trademark then the license doesn't matter. I think Mike has an exclusive license but BAD may be able to use the name in ways without the license. I think that is what the court said, Al used the name in improper ways and also operated as if and claimed he had a license but it had not been approved or signed off on by BRI but presumably Al could use the name in proper ways without the license.  Or not.

On the old Larry King interview with Brian and Melinda, they talked about "the BRI license" which sounds like one license. And, they said it went to Mike because he was "family." I wonder if it is on YouTube.  If I had to guess, it was probably around 2004 during the SMiLE promotion.  (I'm guessing.)

 

Not on youtube but here is part of the transcript.

KING: How long were you a group?

 B. WILSON: From 1961 to 1998. Then we broke up after Carl died. Which is too bad.

 KING: And Mike, he has the group now, is that it...

 B. WILSON: He licenses the name, yes.

 M. WILSON: We licensed the name to Mike because he is actually the only one that really -- well, I shouldn't say the only one, Al would like to too, but we decided Mike would be the guy who...

 KING: So he takes the group out called the Beach Boys.

 M. WILSON: He's got some Bruce with him...

 B. WILSON: Bruce Johnston.

 M. WILSON: Yes. And the other ones I really don't know who...

 KING: But they go out and they have the license to use the name.

 M. WILSON: They have the license to use the name.

 KING: And you get a cut of what they do?

 M. WILSON: Yes.

 KING: So you get a percentage.

 M. WILSON: Mmm-hmm.

Tells us absolutely nothing we don't already know. Bummer. Sounds like it was even pre-Al lawsuit.

Anyway, I've read the tea leaves as far as I can tell. Will await Al's next interview with interest.

[Eric Aniversario]

"Some Bruce?"

Did she really not know who Bruce was?

[filledeplage]

I think we may be talking about two different things, or I maybe I don't get it. If you don't need a license for a fair use of the trademark then the license doesn't matter. I think Mike has an exclusive license but BAD may be able to use the name in ways without the license. I think that is what the court said, Al used the name in improper ways and also operated as if and claimed he had a license but it had not been approved or signed off on by BRI but presumably Al could use the name in proper ways without the license.  Or not.

On the old Larry King interview with Brian and Melinda, they talked about "the BRI license" which sounds like one license. And, they said it went to Mike because he was "family." I wonder if it is on YouTube.  If I had to guess, it was probably around 2004 during the SMiLE promotion.  (I'm guessing.)

Not on youtube but here is part of the transcript.

KING: How long were you a group?

 B. WILSON: From 1961 to 1998. Then we broke up after Carl died. Which is too bad.

 KING: And Mike, he has the group now, is that it...

 B. WILSON: He licenses the name, yes.

 M. WILSON: We licensed the name to Mike because he is actually the only one that really -- well, I shouldn't say the only one, Al would like to too, but we decided Mike would be the guy who...

 KING: So he takes the group out called the Beach Boys.

 M. WILSON: He's got some Bruce with him...

 B. WILSON: Bruce Johnston.

 M. WILSON: Yes. And the other ones I really don't know who...

 KING: But they go out and they have the license to use the name.

 M. WILSON: They have the license to use the name.

 KING: And you get a cut of what they do?

 M. WILSON: Yes.

 KING: So you get a percentage.

 M. WILSON: Mmm-hmm.

Tells us absolutely nothing we don't already know. Bummer. Sounds like it was even pre-Al lawsuit.

Anyway, I've read the tea leaves as far as I can tell. Will await Al's next interview with interest.

No, it does help.  I think that transcript followed the lawsuit.  Thanks for posting it. It was argued and submitted - Nov. 6, 2002 --Jan. 28, 2003.  SMiLE came out in 2004.  It was settled. The Court cited a case called Thane Intl., 305 F.3d at 900, "the nominative fair use defense shifts to the defendant the burden of proving no likelihood of confusion." The fair use analysis was not available to Al because there "was a likelihood of customer confusion as to the origin of the product."  The court also said that "actual confusion is undisputed." Under Thane, "if enough people have actually been confused," that element of marketplace confusion is established.

A Playboy case was cited, Playboy, 279 F.3d at 802, where the defendant had identified herself as "Playmate of the Year."
That means Playboy Playmate. It is not generic. It is "brand" related.  They are classified as:
 G-eneric
 A-rtisic (fanciful)
 D-escriptive
 S-uggestive

A nmemonic to remember them! 

