How would BB history be different if Mike had received proper cowriting credits?

[Cam Mott]

That explains why Mike eventually had to go after justice for himself I guess.

[guitarfool2002]

So the copyright does establish who is to share the songwriting royalties, right? The publisher gets its own royalty?

It depends, and again it's so complex in some cases it's not that clear-cut.

Any one of us can now download a copyright form from the US gov, there are several types too. You have a song, a set of lyrics, a collection of lyrics, whatever...you D/L the form, fill it out, send in a copy of those lyrics along with a payment for administrative costs, and in a few months or so they send a confirmation that it has been registered. So you own that set of lyrics, if anyone tries to use those same lyrics on another song and it becomes a hit, *that copyright* which you officially "own" is used to prove that you, and not the later artist, actually created and "owns" those words.

If someone approaches you with a business deal to use those lyrics on one of their new song ideas, and that "someone" is either a famous artist, performer, musician, whatever...you'll need to negotiate the terms of that deal and sign paperwork establishing what kind of deal will be put into place regarding payment and credit.

You'll then find yourself in a much larger corporate situation with that artist's record label, management, legal representation, publisher, and perhaps the larger corporate interest similar to a Columbia or Sony/BMG that will be dealing with *additional* contracts involving broadcast, residuals from reruns and syndication, use in film, use in advertising, use under a larger corporate sponsorship agreement, etc.

Sound complex so far? That's stripping all of it down to basic, blanket statements. It is literally a minefield, or can be.

See the potential for abuse-misuse-lies-broken promises, all of that?

So, you have the lyrics copyrighted to you, now "Big Artist #1" puts them to music.

A new "work" is now created. You now have to negotiate with "Big Artist #1" on splitting the credits.

But first, the new music set to your lyrics has now created a "Sound Recording" to use an old copyright office term. Perhaps the original lyrics are still used, but under a different title. So a new copyright form is filed under the new title, and a recording of the music and lyrics is now sent in and copyrighted as the new work.

You still have not made a penny off of that work...UNLESS you signed a separate co-writer or collaborator contract with "Big Artist #1" and his/her legal team, label, and management...and publisher.

So "Big Publisher" often says..."Son, you're getting the chance of a lifetime to have "Big Artist" record your lyrics. Your name will be seen by millions...perhaps a Grammy in the works...but we're taking publishing on your song."

Col. Tom Parker knew quite a bit about this scenario as his henchmen regularly pulled this on songwriters whose songs Elvis was considering cutting in the studio.

Then, there is songwriting rights and royalties.

What will "Big Artist #1" 's record label offer? What kind of deal is already in place for cowriters outside of their contractual universe?

They'll possibly say...OK, are you ASCAP or BMI? And you might answer..."umm...neither." Then they'll have to get that sewn up a bit, if they want.

So you join, say, ASCAP as a writer. On ASCAP's forms, you split up credit for who collaborated on what. You are ASCAP member 1222222 and Big Artist #1 is member 1222220. So Artist #1 claims "I wrote the music, I wrote the title, I changed the words to create the hook, I'm taking 80%". And Big Artist's smarmy manager says "Hey, I suggested the phrase "ooby dooby jooba jooby", I want a piece!". So that clown gets 15%.

And you get 5%...unknown writer, no intention for your lyrics to be heard on every country station in America, now you're asked to take a hit for the "exposure" and for the thrill of hearing your lyrics sung by "Big Artist" on the next CMA Awards telecast...or whatever.

Yet you lose 95% of the royalties from song usage...

BUT: What did *you* sign or agree to with "Big Artist #1" 's record label? Are you getting a percentage of sales revenue for every download or sale? Are you getting a residual from each time that song gets played on a Ford Truck or Wrangler Jeans ad? Are you getting any "points" at all in the deal because Big Artist wanted to give you a bigger piece of the pie because he/she likes you, or remembers that time you and he/her got smashed at the local bar and talked for hours?

That's one avenue.

What if somewhere in that supply chain, a deal had been offered for you to sign a one-off contract? And they would pay you a certain sum of money at that time for your lyrics, sign it and end-of-story kind of thing.

What if you got 25,000 lump sum with them hedging their bets that the song was going to be a big one, and make tons of money and success for "Big Artist #1" as their follow-up to a top-ten hit.

Oh, and "Big Artist #1" has been booked to appear on "Nashville", "Glee", "The Today Show", and Jimmy Fallon in the next three months.

Big publicity blitz...they know sales will reflect that no matter what they put out...it just happens to be your lyrics considered for the single they'll be plugging nationwide.

