Due to pending litigation? Here we go again.

[SMiLE Brian]

The BBs should be all group members or no BBs at this point. Enough with Mike's group touring with less BBs than in Brian's solo group.

[Niko]

The BBs should be all group members or no BBs at this point. Enough with Mike's group touring with less BBs than in Brian's solo group.

Coming to a stage near you...."Mike Love and the Kokomo Krusaders + Bruce"

[Cyncie]

First reference to "legal" issues:

http://www.wmmr.com/music/news/story.aspx?ID=2025029

Previously discussed in this thread:  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16165.0.html

We asked Al Jardine if he feels that the surviving Beach Boys could once again put the inner-band problems to rest in order to reunite on the road one more time: "That's what the public would like. I hope they would accept us in a couple of years if we decided to do it again. I, I don't know if they'd believe us. There's still this negative bias going on, even as we speak. Contrary things coming out. Let's put it this way; there's conflict in the Beach Boys organization about how to present it. We would like to present ourselves as 'original Beach Boys' so that the press knows who we are. Not everybody knows the individuals. By now, hopefully, everybody knows who Brian Wilson is and who Jeff Beck is and Al Jardine is and Dave Marks. We may find ourselves faced with legal obstruction -- let's put it that way."

[TimmyC]

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.

WORD UP.

[KittyKat]

I just read that interview link with quotes from Mike and Al.

Here's a question: according to what I've read here, Al's main problem in touring as BB Family and Friends was that he refused to pay the same licensing fee to BRI that Mike's Beach Boys does. If Al had done that, he could have secured a touring license. So what is to stop Brian from paying the agreed-upon licensing fee in exchange for using a Beach Boys type of name or using it in advertising?  Why would he want to do an end run around that requirement, seeing that Al already lost that suit? Brian doesn't seem to be averse to losing money on his tours, since he carries a large band and hasn't sold out in all markets or particular tours. So, what's another expense for him since he tours for the art or for pride or whatever and not to make lots of money? Part of the licensing fee money would go back to him and Al as members of BRI.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I just read that interview link with quotes from Mike and Al.

Here's a question: according to what I've read here, Al's main problem in touring as BB Family and Friends was that he refused to pay the same licensing fee to BRI that Mike's Beach Boys does. If Al had done that, he could have secured a touring license. So what is to stop Brian from paying the agreed-upon licensing fee in exchange for using a Beach Boys type of name or using it in advertising? 

The terms of the license changed a good few years ago (1999, I think) and it became exclusive: prior to that, had they all so wished, and had they complied with the terms (which Alan didn't), we could have had three bands touring as "The Beach Boys". 

The thing to remember here is that all this was decided upon by a BRI member vote, which had to be at least 3-1. I'll not insult anyone here by pointing out the very obvious implications of that.

[absinthe_boy]

If Al has made reference to a desire to tour as "The Original Beach Boys" then he, Brian & co would have to launch a lawsuit to gain entitlement to use the phrase "Beach Boys" in the title of their band or in their promotional material.

From what AGD says, and I have no reason to doubt him, Carl's estate would vote to retain the status quo. Therefore calling a meeting of BRI and tabling a motion to change the licence agreement would be futile. So it could be that the legal action mentioned is wresting the Beach Boys moniker from Mike & Bruce.

If so (remember we still don't know who's suing who for what)...that would pretty much kill Mike  & Bruce's show dead unless there was an arrangement that both parties could use the title. I can see this getting nasty

[KittyKat]

I wonder how much Joe Thomas has to do with this? I've read quotes from him referring to his belief that Brian wants to be in a band, but his band was taken away from him, or something to that effect.  How can it be the band was taken away from him when Brian voted to take his own band away from himself, or the name at least, several years ago? Also, last I looked, Brian has had a band for a long time now, a very good band. Brian seemed to be happy with that band until recently. Mike has alluded to the difficulty of working with Brian's people during the reunion and since Joe Thomas held all the cards, and is on Brian's side, it seems that Joe has something to do with it. Maybe Joe is cheerleading or leading whatever is now going on behind the scenes. I could be wrong, but it will be interesting if it ever comes out. Joe is no stranger himself to litigation with Brian, albeit on the other side.

[urbanite]

Good point, Brian said that his band was better than the Beach Boys in at least one interview.  I think Mike Love wants to stay with his efficient, slimmed down version of the BB's, as the shows cost less to produce, hence they make more money.

Even if legally Al and Brian can't refer to themselves as original members of the BB's and in advertising shows, every article I have read about any member refers to them in that way.  I wonder if the market can support two bands playing basically the same music.