They also looked at "secondary meaning" in the minds of consumers.  That means that the "descriptive" term has become distinctive as well. 

[Cam Mott]

CNN's transcript says the Larry King LIVE interview "Aired August 20, 2004".

[oldsurferdude]

"Some Bruce?"

Did she really not know who Bruce was?

She would be in the same category as most people on the planet.

[guitarfool2002]

Confirming a recent question, *yes* there were several "Beach Boys" live shows being promoted after the 50th tour had wrapped, and those shows were strictly the Mike-led band with Bruce, yet the online advertising was mentioning the reunion. This, I'd think, would be in conflict with several agreements least of which would be what the promoters and the audiences would be paying for when they paid for the "Beach Boys", and listed the reunion band.

I posted at least two of these cases on this board as they happened, of course the links will be dead by now but I can say for certain there was what I felt was some misunderstanding, confusion, and/or basic ignorance - for whatever reasons - of what was being advertised versus who would be appearing on stage. And if I recall there were changes made to those advertisements and listings, but we'll never know how many folks not connected to the BB's fan universe saw the ads and bought tickets thinking it was a reunion show.

Consider this: Reading through the previous pages, one of the key elements in the legal aspects of using this or any brand name is avoiding confusion among those customers paying for that brand item and expecting to get a specific result.

The fact that even one venue, promoter, or marketer advertised a post-reunion show incorrectly would suggest there were some flaws in the existing agreement from that time, post-reunion.

[guitarfool2002]

And let me add too that there does thankfully seem to be something legal in the books which would control who or what can release any new music under the name "The Beach Boys".

If this were *not* in place, I'd suggest the reputation and legacy behind that name would not only stand to be tarnished but also possibly dragged through the mud and destroyed completely.

[Nicko1234]

M. WILSON: He's got some Bruce with him...

 B. WILSON: Bruce Johnston.

"Some Bruce." Classic.

I think it was confirmed by everybody who watched this at the time that Melinda did NOT make the 'some Bruce' comment.

[filledeplage]

M. WILSON: He's got some Bruce with him...
 B. WILSON: Bruce Johnston.

"Some Bruce." Classic.

I think it was confirmed by everybody who watched this at the time that Melinda did NOT make the 'some Bruce' comment.

If I had to guess, it is likely "scrivenor's error" on the part of the transcriptionist.  She may have very quickly said "someone named" Bruce (Johnston) - in order to "identify members" of the Touring Band arrangement.

And, I would probably remember a comment like that.  Think it is a boo-boo!  

[joe_blow]

M. WILSON: He's got some Bruce with him...
 B. WILSON: Bruce Johnston.

"Some Bruce." Classic.

I think it was confirmed by everybody who watched this at the time that Melinda did NOT make the 'some Bruce' comment.

If I had to guess, it is likely "scrivenor's error" on the part of the transcriptionist.  She may have very quickly said "someone named" Bruce (Johnston) - in order to "identify members" of the Touring Band arrangement.

And, I would probably remember a comment like that.  Think it is a boo-boo!  

I have this episode on VHS and I seem to recall her saying Bruce and not "some Bruce". Things I do recall are Melinda cutting off Brian when he tried to state that Landy had written songs (Brian being honest and Melinda trying her hand at revisionism) and Larry asking if at one point they were called Glen Campbell and The Beach Boys!

[SurfRiderHawaii]

CNN's transcript says the Larry King LIVE interview "Aired August 20, 2004".

When Al won his second appeal, he had a suit pending.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/music.beachboys.reut/

In 2008, a settlement was made between him and Mike. I imagine this set new guidelines for the license. Wonder if the terms of this settlement ever came out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/lawsuit-settled-over-beac_n_92706.html

[KittyKat]

I wonder how Al felt about his son Matt appearing with Mike and Bruce a few months ago.

I also wonder who has the tie-breaking vote in BRI, since it's four parties. Carl's family must have given Mike permission to use his image in the BB show. So, if that's a sign that Carl's family is on Mike's side if there is a dispute, and if Brian decided to team with Al on any issues, who would break the tie?

[Cam Mott]

How do we know that the "conflict" in the organization isn't Al v. Brian and Mike and Carl's estate? Has anyone heard Brian even wants to use the trademark on his solo tours? It seems to me that Al [and some fans] is only one playing up Brian's solo concerts as a defacto or continuation BB reunion. Is there any indication or evidence that BDub isn't perfectly happy with "Brian Wilson featuring Al Jardine and David Marks"?