Think about it.

AND...if anything, all of my rambling and long-winded posting here has a bottom line under all the wording and hypothetical stuff.

***It's too complex to narrow down ANY "answers" or solutions to a simple statement or two or three to summarize what happened, or what may have happened.***

Also, keep in mind many of these factors and contracts and agreements and all of it - the *sheer volume* of this stuff - could be why these cases like the Love v. Wilson case take weeks if not months to be fully heard and deliberated.

It's massive volumes of documents, forms, and agreements...and you though my posts were long-winded?  


The songwriters get money from several sources, as do the publishers, labels, managers, lawyers, and artists themselves. And there is no "one size fits all" for how the pie is divided up at the table.

[Cam Mott]

Maybe I'm too dense but with no evidence to the contrary the story as we know it seems pretty straightforward in this case. Mike co-authored songs, he was not credited by his co-author/publisher and/or publisher, he received no songwriter royalties from those songs, he took it up with his co-author/publisher who admitted it was wrong and promised to fix it but didn't, and Mike had to eventually go to court.

[guitarfool2002]

That explains why Mike eventually had to go after justice for himself I guess.

Cam, consider too that "Brother Records" as a corporate entity was formed as a result of dishonest business practices being exposed back in '66/'67. David Anderle as part of his pitch for management had a big trump card ready to throw on the table when he had a team of lawyers and accountants, one lawyer who I believe was named Abe Sommars, who had gone over the Beach Boys and Capitol's "books" and discovered a then-common but still wrong practice where they'd take hundreds of thousands of dollars due the various artists in a practice surrounding "breakage" costs and back royalties due on records which had been sold but returned. It goes deeper than that...

...but Capitol was guilty of it, and the Beach Boys got Brother Records as a result of filing a suit against Capitol to reclaim their money which they never got.

It was a tactic also used by Allen Klein - he of Abkco/Rolling Stones/Beatles management infamy - where he'd hire teams of accountants and lawyers to pore over the artists' and labels' books in order to find similar loopholes and pitch his services to the artists by offering large sums of money he and his legal/financial teams could get for that artist which they had not even been aware of due to the shady business practices they had gotten into with their labels and other interests.

It's not a nice business in many ways, that's obvious.

And ultimately, for Mike, he found a legal team who pitched their similar services in a similar way at the right time in his life. Just as Brian had done in winning a lawsuit for back payments just before Mike filed his, just as Klein had done with the Beatles/Stones and others, and just as Anderle's team had done back in '67 with the Capitol lawsuit that set up Brother Records.

That's the music business.  

[SonoraDick]

I'm sure people accepted cash/trade in lieu of rights but it doesn't seem to be the case with Mike.

Details, please.  Just how do you know that an arrangement of the type that guitarfool has described wasn't in place between Murry and Mike?

We don't know.  And, I don't speculate.  

Then, what good are you???   So many others here are "pretty sure" they know exactly what Brian, or Mike, or Carl, or somebody else was thinking or "feeling" at any given moment forty or so years ago, right on up to today.

[guitarfool2002]

Maybe I'm too dense but with no evidence to the contrary the story as we know it seems pretty straightforward in this case. Mike co-authored songs, he was not credited by his co-author/publisher and/or publisher, he received no songwriter royalties from those songs, he took it up with his co-author/publisher who admitted it was wrong and promised to fix it but didn't, and Mike had to eventually go to court.

If you look at the outcome of Mike's lawsuit, the outcome of Mike getting credit and payments due is a matter of public record, so that part of it is straightforward. No one is debating that he won the case.

But if anything I tried to give theoretical examples within the music business to suggest it is not that clear-cut or able to be simplified into blanket statements and conclusions, especially when assigning blame to any one thing.

Remember, too, that Mike's suit was piggybacked onto Brian's own suit on this song catalog for which *his* legal team at that time (late 80's) claimed (and also won) that Brian had not gotten what was due to *him* regarding those songs stemming from the sale of Sea Of Tunes in 1969. And part of Brian's team's case before Mike even filed a claim centered around poor legal representation several decades ago.

So there is a case - beyond the simplicity of the outcome of Mike's case victory in the 90's - that stretches back to the 1960's that involved basically all parties getting ripped off in some ways and seeking "justice" in the form of collecting what was due.

And going into the specifics of the late 80's/early 90's is retreading ground we already covered on another thread a few months ago.

