gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 05:04:03 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 83 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rocky Pamplin book about The Beach Boys?  (Read 489770 times)
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #600 on: January 13, 2016, 06:46:00 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.
Brian Wilson has never seemed greedy, but the man making many of his decisions at the time seems to have been.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #601 on: January 13, 2016, 07:04:23 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.
Brian Wilson has never seemed greedy, but the man making many of his decisions at the time seems to have been.
Murry was not "available."

It was not Brian who made those decisions, apparently.  Wink
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #602 on: January 13, 2016, 07:09:19 AM »

I don't think Brian refused Mike's help - I'm under the impression that Mike was deposed, or otherwise gave testimony, that enhanced Brian's case. And the expected payback for that - finally giving Mike credit and royalties for "California Girls", which I'm told had long been promised him - didn't happen. That's when the lawsuit was filed, with the offer of a settlement.

I'm not saying anyone is saying anything to the contrary, but it's worth reiterating that when someone issued a subpoena for a deposition in a civil suit, they usually don't have the option of doing it or not doing it. There are plenty of stall tactics, and all sorts of accommodations can be made. But it's not as if Mike or anyone has the option of saying "Nah, I'm not going to show up for that deposition."

Separately, while a witness certainly shouldn't say they will alter their testimony one way or the other based on the person deposing them helping them or giving them any sort of consideration at a later date, I'm sure many such depositions have some implied back scratching involved.

If a witness that could help you is dragged in unwillingly, and/or you indicate you don't want to help them in some related matter at a later date, certainly there is the risk that that witness's memory may all of a sudden begin to fail them or that their "perspective" on matters may all of a sudden not be what everyone expected. But the witness also runs a risk, because one is under oath when testifying in a deposition.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 07:10:32 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
SteveMC
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


View Profile
« Reply #603 on: January 13, 2016, 07:12:07 AM »

Yes what a dramatic scene. Wish I could have seen that day in court.
One thing I love about Brian is that often has the direct honesty of a child. When asked directly in that trial if Mike wrote lyrics he basically admitted so.
I remember reading that there was a very dramatic moment where Brain was playing keyboard in the courtroom

"The next day proved to be an amazing one. Remember that some of the exhibits were large photo blowups and they hung around the courtroom. The most ominous one was that of Murray. 

Brian returned to the stand a few days later and was describing verses and choruses and bridges and Brian's lawyers asked if it would be alright if Brian could demonstrate and the judge agreed. A yamaha portable keyboard was given to Brian on the stand. NOW THIS IS WHAT I WAS WAITING FOR!!! There were more people in the gallery this day(maybe Cool than usual and you could just feel the excitement in the air. Brian had a cold, so he was having a bit of a hard time, but went on to do 409 and I Get Around. Everyone in the place was very excited including the jury. Brian explained what the elements of a song were and that sort of thing. It was just too cool. After this, Brian answered some more questions which turned out to be damaging testimony to his case."
http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/lovevwilson5.html
The demonstration at the keyboard was "testimony."

But in the next chapter..."I talked to Mr. Flynn (Atty. Mike Flynn) that day and asked him about...that Brian should go after his own lawyers.  He told me this was going to happen. He had also told me at that time (about 3 months after the trial was ended), that Mike and Brian had written about eight songs together." 

That surfermoon link is a good one.  Wink   
Logged

Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys said of Reynolds: "[He's] just about a god to me. His work is the greatest, and the Freshmen's execution is too much."
AndrewHickey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1999



View Profile
« Reply #604 on: January 13, 2016, 07:19:32 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.

Yep. The *really* annoying thing about that trial is that because of the decision not to restore Mike's credit on the very obvious cases like California Girls (and really, does *anyone* doubt that one? It's the most Mike Love thing ever written), he ended up getting credit not only on the obvious and borderline ones, but on things like Wouldn't It Be Nice, which he had basically no involvement in and were obvious bargaining chips. (Yes, he probably did write those two lines, but that's all). And Mike now, because of a bad decision on *Brian's* lawyers' part, now also gets money that should have gone to other co-writers like Tony Asher, as well as Brian. Brian's bad legal advice ended up hurting people who were completely uninvolved in the lawsuit :-/
Andrew - had those other lyricists come forward and filed a claim, at the time of the lawsuit, they might have been joined as well as parties in the suit, they could have become part of the award. 

That was a step that they might have taken with assistance of their own legal counsel.   Wink

Those other writers already *had* their share of the royalties. They didn't need to make any claims or get an award. What they already had was taken away from them.