[Cam Mott]

I wonder how Al felt about his son Matt appearing with Mike and Bruce a few months ago.

I also wonder who has the tie-breaking vote in BRI, since it's four parties. Carl's family must have given Mike permission to use his image in the BB show. So, if that's a sign that Carl's family is on Mike's side if there is a dispute, and if Brian decided to team with Al on any issues, who would break the tie?

I presume there would be no action and things would stay the same until they expired or some consensus jelled.

[Peter Reum]

There is no such thing as a 'tie breaker" in this BRI voting dilemma

[KittyKat]

Somebody would have to decide if there is ever a disagreement of two parties vs. two parties.  Unless one of the four parties has a larger percentage than the other three, of course. 

[Jim V.]

How do we know that the "conflict" in the organization isn't Al v. Brian and Mike and Carl's estate? Has anyone heard Brian even wants to use the trademark on his solo tours? It seems to me that Al [and some fans] is only one playing up Brian's solo concerts as a defacto or continuation BB reunion. Is there any indication or evidence that BDub isn't perfectly happy with "Brian Wilson featuring Al Jardine and David Marks"?

Do you have any interest in the groups music? Or do you just like the soap opera sh*t? Cuz I noticed you don't really post in the threads about the new, previously unreleased music that's coming out on Made In California or when Brian announced his new album or any of that stuff. Seems you care more about making sure Mike doesn't get blamed for SMiLE getting shelved or for ending C50 or for cheating on his wife on tour.

[bgas]

How do we know that the "conflict" in the organization isn't Al v. Brian and Mike and Carl's estate? Has anyone heard Brian even wants to use the trademark on his solo tours? It seems to me that Al [and some fans] is only one playing up Brian's solo concerts as a defacto or continuation BB reunion. Is there any indication or evidence that BDub isn't perfectly happy with "Brian Wilson featuring Al Jardine and David Marks"?

Do you have any interest in the groups music? Or do you just like the soap opera sh*t? Cuz I noticed you don't really post in the threads about the new, previously unreleased music that's coming out on Made In California or when Brian announced his new album or any of that stuff. Seems you care more about making sure Mike doesn't get blamed for SMiLE getting shelved or for ending C50 or for cheating on his wife on tour.

Does ANYONE really care whether Mike is cheating on his wife on tour?  The ohers, yeah, I can see the imprtance

[Gabo]

"Some Bruce?"

Did she really not know who Bruce was?

I remember in an interview Brian said he wouldn't even recognize Bruce if he saw him in public.

[Mikie]

Do you have any interest in the groups music? Or do you just like the soap opera sh*t?

Cam ain't the only one on these type threads.  I see your name pop up constantly on them, so don't blame him or anybody else for their interest in the soap opera sh*t because you're always right in the middle of it!!

[Gabo]

i agree with that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jim V.]

Do you have any interest in the groups music? Or do you just like the soap opera sh*t?

Cam ain't the only one on these type threads.  I see your name pop up constantly on them, so don't blame him or anybody else for their interest in the soap opera sh*t because you're always right in the middle of it!!

I agree with that. But I also actually post in the threads about the group's music. Unlike other posters who apparently don't have anything to contribute except when it comes to Mike being unfairly blamed for stuff in their opinion. Kinda like how Phil Cohen only popped up to complain about non-releases. Cam only pops up when it's about internecine squabbles. Weird.

[Cam Mott]

Do you have any interest in the groups music? Or do you just like the soap opera sh*t?

Do I have to choose? Is there a quota I'm not aware of? 

So have you heard Brian express any desire to use the trademark for his solo with guests tours?

Edit: Is your problem with me over this story that no one can tell but gets told by PM and obliquely alluded to often and seems to be just hearsay but supposedly according to someone I condone adultery? I don't condone adultery. I've been married to the same woman for 39 years. Are we better yet?

[Nicko1234]

I agree with that. But I also actually post in the threads about the group's music. Unlike other posters who apparently don't have anything to contribute except when it comes to Mike being unfairly blamed for stuff in their opinion. Kinda like how Phil Cohen only popped up to complain about non-releases. Cam only pops up when it's about internecine squabbles. Weird.

I've mentioned it before but it does seem bizarre that you are obsessed with Cam's posts. Most of your posts seem to be responses to his or references to him.