Getting this into a Mike Versus Brian situation, I think, is trying to oversimplify what is a complex and multifaceted set of issues that doesn't tell the whole story. And if it's being done in order to create a scapegoat or point a finger of blame, it's just not telling the full story.

And the full story is out there, if we have a few weeks of free time to pore through the details...

[Cam Mott]

That would be interesting but for this case it seems irrelevant to me, including the sale of Sea of Tunes since what we are talking about preceded the sale. That's just me.

My only question is who was responsible and to my mind it seems to probably be tangentially, or possibly unknowingly, Murry but mostly Brian.

[Dancing Bear]

Guitarfool, you're contextualizing a young man entering the music business  in the early 60s and dealing with the mousetrap that are songwriting credits.

But this wasn't Mike Love, a young lyricist coming from Bumfuck Tenessee and being sweet talked and screwed by a jerk from the music industry. There was a family business going on with the Beach Boys that looked after the interests of Brian, Carl and Dennis Wilson, who had songwriting credits in Beach Boys albums before 1967. "That's the way things were back then" isn't gonna cut it.

[guitarfool2002]

Guitarfool, you're contextualizing a young man entering the music business  in the early 60s and dealing with the mousetrap that are songwriting credits.

But this wasn't Mike Love, a young lyricist coming from Bumfuck Tenessee and being sweet talked and screwed by a jerk from the music industry. There was a family business going on with the Beach Boys that looked after the interests of Brian, Carl and Dennis Wilson, who had songwriting credits in Beach Boys albums before 1967. "That's the way things were back then" isn't gonna cut it.

You missed the point. Not just the point at hand, but the whole point of everything I wrote about these situations within the music business. ***That's the way things ARE - as in today - is more like it.*** If you're going to make a statement like "that's not gonna cut it", at least be able to back it up.  

If you don't believe me, fine, just ask some other people in or around the music business, or investigate it more before making statements like this. But as I'm writing this and as you're reading this, the same kinds of dishonest deals are making people in the music business from Nashville to LA to New York to points in between a whole shitload of money and wealth on the work of others who aren't getting proper credit or payment in return, and it's damn near the same scenario as existed well before Mike Love started writing songs.

Fact.

[guitarfool2002]

That would be interesting but for this case it seems irrelevant to me, including the sale of Sea of Tunes since what we are talking about preceded the sale. That's just me.

My only question is who was responsible and to my mind it seems to probably be tangentially, or possibly unknowingly, Murry but mostly Brian.

How did Mike get paid in the years 1963 through 1966? What kind of business and payment structure got him all the wealth he acquired? Who wrote the checks to him in those years, or which/whose account were the checks drawn from? What kind of deal did he have in place through the entity known as "The Beach Boys" to get paid for being a part of it?

Answer that stuff and we'll be getting somewhere beyond finger-pointing, at least onto a greater understanding of the bigger picture beyond saying repeatedly how Mike got screwed over by Brian Wilson.

[Cam Mott]

That would be interesting but for this case it seems irrelevant to me, including the sale of Sea of Tunes since what we are talking about preceded the sale. That's just me.

My only question is who was responsible and to my mind it seems to probably be tangentially, or possibly unknowingly, Murry but mostly Brian.

How did Mike get paid in the years 1963 through 1966? What kind of business and payment structure got him all the wealth he acquired? Who wrote the checks to him in those years, or which/whose account were the checks drawn from? What kind of deal did he have in place through the entity known as "The Beach Boys" to get paid for being a part of it?

Answer that stuff and we'll be getting somewhere beyond finger-pointing, at least onto a greater understanding of the bigger picture beyond saying repeatedly how Mike got screwed over by Brian Wilson.

None of us knows for sure but apparently he collected the various royalties due him except for the songwriting royalties for some of the songs for a few years. Brian admits it happened and that Mike deserved it so to me none of that is the mystery. As I remember it the best explanation came from Brian which was his Dad messed up the paperwork or something like that. Not that his Dad screwed anybody over or that Mike had been already compensated in kind. Am I not remembering that right? I never know for sure anymore. 

If I got that right it seems it is an incorrect paperwork issue not necessarily an intentional compensation issue. So I have my ideas who is most responsible for that but I suppose it is possible it could be an intermittent and relatively short-lived [but expensive for Mike and lucrative for Brian] series of clerical errors. But beyond the paperwork issue is the responsibility to correct it.

[guitarfool2002]

Dancing Bear: If that came off as harsh I apologize. Besides a bad tendency to be hot-headed sometimes I played a gig last night and didn't get much sleep, so I'm a little cranky I guess...