It's very obvious that Mike was dealt with unjustly for many years. But it's equally obvious that in the process of correcting that injustice, Tony Asher in particular was done an injustice almost as bad. He wrote the whole lyric to Wouldn't It Be Nice other than the line "goodnight baby/sleep tight baby", and Mike now gets twice as big a share of the song for that line than Asher gets for all the rest of it.
Logged

The Smiley Smile ignore function: http://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/
Most recent update 03/12/15
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #605 on: January 13, 2016, 07:27:26 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.
Brian Wilson has never seemed greedy, but the man making many of his decisions at the time seems to have been.

Would Murry, as publisher, profit from under reporting authors?  Isn't the publisher's royalties separate from the writer's and performers', etc.?  Wouldn't the reported author(s) be the only one(s) to profit from not reporting all of the authors?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 07:35:49 AM by Cam Mott » Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #606 on: January 13, 2016, 07:35:06 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.

Yep. The *really* annoying thing about that trial is that because of the decision not to restore Mike's credit on the very obvious cases like California Girls (and really, does *anyone* doubt that one? It's the most Mike Love thing ever written), he ended up getting credit not only on the obvious and borderline ones, but on things like Wouldn't It Be Nice, which he had basically no involvement in and were obvious bargaining chips. (Yes, he probably did write those two lines, but that's all). And Mike now, because of a bad decision on *Brian's* lawyers' part, now also gets money that should have gone to other co-writers like Tony Asher, as well as Brian. Brian's bad legal advice ended up hurting people who were completely uninvolved in the lawsuit :-/
Andrew - had those other lyricists come forward and filed a claim, at the time of the lawsuit, they might have been joined as well as parties in the suit, they could have become part of the award. 

That was a step that they might have taken with assistance of their own legal counsel.   Wink

Those other writers already *had* their share of the royalties. They didn't need to make any claims or get an award. What they already had was taken away from them.

It's very obvious that Mike was dealt with unjustly for many years. But it's equally obvious that in the process of correcting that injustice, Tony Asher in particular was done an injustice almost as bad. He wrote the whole lyric to Wouldn't It Be Nice other than the line "goodnight baby/sleep tight baby", and Mike now gets twice as big a share of the song for that line than Asher gets for all the rest of it.

Kind of like Brian getting half of the lyric credit (according to Brad Elliott) for co-writing with Tony a single line of the GV lyrics.  Smiley

Don't get up.  I'll let myself out.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #607 on: January 13, 2016, 07:38:10 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.
Yep. The *really* annoying thing about that trial is that because of the decision not to restore Mike's credit on the very obvious cases like California Girls (and really, does *anyone* doubt that one? It's the most Mike Love thing ever written), he ended up getting credit not only on the obvious and borderline ones, but on things like Wouldn't It Be Nice, which he had basically no involvement in and were obvious bargaining chips. (Yes, he probably did write those two lines, but that's all). And Mike now, because of a bad decision on *Brian's* lawyers' part, now also gets money that should have gone to other co-writers like Tony Asher, as well as Brian. Brian's bad legal advice ended up hurting people who were completely uninvolved in the lawsuit :-/
Andrew - had those other lyricists come forward and filed a claim, at the time of the lawsuit, they might have been joined as well as parties in the suit, they could have become part of the award.  

That was a step that they might have taken with assistance of their own legal counsel.   Wink

Those other writers already *had* their share of the royalties. They didn't need to make any claims or get an award. What they already had was taken away from them.

It's very obvious that Mike was dealt with unjustly for many years. But it's equally obvious that in the process of correcting that injustice, Tony Asher in particular was done an injustice almost as bad. He wrote the whole lyric to Wouldn't It Be Nice other than the line "goodnight baby/sleep tight baby", and Mike now gets twice as big a share of the song for that line than Asher gets for all the rest of it.
Andrew - post-trial there is an appeal period, during which time, if there was a dispute as to the results of the award, that is the time to assert a claim to reduce the award by the party who had to pay.  But likely Asher's time was to file to be a "party."

If Asher had a problem, he might have asserted a claim during pre-trial, when the news of the trial was covered. That was on Asher.  

One could not predict the award of the court.  They may have added in the time (duration) of non-attribution, with interest and costs.  

Maybe the award was a "symbolic" as a warning to those who follow to not "repeat the behavior." The court devised the award.  Maybe they were not "counting words" and looking at "concept," of "good night, sleep tight" in the concept of "Wouldn't it Be Nice" as a teen might have dreamt of it and found it to be "core" rather than "ancillary."  Maybe it was regarded or argued (WIBN) that it is a wishful "dream" song.