[Cam Mott]

I wonder about Carl's estate though, it is the one whose idea it was to take back an exclusive license to Mike and give non-exclusive licenses to all three. Then Al blew it up in their faces, so maybe they are set against trying it again. Good question, Cam.

[ontor pertawst]

Good question, Cam.

Kind of weird to call someone else Cam, Cam. Did you forget what account you were logged in as?

[Cam Mott]

Good question, Cam.

Kind of weird to call someone else Cam, Cam. Did you forget what account you were logged in as?

No, I'm self-encouraging.

[ontor pertawst]

That's at least 30% less weird!

I wonder when we'll find out what this whole brouhaha is about.

[SMiLE Brian]

Joe Thomas took Mike's t-bird away.

[Pretty Funky]

Mike.."I did not fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys. I cannot fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys. I am not his employer. I do not have such authority,
And even if I did, I would never fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys. I love Brian Wilson."



If Brian wants a band he still has one it seems. Wouldn't it be great if one day he just turns up?

[Heysaboda]

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.

It could be Bill is suing Sue.........

[KittyKat]

There may not be any actual litigation pending, but perhaps BRI issued a warning to stop talking negatively about Mike's Beach Boys (yes, you, Al).  It may be BRI interpreted it as being potentially harmful to Beach Boys' revenue, and BRI has a fiduciary duty to make sure that doesn't happen. I know that's offensive to some folks, but that may be what's happening. If there is no lawsuit or other court action eventually filed, that could be it.

If it's more than that, then a lawsuit and/or countersuit will be filed and details will come out. Unless they negotiate and settle in some other venue, but that might come out in due time, too. Wait and see. If Joe Thomas is involved, there may also be pressure from Capitol to try to bring Mike back around for a reunion, since they may feel any potential projects would sell better if it goes by the Beach Boys name.

[Ron]

As fans I think it's hard for us to get inside these guys heads.  To us it seems so crazy that they would be fighting all the time, but to them it's not that big of a deal.  They're crazy rock stars, by the way.

In Brian's case, artistically he can do whatever he wants and his NAME is enough to get him respect.  He doesn't give a sh*t about what's legal or who owns the name or whatever... so if he's in lawsuits or suing people or whatever, he doesn't care one way or the other.  It's something his managers and lawyers do.

Mike is a right fighter, he's usually right, and will fight to the end to make sure that everybody knows it.  If that means suing people, even his own family, he thinks it's worth it.  He doesn't have the generosity or the grace to just let sh*t go when he feels like he's been wronged.  I'm a similar person, I fight to be right and it burns me in the end.  He'd be much smarter, and probably much richer which he seems to be concerned about, if he would just let things slide sometimes.   What tiny, tiny bit of conscience he has about all this, he excuses by claiming that he's really not fighting Brian, just Brian's handlers.  Which as usual, is right.

Everybody else is hanging on.  Their opinions don't matter much and they seem to be pretty agreeable people who could get along if Mike and Brian could get along. 

[Mikie]

Mike wasn't right when he sued Brian in '05 and got his ass kicked by the judge. You'd think he woulda learned.....

[Jim V.]

As fans I think it's hard for us to get inside these guys heads.  To us it seems so crazy that they would be fighting all the time, but to them it's not that big of a deal.  They're crazy rock stars, by the way.

In Brian's case, artistically he can do whatever he wants and his NAME is enough to get him respect.  He doesn't give a sh*t about what's legal or who owns the name or whatever... so if he's in lawsuits or suing people or whatever, he doesn't care one way or the other.  It's something his managers and lawyers do.

Mike is a right fighter, he's usually right, and will fight to the end to make sure that everybody knows it.  If that means suing people, even his own family, he thinks it's worth it.  He doesn't have the generosity or the grace to just let sh*t go when he feels like he's been wronged.  I'm a similar person, I fight to be right and it burns me in the end.  He'd be much smarter, and probably much richer which he seems to be concerned about, if he would just let things slide sometimes.   What tiny, tiny bit of conscience he has about all this, he excuses by claiming that he's really not fighting Brian, just Brian's handlers.  Which as usual, is right.

Everybody else is hanging on.  Their opinions don't matter much and they seem to be pretty agreeable people who could get along if Mike and Brian could get along. 

And I almost agree. But Al does have a big card to play along with Brian and Mike in that he has one of the four votes in BRI. So while I definitely think that although Brian and Mike (and their people) getting along is very important, if Mike and Al's relationship (or at least a truce) is necessary for The Beach Boys to function in one way or another.