In all fairness, though, on these forums we don't always know who has done what, what people's experiences have been, what they know versus what they've heard in passing, all of that jazz. So sometimes I think assumptions are made without enough info.

On the topic of songwriters and publishing, let me mention one factual bit of info that I ran into about 4 years ago regarding a song and potential publishing.

So there was this "American Idol" songwriting contest, open to songwriters with the award being one of the American Idol finalists performing it live on the show, in one of their finale episodes for that season.

It was mentioned to me, "Hey Craig, you should check this out..." as I had a batch of original songs recorded.

There was one in particular that had what i thought was an uplifting lyric, a "singer's chorus" with a sustained high note (think along the lines of U2's song 'Pride') that could showcase a singer's range and all that, and it was an uptempo kind of thing that made me think seriously about entering it in the contest...what the hell, right?

But I had already registered the song under both my songwriter's catalog and publisher's credits, which basically amounted to nothing other than future protection. And even though I wrote probably 95% or more of it, music-lyrics-arrangement, I gave credit to my other two studio bandmates and partners-in-crime because the recording wouldn't have happened without their work.

I suppose unlike Murry and Brian, I'm a nice guy that way, or something.  

Anyway, I'm ready to enter this Idol thing, and I start reading the fine print of the contest rules. It turns out even though the song had not been "released" commercially, it was listed with an agency and a "publisher", even though that publisher was basically me. So it might not be eligible.

But the biggest red flag was that the winning songwriter would have to - wait for it - *sign over all the publishing rights of their song* to the American Idol franchise, along with other concessions and contractual things related to payments, ownership, usage, royalties, and all those pesky details I mentioned in earlier posts.

So in no way are the shenanigans described in this thread from "back then", or practices from a "bygone era" or anything, they're still standard practice in some aspects of songwriters in the music business today.

You'll have to take my word for that. So the whole Idol contest I never entered because of that crap shows that publishing can be given and taken away rather easily in exchange for certain other things in return.

And there is a cottage industry that exists for songwriters of all types today, in the form of songwriting contests and competitions.

Everyone from music retailers to foundations to other corporate interests sponsor these things. Look up "The John Lennon Songwriting Contest", "The Great American Songwriting Competition", Guitar Center had a "Singer Songwriter Competition", whatever other names they go by.

Search 'em online, just for kicks, and read the fine print in detail. Take note of the ways publishing is handled with those, and while there may be some that allow the writer to hold onto that, I've seen more of them where signing over the publishing rights to your song if you're the winner is a requirement, and papers need to be signed to establish what amounts to the corporate interests getting a bigger piece of the pie from your song than you, especially on the million-to-one chance that a song from one of these contests takes off and becomes a "hit".

And check into how much an artist gets every time a song is purchased or streamed on iTunes or any of the other services. I know having dealt with it. But the actual amount may shock some folks who think a big iTunes download hit is a guarantee of great wealth. Some guy putting a viral video of a cat running into a sliding door on YouTube could in theory make more money on YouTube's "ad clicks" revenue stream than an artist who gets a lot of song downloads and purchases on iTunes.

This is 2014, not 1967, remember.  

And again, my apologies for a too-harsh reply. Lack of sleep...

[seltaeb1012002]

guitarfool2002, to weigh in on the shadiness still in the songwriting game... I just had a minor hit single released in Japan. It's a song I wrote, for another artist. The management that placed the song smiled in my face and told me they were only interested in building a long term working relationship, and had no intentions of doing anything backhanded. So they send a contract over. Mind you, the song is a week from being released at the time. I almost signed it so I could get my songwriter's fee & settle on the songwriters splits, feeling the pressure of the release date coming up. Admittedly, I'm still a little wet behind the ears when it comes to the business side. But, having some sense, I decided to send it to my publisher first. They took a look at it and told me that if I had signed it, I would've signed away all of my publishing. I swear it wasn't even clear in the contract, but apparently it's what it said. Turns out I didn't have to sign anything at all.. it was all a trap to get me to hand over my publishing. And I still got my songwriters fee.

I think the times may play into it, because I know today I would've flipped a sh*t & got it squared away after the first song came out without my name on it... with Mike jeez..for it to happen again, and again, and again??

[Ron]

The waters are getting pretty clouded, and I'm sure it's a very complex issue with tons of different ways to divide up money, but what it comes down to is:

Mike didn't get sh*t because his name wasn't even on it. 

That's pretty cut and dry.  His name should have been on it, but somebody left it off.  The person who's name consistantly was on it, was Brian Wilson. 