Mike's non-attribution was not initiated by Brian, but Murry.  Murry was "unavailable" as a witness.  So Brian, was called to be the witness as to the creative process.  
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 07:41:34 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #608 on: January 13, 2016, 07:40:19 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.
Brian Wilson has never seemed greedy, but the man making many of his decisions at the time seems to have been.
Murry was not "available."

It was not Brian who made those decisions, apparently.  Wink
I was referring to Landy, at the time of the law suits.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #609 on: January 13, 2016, 07:41:29 AM »

I don't think Brian refused Mike's help - I'm under the impression that Mike was deposed, or otherwise gave testimony, that enhanced Brian's case. And the expected payback for that - finally giving Mike credit and royalties for "California Girls", which I'm told had long been promised him - didn't happen. That's when the lawsuit was filed, with the offer of a settlement.

I'm not saying anyone is saying anything to the contrary, but it's worth reiterating that when someone issued a subpoena for a deposition in a civil suit, they usually don't have the option of doing it or not doing it. There are plenty of stall tactics, and all sorts of accommodations can be made. But it's not as if Mike or anyone has the option of saying "Nah, I'm not going to show up for that deposition."

Separately, while a witness certainly shouldn't say they will alter their testimony one way or the other based on the person deposing them helping them or giving them any sort of consideration at a later date, I'm sure many such depositions have some implied back scratching involved.

If a witness that could help you is dragged in unwillingly, and/or you indicate you don't want to help them in some related matter at a later date, certainly there is the risk that that witness's memory may all of a sudden begin to fail them or that their "perspective" on matters may all of a sudden not be what everyone expected. But the witness also runs a risk, because one is under oath when testifying in a deposition.
Very good points.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #610 on: January 13, 2016, 07:42:38 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.
Brian Wilson has never seemed greedy, but the man making many of his decisions at the time seems to have been.
Murry was not "available."

It was not Brian who made those decisions, apparently.  Wink
I was referring to Landy, at the time of the law suits.

This was a BB trial for lyric attribution.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #611 on: January 13, 2016, 07:48:24 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.
Brian Wilson has never seemed greedy, but the man making many of his decisions at the time seems to have been.

Would Murry, as publisher, profit from under reporting authors?  Isn't the publisher's royalties separate from the writer's and performers', etc.?  Wouldn't the reported author(s) be the only one(s) to profit from not reporting all of the authors?
First, I was actually making reference to Landy at the time of the law suits and that, at Mike's request, I would expect at that time that BW would've agreed to put ML on the credits for California Girls.
Second, I don't know what the legal arrangement was with Sea of Tunes regarding distribution. Because it was made when Brian Wilson was still a legal minor, it would've originally been that all of his income went to Murry except for 15% which would be held in trust for the minor. So as long as only Murry's kids are on the songs, Murry gets all but 15% of the songwriter royalties as well as the publisher fees. California Girls was published after BW reached majority, but I don't know how the distributions were then made, but my impression, based on the famous Murry letter is that even after BW was 21, Murry was "handling" all his money and parceling it out to BW. If ML was on the credits, he'd have to turn that portion right over to ML. I think, basically, that Murry Wilson was pocketing a lot of Brian Wilson's income (and Mike Love's because he wasn't listed) until Sea of Tunes was sold, at which time Murry Wilson pocketed the whole deal.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 09:36:27 AM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #612 on: January 13, 2016, 07:49:38 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.

Yep. The *really* annoying thing about that trial is that because of the decision not to restore Mike's credit on the very obvious cases like California Girls (and really, does *anyone* doubt that one? It's the most Mike Love thing ever written), he ended up getting credit not only on the obvious and borderline ones, but on things like Wouldn't It Be Nice, which he had basically no involvement in and were obvious bargaining chips. (Yes, he probably did write those two lines, but that's all). And Mike now, because of a bad decision on *Brian's* lawyers' part, now also gets money that should have gone to other co-writers like Tony Asher, as well as Brian. Brian's bad legal advice ended up hurting people who were completely uninvolved in the lawsuit :-/
Andrew - had those other lyricists come forward and filed a claim, at the time of the lawsuit, they might have been joined as well as parties in the suit, they could have become part of the award. 

That was a step that they might have taken with assistance of their own legal counsel.   Wink

Those other writers already *had* their share of the royalties. They didn't need to make any claims or get an award. What they already had was taken away from them.

It's very obvious that Mike was dealt with unjustly for many years. But it's equally obvious that in the process of correcting that injustice, Tony Asher in particular was done an injustice almost as bad. He wrote the whole lyric to Wouldn't It Be Nice other than the line "goodnight baby/sleep tight baby", and Mike now gets twice as big a share of the song for that line than Asher gets for all the rest of it.