[Ron]

As fans I think it's hard for us to get inside these guys heads.  To us it seems so crazy that they would be fighting all the time, but to them it's not that big of a deal.  They're crazy rock stars, by the way.

In Brian's case, artistically he can do whatever he wants and his NAME is enough to get him respect.  He doesn't give a sh*t about what's legal or who owns the name or whatever... so if he's in lawsuits or suing people or whatever, he doesn't care one way or the other.  It's something his managers and lawyers do.

Mike is a right fighter, he's usually right, and will fight to the end to make sure that everybody knows it.  If that means suing people, even his own family, he thinks it's worth it.  He doesn't have the generosity or the grace to just let sh*t go when he feels like he's been wronged.  I'm a similar person, I fight to be right and it burns me in the end.  He'd be much smarter, and probably much richer which he seems to be concerned about, if he would just let things slide sometimes.   What tiny, tiny bit of conscience he has about all this, he excuses by claiming that he's really not fighting Brian, just Brian's handlers.  Which as usual, is right.

Everybody else is hanging on.  Their opinions don't matter much and they seem to be pretty agreeable people who could get along if Mike and Brian could get along. 

And I almost agree. But Al does have a big card to play along with Brian and Mike in that he has one of the four votes in BRI. So while I definitely think that although Brian and Mike (and their people) getting along is very important, if Mike and Al's relationship (or at least a truce) is necessary for The Beach Boys to function in one way or another.

I'd disagree... I think Al would ignore whatever Mike did if Brian joined up.  If Brian joined the Beach Boys, Al would join and be the better man, and forget whatever Mike was doing or saying.  MIKE wouldn't, but Al would. 

I think Mike and Brian are the only two hard to get along with personalities in the group.  Brian's a much more shrewd businessman than anybody in the group, because he's shirked that responsiblity off to people who can be ruthless if they want, since Brian has a condition.  How many times have we heard the reason Brian absolutely just won't do anything with Mike or Al or whoever, is because he's ill and it'd be bad for his health?  How do you negotiate with that?  ... essentially, Brian holds all the power in this, and Mike is trying his best to be just as hard-ass as Brian is.  Brian has all the talent and respect so it's easy to side with him for me. 

All this boils down to, Brian is the genius.  The entire band is lopsided and always has been... the reason Brian isn't going to PAY for the right to use the name is because he feels he shouldn't have to.  He will NOt take it back exclusively and pay for it.  He sat at home for years and still got a paycheck.  Why?  ... because he *IS* the Beach Boys.  The whole license thing was just an excuse to get a reason to make his paycheck valid in some way, when he wasn't doing anything.  This is the same Brian that screwed Mike out of royalties, knowingly, for 30 years. 

There will never be a scenario where Brian Wilson is paying somebody to call himself a Beach Boy.  If he ever ends up calling himself the Beach Boys, it'll be because the entire situation was reworked so that they just split the profit or something.  In the end this isn't even important to Brian, he makes his music and does his art and they call it whatever they're going to call it.  People still go see him and he still gets paid, he lets his managers and lawyers fight Mike or whoever needs to be fought.  He's probably asleep right now. 

[HeyJude]

As far as “non-exclusive” licenses to use the BB name, it does seem as though that was only briefly in force in the 1998-1999 timeframe, and that seemed to be more due to the shuffling and uncertainty among the various factions. More importantly, whomever you believe should or shouldn’t morally get to use the name, I don’t think handing out non-exclusive licenses would have worked long-term. There is simply no way literally having two (or potentially three in theory) bands touring specifically as “The Beach Boys” would have worked. There are other examples of bands splintering with different “versions” of a band, but in most of those cases some sort of variant on the band’s name is used. You know, “Joey Molland’s Badfinger” or something. This has shaky results even in those cases. But two bands booking shows and selling tickets as “The Beach Boys”, with no modifiers in the name, would never work logistically or financially. Promoters and venues would be beyond confused, not to mention ticket buyers. Both shows would be diluted. The only good thing that could have come from continued use of a non-exclusive license is that I suppose theoretically it could have forced the various factions back together sooner to reunite, simply to avoid diluting the trademark by splintering.

As far as the current situation with “BAD” being billed as “original Beach Boys”, I would have to guess any potential litigation would involve promoting themselves with descriptors, NOT literally billing their concert under the name “The Original Beach Boys.” I would highly doubt that was ever considered or attempted. They would all know from the “Beach Boys Family & Friends” debacle that any use of the trademark within the actual band title is almost always going to violate the exclusive license. On the other hand, simply advertising that band members are “original Beach Boys” is a more grey area. In general, it is allowed as it is descriptive. This is where it gets muddy though, as promoters and venues may take those descriptors and start advertising shows with those words too prominently featured. But ultimately, I think Mike (and/or BRI) would have a hard time keeping any or all of Brian, Al, and David from stating that they are “original Beach Boys” in tour promotional materials and the like. Even amidst Al’s fail-status legal maneuvering in the 2000’s, where he was apparently temporarily barred from even calling himself a “Beach Boy”, he eventually regained that right.