Kinda sounds like Brian Wilson got the money Mike should have got.   If I was going to go try to find my money, I'd go to Brian's bank account. 

[Robbie Mac]

The waters are getting pretty clouded, and I'm sure it's a very complex issue with tons of different ways to divide up money, but what it comes down to is:

Mike didn't get sh*t because his name wasn't even on it. 

That's pretty cut and dry.  His name should have been on it, but somebody left it off.  The person who's name consistantly was on it, was Brian Wilson. 

Kinda sounds like Brian Wilson got the money Mike should have got.   If I was going to go try to find my money, I'd go to Brian's bank account. 

Don't forget the pitchfork!

[KittyKat]

Isn't there something known as performance royalties? The Beach Boys all got money through their record deal and record sales, but from a different pool of money than the songwriters. So, Carl, Dennis, and Al were making good money when the Beach Boys were hot, not just Mike, from record sales as well as performance fees. I doubt Mike got more than the rest other than the songwriting royalties he was getting from the songs he did manage to get credit on. If he did that much better money-wise than, say, Carl, it could have been entirely chalked up to getting money from those Mike Love-credited songs. The hits he co-wrote with his name on the record label sold millions.

[CenturyDeprived]

 
I think, no matter how many ways that anyone can look at the situation of Mike's songwriting credits, it at a certain point comes down to a very dysfunctional relationship between Brian and Mike.

For whatever degree their relationship dynamic was at the time (and there most certainly are differing views of that on this board), it would seem that there had to be something amiss communication-wise festering and brewing between those two for this situation to occur. I cannot imagine that it *just plain happened*. Ultimately, Mike did unfairly get screwed - absolutely.

An important question I've asked myself: could anyone see the same situation happening (credit omissions on a large number of songs, including major hits) to either Carl or Dennis?

I can't.

If Carl or Dennis had written the lyrics to all those songs, IMO there's no way this would have happened, or certainly not to the degree that it happened to with Mike. But the reason I think this is the case is because Brian's relationship with his brothers was very different than the relationship he had with his cousin. (Obviously, Murry and how he saw his sons vs. his nephew is a factor too). If Carl or Dennis had written the lyrics, the reason I believe they wouldn't have been denied credits is NOT because it would somehow be "harder" for greedy Brian to "screw" his brothers out of credits... but because Brian wouldn't have had the motivation to allow a situation occur as it somehow did.

I think whatever motives Brian had for somehow turning a blind eye, or allowing it to not be fixed for decades (due to inaction to correct the error) were due, at least in some part, to some sort of "weird stuff" between Brian and Mike. What that weird stuff was exactly is not something that we'll ever truly know. But I feel safe in assuming that theirs was never quite a healthy relationship, either personally or professionally.  

When one takes into account the fact that Brian at the time seemingly went out of his way to give a fair share of credits to others like VDP (and as far as I know, I cannot think of any other incidents of other Brian co-writers of the era who had any major crediting omissions), it's hard to think that there wasn't some degree of ill will driving this issue (or driving Brian's not giving enough of a f*ck to correct it for decades), even on some subliminal level.

IMO, I'd hope this theory would have some merit on some level, regardless if you are a giant Mike lover/defender, or a giant Brian lover/defender, or somewhere in between. While I have my thoughts, as an outsider, regarding aspects of their relationship, I think it's possible for one to believe there was "weird stuff" relationship-wise between these guys, regardless of who one places "blame"/responsibility, etc with.

Ultimately, in a nutshell, to me it seems out of character, compared to Brian's general actions with other cowriters at the time. If I'm off base by saying this, I'm honestly all ears to learn more history that has eluded me.

[Nicko1234]

I think, no matter how many ways that anyone can look at the situation of Mike's songwriting credits, it at a certain point comes down to a very dysfunctional relationship between Brian and Mike.

For whatever degree their relationship dynamic was at the time (and there most certainly are differing views of that on this board), it would seem that there had to be something amiss communication-wise festering and brewing between those two for this situation to occur. I cannot imagine that it *just plain happened*. Ultimately, Mike did unfairly get screwed - absolutely.

An important question I've asked myself: could anyone see the same situation happening (credit omissions on a large number of songs, including major hits) to either Carl or Dennis?

I can't.