Kind of like Brian getting half of the lyric credit (according to Brad Elliott) for co-writing with Tony a single line of the GV lyrics.  Smiley

Don't get up.  I'll let myself out.
no no.. don't go. I think that's perfectly analogous.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #613 on: January 13, 2016, 07:53:04 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.
Yep. The *really* annoying thing about that trial is that because of the decision not to restore Mike's credit on the very obvious cases like California Girls (and really, does *anyone* doubt that one? It's the most Mike Love thing ever written), he ended up getting credit not only on the obvious and borderline ones, but on things like Wouldn't It Be Nice, which he had basically no involvement in and were obvious bargaining chips. (Yes, he probably did write those two lines, but that's all). And Mike now, because of a bad decision on *Brian's* lawyers' part, now also gets money that should have gone to other co-writers like Tony Asher, as well as Brian. Brian's bad legal advice ended up hurting people who were completely uninvolved in the lawsuit :-/
Andrew - had those other lyricists come forward and filed a claim, at the time of the lawsuit, they might have been joined as well as parties in the suit, they could have become part of the award.  

That was a step that they might have taken with assistance of their own legal counsel.   Wink

Those other writers already *had* their share of the royalties. They didn't need to make any claims or get an award. What they already had was taken away from them.

It's very obvious that Mike was dealt with unjustly for many years. But it's equally obvious that in the process of correcting that injustice, Tony Asher in particular was done an injustice almost as bad. He wrote the whole lyric to Wouldn't It Be Nice other than the line "goodnight baby/sleep tight baby", and Mike now gets twice as big a share of the song for that line than Asher gets for all the rest of it.
Andrew - post-trial there is an appeal period, during which time, if there was a dispute as to the results of the award, that is the time to assert a claim to reduce the award by the party who had to pay.  But likely Asher's time was to file to be a "party."

If Asher had a problem, he might have asserted a claim during pre-trial, when the news of the trial was covered. That was on Asher.  

One could not predict the award of the court.  They may have added in the time (duration) of non-attribution, with interest and costs.  

Maybe the award was a "symbolic" as a warning to those who follow to not "repeat the behavior." The court devised the award.  Maybe they were not "counting words" and looking at "concept," of "good night, sleep tight" in the concept of "Wouldn't it Be Nice" as a teen might have dreamt of it and found it to be "core" rather than "ancillary."  Maybe it was regarded or argued (WIBN) that it is a wishful "dream" song.

Mike's non-attribution was not initiated by Brian, but Murry.  Murry was "unavailable" as a witness.  So Brian, was called to be the witness as to the creative process.  

So, if you don't have a claim, you can file a claim against an anticipation that the court may, in its decision wrongly deprive you of your rightful credit?
I don't expect that's so.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #614 on: January 13, 2016, 07:53:56 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.
Brian Wilson has never seemed greedy, but the man making many of his decisions at the time seems to have been.
Murry was not "available."

It was not Brian who made those decisions, apparently.  Wink
I was referring to Landy, at the time of the law suits.

This was a BB trial for lyric attribution.
That is perfectly true. And that is what I was referring to.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #615 on: January 13, 2016, 08:13:02 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.
Yep. The *really* annoying thing about that trial is that because of the decision not to restore Mike's credit on the very obvious cases like California Girls (and really, does *anyone* doubt that one? It's the most Mike Love thing ever written), he ended up getting credit not only on the obvious and borderline ones, but on things like Wouldn't It Be Nice, which he had basically no involvement in and were obvious bargaining chips. (Yes, he probably did write those two lines, but that's all). And Mike now, because of a bad decision on *Brian's* lawyers' part, now also gets money that should have gone to other co-writers like Tony Asher, as well as Brian. Brian's bad legal advice ended up hurting people who were completely uninvolved in the lawsuit :-/
Andrew - had those other lyricists come forward and filed a claim, at the time of the lawsuit, they might have been joined as well as parties in the suit, they could have become part of the award.  

That was a step that they might have taken with assistance of their own legal counsel.   Wink

Those other writers already *had* their share of the royalties. They didn't need to make any claims or get an award. What they already had was taken away from them.

It's very obvious that Mike was dealt with unjustly for many years. But it's equally obvious that in the process of correcting that injustice, Tony Asher in particular was done an injustice almost as bad. He wrote the whole lyric to Wouldn't It Be Nice other than the line "goodnight baby/sleep tight baby", and Mike now gets twice as big a share of the song for that line than Asher gets for all the rest of it.
Andrew - post-trial there is an appeal period, during which time, if there was a dispute as to the results of the award, that is the time to assert a claim to reduce the award by the party who had to pay.  But likely Asher's time was to file to be a "party."