[HeyJude]

Mike.."I did not fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys. I cannot fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys. I am not his employer. I do not have such authority,
And even if I did, I would never fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys. I love Brian Wilson."



If Brian wants a band he still has one it seems. Wouldn't it be great if one day he just turns up?

It’s obviously not as simple as that. The definition of what “Beach Boys” we’re talking about alone is questionable. Mike didn’t “fire” Brian from the corporate “Beach Boys.” Brian is and has always been a Beach Boy.

But Mike holds the exclusive license to the band’s name. While the C50 tour was a unique arrangement apparently basically outside of that license, Mike did choose to move back to his own band sans Brian, Al, and David. As he holds the exclusive license to the name, one could argue that, aside from potential future moves by BRI members to change the licensing arrangements, that in the immediate, Mike’s moves essentially precluded Brian, Al, and David from being in the currently-touring configuration of the “Beach Boys.”

All Mike has said is that he would like to work with Brian, and he apparently is not ruling out more reunions in the future. I see no evidence of an open invitation to all the other Beach Boys to join his band. It’s all kind of useless guessing, as it’s not viable that they would all join Mike’s band or want to. But I’m not convinced Mike would agree to bring both Brian and Al into his touring band and let them share in the proceeds off the top like he does. Again, all useless conjecture regarding an unrealistic possibility, but if Brian, Al, and David all decided “hey, for the sake of keeping us all together, we’ll all just join Mike’s band”, I don’t believe Mike would agree to bring them on with David salaried and Brian and Al getting a cut off the top. So I don’t buy that Brian has a band “waiting for him.” If he wants to turn up and play for free or something, I would guess Mike would love that. He might even agree to give Brian a cut. But would he give Al an equal cut too, and pay to add David, all while playing these “smaller markets” that simply “can’t afford” the C50 lineup?

As far as I’m concerned, this idea that Mike’s band is ready and sitting there waiting to take in all stray Beach Boys if they’re willing, is bogus.

[joe_blow]

So when Brian was "fired" in the early 80s until he went back with Landy, was that just a suspension from the touring band?

[KittyKat]

Mike.."I did not fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys. I cannot fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys. I am not his employer. I do not have such authority,
And even if I did, I would never fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys. I love Brian Wilson."



If Brian wants a band he still has one it seems. Wouldn't it be great if one day he just turns up?

It’s obviously not as simple as that. The definition of what “Beach Boys” we’re talking about alone is questionable. Mike didn’t “fire” Brian from the corporate “Beach Boys.” Brian is and has always been a Beach Boy.

But Mike holds the exclusive license to the band’s name. While the C50 tour was a unique arrangement apparently basically outside of that license, Mike did choose to move back to his own band sans Brian, Al, and David. As he holds the exclusive license to the name, one could argue that, aside from potential future moves by BRI members to change the licensing arrangements, that in the immediate, Mike’s moves essentially precluded Brian, Al, and David from being in the currently-touring configuration of the “Beach Boys.”

All Mike has said is that he would like to work with Brian, and he apparently is not ruling out more reunions in the future. I see no evidence of an open invitation to all the other Beach Boys to join his band. It’s all kind of useless guessing, as it’s not viable that they would all join Mike’s band or want to. But I’m not convinced Mike would agree to bring both Brian and Al into his touring band and let them share in the proceeds off the top like he does. Again, all useless conjecture regarding an unrealistic possibility, but if Brian, Al, and David all decided “hey, for the sake of keeping us all together, we’ll all just join Mike’s band”, I don’t believe Mike would agree to bring them on with David salaried and Brian and Al getting a cut off the top. So I don’t buy that Brian has a band “waiting for him.” If he wants to turn up and play for free or something, I would guess Mike would love that. He might even agree to give Brian a cut. But would he give Al an equal cut too, and pay to add David, all while playing these “smaller markets” that simply “can’t afford” the C50 lineup?

As far as I’m concerned, this idea that Mike’s band is ready and sitting there waiting to take in all stray Beach Boys if they’re willing, is bogus.

My understanding from various posts here and elsewhere is that Mike doesn't make proceeds off the top. He pays a set percentage to BRI members off the gross, not the net.