If Carl or Dennis had written the lyrics to all those songs, IMO there's no way this would have happened, or certainly not to the degree that it happened to with Mike. But the reason I think this is the case is because Brian's relationship with his brothers was very different than the relationship he had with his cousin. (Obviously, Murry and how he saw his sons vs. his nephew is a factor too). If Carl or Dennis had written the lyrics, the reason I believe they wouldn't have been denied credits is NOT because it would somehow be "harder" for greedy Brian to "screw" his brothers out of credits... but because Brian wouldn't have had the motivation to allow a situation occur as it somehow did.

I think whatever motives Brian had for somehow turning a blind eye, or allowing it to not be fixed for decades (due to inaction to correct the error) were due, at least in some part, to some sort of "weird stuff" between Brian and Mike. What that weird stuff was exactly is not something that we'll ever truly know. But I feel safe in assuming that theirs was never quite a healthy relationship, either personally or professionally.  

When one takes into account the fact that Brian at the time seemingly went out of his way to give a fair share of credits to others like VDP (and as far as I know, I cannot think of any other incidents of other Brian co-writers of the era who had any major crediting omissions), it's hard to think that there wasn't some degree of ill will driving this issue (or driving Brian's not giving enough of a f*ck to correct it for decades), even on some subliminal level.

IMO, I'd hope this theory would have some merit on some level, regardless if you are a giant Mike lover/defender, or a giant Brian lover/defender, or somewhere in between. While I have my thoughts, as an outsider, regarding aspects of their relationship, I think it's possible for one to believe there was "weird stuff" relationship-wise between these guys, regardless of who one places "blame"/responsibility, etc with.

Ultimately, in a nutshell, to me it seems out of character, compared to Brian's general actions with other cowriters at the time. If I'm off base by saying this, I'm honestly all ears to learn more history that has eluded me.

Murry.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think, no matter how many ways that anyone can look at the situation of Mike's songwriting credits, it at a certain point comes down to a very dysfunctional relationship between Brian and Mike.

For whatever degree their relationship dynamic was at the time (and there most certainly are differing views of that on this board), it would seem that there had to be something amiss communication-wise festering and brewing between those two for this situation to occur. I cannot imagine that it *just plain happened*. Ultimately, Mike did unfairly get screwed - absolutely.

An important question I've asked myself: could anyone see the same situation happening (credit omissions on a large number of songs, including major hits) to either Carl or Dennis?

I can't.

If Carl or Dennis had written the lyrics to all those songs, IMO there's no way this would have happened, or certainly not to the degree that it happened to with Mike. But the reason I think this is the case is because Brian's relationship with his brothers was very different than the relationship he had with his cousin. (Obviously, Murry and how he saw his sons vs. his nephew is a factor too). If Carl or Dennis had written the lyrics, the reason I believe they wouldn't have been denied credits is NOT because it would somehow be "harder" for greedy Brian to "screw" his brothers out of credits... but because Brian wouldn't have had the motivation to allow a situation occur as it somehow did.

I think whatever motives Brian had for somehow turning a blind eye, or allowing it to not be fixed for decades (due to inaction to correct the error) were due, at least in some part, to some sort of "weird stuff" between Brian and Mike. What that weird stuff was exactly is not something that we'll ever truly know. But I feel safe in assuming that theirs was never quite a healthy relationship, either personally or professionally.  

When one takes into account the fact that Brian at the time seemingly went out of his way to give a fair share of credits to others like VDP (and as far as I know, I cannot think of any other incidents of other Brian co-writers of the era who had any major crediting omissions), it's hard to think that there wasn't some degree of ill will driving this issue (or driving Brian's not giving enough of a f*ck to correct it for decades), even on some subliminal level.

IMO, I'd hope this theory would have some merit on some level, regardless if you are a giant Mike lover/defender, or a giant Brian lover/defender, or somewhere in between. While I have my thoughts, as an outsider, regarding aspects of their relationship, I think it's possible for one to believe there was "weird stuff" relationship-wise between these guys, regardless of who one places "blame"/responsibility, etc with.

Ultimately, in a nutshell, to me it seems out of character, compared to Brian's general actions with other cowriters at the time. If I'm off base by saying this, I'm honestly all ears to learn more history that has eluded me.

Murry.

Murry was absolutely a factor, no doubt. But you think Murry is the sole, 100% reason, black and white, end of story? Murry may have had a hand (or a huge hand) in making the situation happen, but I can't imagine that Murry had much of anything to do with the situation not getting corrected for so long. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that Brian had mental/drug problems and that rectifying this wouldn't have been a top priority.  

[filledeplage]

I'm sure people accepted cash/trade in lieu of rights but it doesn't seem to be the case with Mike.

Details, please.  Just how do you know that an arrangement of the type that guitarfool has described wasn't in place between Murry and Mike?

We don't know.  And, I don't speculate.  

Then, what good are you???   So many others here are "pretty sure" they know exactly what Brian, or Mike, or Carl, or somebody else was thinking or "feeling" at any given moment forty or so years ago, right on up to today.

You might look on amazon or ebay for a used copy of an Entertainment and Publication Law book, slog through five pounds of pages of cases and get back to us with a one sentence response, when you've figured out all the standards of review, all the laws since 1790, and decisions that judges made, creating "new law."  The "work for hire" carve-out, came from a judge, it appears.

Anyone can read a law book. Or buy a copy of "100 Questions About Copyright Law." There is a series called the "Nutshell Series." Intellectual Property covers patents, trademarks and copyright.  One of the authors is Arthur Miller. Yes "that" Arthur Miller from TV. The first book is very simply written. Gives one an overview before meeting a lawyer, so you can ask intelligent questions. The second book covers three areas, usually taught in law school in two separate courses.  

Intellectual Property usually covers patents.  You need an engineering or science degree and a law degree to practice that area and sit for a separate bar exam to practice that kind of law. Copyright covers constitutional, property, contract, evidence law and statutes that intersect.

There is no simple answer.

That said, I'd love to read the entire line of cases, because decisions sometimes rest on a certain fact, such as fraud, and non-disclosure.  

GF2002 is doing his best to boil down very complex information. This kind of law is not like tort law, where the lawyer gets a third of a judgment, and the client gets the rest of the gross or the net award. The percentage formulas for royalties are complex.

And so, the more you know, the more questions you have...and why I don't speculate until I read the line of cases. We don't know much until that is done.  It is why when lawyers are asked a question, the first thing they say is,"It depends."

Depends on the law, the circumstances, and many unknowns. And a judge can throw a curve at trial, and carve out a new "exception." Then you have a new "precedent."

Sorry for the snark...(not!)  

[bgas]

Murry was absolutely a factor, no doubt. But you think Murry is the sole, 100% reason, black and white, end of story? Murry may have had a hand (or a huge hand) in making the situation happen, but I can't imagine that Murry had much of anything to do with the situation not getting corrected for so long. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that Brian had mental/drug problems and that rectifying this wouldn't have been a top priority.  

Having tried to follow every post, but not remembering every bit just now, I'd postulate:    Murry had a huge part in this. He obviuosly would have felt it was HIS son that sho9uld get most of the benefits, and I'm just as certain there was the backhanding approach because Mike's father seemd more succesful than Murry himself. So he'es a way he could throw it back at him. 
  as to the Brian is the main blame:  sure It could be BRian knew about every song credit. It seems to me it's just as likely that Murry would put a stack of papers in front of Brian and say >>These all need to be signed by you, I've taken care of evereything<<  and Brian being super on the go ( most of the time) and alos not wanting to be bothered by his dad, would just sign on the line without checking.  It was JUST the Publishing, after all! Not the creative sides which got his juice flowing.
  And, as ya'll have mentiond time and again:  None of us are privy to how the payments were made for anything. It's entirely possible that Brian( if he had any oversight in the matter) allotted more $$ to Mike from incoming $$ to compensate him for his non-credits.
I'd bet that  even Brian and Mike  don't know exactly how the $$ was handled in the day. They just knew it was coming in and there was plenty; Of course Mike  needed more( and more) to cover his increaing ex-harem. And Brian had Dad watching out for him, no matter the acrimony between them, it was still HIS son.   

[clack]

So many unanswered questions.

1) Why was Mike credited for some songs and not for others? Was there some pre-existing arrangement, like Mike would get half royalties and thus his name would be on only half his co-writes?

2) Why did Mike not take action at the time? I don't mean suing, I mean like "sure Brian, I'll write the lyrics to California Girls for you but I'll want to see (B. Wilson-M. Love) on the record sleeve. Deal?"

3) Did his credit/not-credit come as a surprise to Mike on each occasion? Mike looks at the label of  the hot-off-the-press record and says "yay, my name's on there!" or "damn, folied again!"

[seltaeb1012002]

3) Did his credit/not-credit come as a surprise to Mike on each occasion? Mike looks at the label of  the hot-off-the-press record and says "yay, my name's on there!" or "damn, folied again!"

Someone needs to flat out ask him in an interview. If that was the case, I don't know how he functioned in the group early on...

Well, other than the fact that there was a lot of other money & perks in the situation that kept him going. Either way, he got royally screwed and I don't blame him for having some overall resentment about the band. Very strange.

[Sheriff John Stone]

3) Did his credit/not-credit come as a surprise to Mike on each occasion? Mike looks at the label of  the hot-off-the-press record and says "yay, my name's on there!" or "damn, folied again!"

Someone needs to flat out ask him in an interview. If that was the case, I don't know how he functioned in the group early on...

Well, other than the fact that there was a lot of other money & perks in the situation that kept him going. Either way, he got royally screwed and I don't blame him for having some overall resentment about the band. Very strange.

After reading/hearing several Mike Love interviews, somehow I can hear him saying, "Surprised? Well, yeah! But more like pissed off! Several times I confronted Brian on it, and each time he told me that he'd take care of it. After a while, Brian got so messed up with drugs and mental problems that I knew nothing was going come out of it. Years later, Brian and his attorneys got this huge settlement so I figured it was a good time to pursue the issue again, this time on a legal basis. And a judge agreed with me...."

[Dancing Bear]

Dancing Bear: If that came off as harsh I apologize. Besides a bad tendency to be hot-headed sometimes I played a gig last night and didn't get much sleep, so I'm a little cranky I guess...

In all fairness, though, on these forums we don't always know who has done what, what people's experiences have been, what they know versus what they've heard in passing, all of that jazz. So sometimes I think assumptions are made without enough info.

On the topic of songwriters and publishing, let me mention one factual bit of info that I ran into about 4 years ago regarding a song and potential publishing.

So there was this "American Idol" songwriting contest, open to songwriters with the award being one of the American Idol finalists performing it live on the show, in one of their finale episodes for that season.

It was mentioned to me, "Hey Craig, you should check this out..." as I had a batch of original songs recorded.

There was one in particular that had what i thought was an uplifting lyric, a "singer's chorus" with a sustained high note (think along the lines of U2's song 'Pride') that could showcase a singer's range and all that, and it was an uptempo kind of thing that made me think seriously about entering it in the contest...what the hell, right?

But I had already registered the song under both my songwriter's catalog and publisher's credits, which basically amounted to nothing other than future protection. And even though I wrote probably 95% or more of it, music-lyrics-arrangement, I gave credit to my other two studio bandmates and partners-in-crime because the recording wouldn't have happened without their work.

I suppose unlike Murry and Brian, I'm a nice guy that way, or something.  

Anyway, I'm ready to enter this Idol thing, and I start reading the fine print of the contest rules. It turns out even though the song had not been "released" commercially, it was listed with an agency and a "publisher", even though that publisher was basically me. So it might not be eligible.

But the biggest red flag was that the winning songwriter would have to - wait for it - *sign over all the publishing rights of their song* to the American Idol franchise, along with other concessions and contractual things related to payments, ownership, usage, royalties, and all those pesky details I mentioned in earlier posts.

So in no way are the shenanigans described in this thread from "back then", or practices from a "bygone era" or anything, they're still standard practice in some aspects of songwriters in the music business today.

You'll have to take my word for that. So the whole Idol contest I never entered because of that crap shows that publishing can be given and taken away rather easily in exchange for certain other things in return.

And there is a cottage industry that exists for songwriters of all types today, in the form of songwriting contests and competitions.

Everyone from music retailers to foundations to other corporate interests sponsor these things. Look up "The John Lennon Songwriting Contest", "The Great American Songwriting Competition", Guitar Center had a "Singer Songwriter Competition", whatever other names they go by.

Search 'em online, just for kicks, and read the fine print in detail. Take note of the ways publishing is handled with those, and while there may be some that allow the writer to hold onto that, I've seen more of them where signing over the publishing rights to your song if you're the winner is a requirement, and papers need to be signed to establish what amounts to the corporate interests getting a bigger piece of the pie from your song than you, especially on the million-to-one chance that a song from one of these contests takes off and becomes a "hit".

And check into how much an artist gets every time a song is purchased or streamed on iTunes or any of the other services. I know having dealt with it. But the actual amount may shock some folks who think a big iTunes download hit is a guarantee of great wealth. Some guy putting a viral video of a cat running into a sliding door on YouTube could in theory make more money on YouTube's "ad clicks" revenue stream than an artist who gets a lot of song downloads and purchases on iTunes.

This is 2014, not 1967, remember.  

And again, my apologies for a too-harsh reply. Lack of sleep...

You don't need to apologize.

I agree with everything you say. But I've got just one question.

In this shark business, how many songs did Brian wrte in the sixties in which he didn't get credited?