If Asher had a problem, he might have asserted a claim during pre-trial, when the news of the trial was covered. That was on Asher.  

One could not predict the award of the court.  They may have added in the time (duration) of non-attribution, with interest and costs.  

Maybe the award was a "symbolic" as a warning to those who follow to not "repeat the behavior." The court devised the award.  Maybe they were not "counting words" and looking at "concept," of "good night, sleep tight" in the concept of "Wouldn't it Be Nice" as a teen might have dreamt of it and found it to be "core" rather than "ancillary."  Maybe it was regarded or argued (WIBN) that it is a wishful "dream" song.

Mike's non-attribution was not initiated by Brian, but Murry.  Murry was "unavailable" as a witness.  So Brian, was called to be the witness as to the creative process.  

So, if you don't have a claim, you can file a claim against an anticipation that the court may, in its decision wrongly deprive you of your rightful credit?
I don't expect that's so.
Emily - it depends on the individual status of the parties.  Asher, appears to be an independent contractor and did work-for-hire.  He would have been paid for his input at the time of the event. He got his money before the album and single was released, perhaps.  I don't know what the royalty arrangement was.

Mike asserted a claim, along with many other songs, that he contributed to that song and was not recognized for attribution purposes.  He made his claim after the world is thinking that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the record, albeit perhaps a small one.  But small can be viewed sometimes as important, and the court found it to be important. 

And the smiley members can lament the injustice in the way the scales of justice are balanced.  I am not arguing whether it was just or not.  It was settled a couple of decades ago. Sometimes courts make mistakes.   But, if they do, or you think they did, you call your lawyer and see what can be done right away. 

It was on Asher to see if he had a stake in the outcome.  Asher was work-for-hire.  Mike was part of the corporate structure. He was not work-for-hire.   Wink

If you are a scientist and are hired to do scientific work, in a company, your work is generally attributed to a "company product." Unless there is an agreement to the contrary. 

When a claim goes in, and is public, and you even think you have a stake in the outcome, then you consult with a lawyer, and decide whether or not to file.   
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #616 on: January 13, 2016, 08:21:48 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.
Yep. The *really* annoying thing about that trial is that because of the decision not to restore Mike's credit on the very obvious cases like California Girls (and really, does *anyone* doubt that one? It's the most Mike Love thing ever written), he ended up getting credit not only on the obvious and borderline ones, but on things like Wouldn't It Be Nice, which he had basically no involvement in and were obvious bargaining chips. (Yes, he probably did write those two lines, but that's all). And Mike now, because of a bad decision on *Brian's* lawyers' part, now also gets money that should have gone to other co-writers like Tony Asher, as well as Brian. Brian's bad legal advice ended up hurting people who were completely uninvolved in the lawsuit :-/
Andrew - had those other lyricists come forward and filed a claim, at the time of the lawsuit, they might have been joined as well as parties in the suit, they could have become part of the award.  

That was a step that they might have taken with assistance of their own legal counsel.   Wink

Those other writers already *had* their share of the royalties. They didn't need to make any claims or get an award. What they already had was taken away from them.

It's very obvious that Mike was dealt with unjustly for many years. But it's equally obvious that in the process of correcting that injustice, Tony Asher in particular was done an injustice almost as bad. He wrote the whole lyric to Wouldn't It Be Nice other than the line "goodnight baby/sleep tight baby", and Mike now gets twice as big a share of the song for that line than Asher gets for all the rest of it.
Andrew - post-trial there is an appeal period, during which time, if there was a dispute as to the results of the award, that is the time to assert a claim to reduce the award by the party who had to pay.  But likely Asher's time was to file to be a "party."

If Asher had a problem, he might have asserted a claim during pre-trial, when the news of the trial was covered. That was on Asher.  

One could not predict the award of the court.  They may have added in the time (duration) of non-attribution, with interest and costs.  

Maybe the award was a "symbolic" as a warning to those who follow to not "repeat the behavior." The court devised the award.  Maybe they were not "counting words" and looking at "concept," of "good night, sleep tight" in the concept of "Wouldn't it Be Nice" as a teen might have dreamt of it and found it to be "core" rather than "ancillary."  Maybe it was regarded or argued (WIBN) that it is a wishful "dream" song.

Mike's non-attribution was not initiated by Brian, but Murry.  Murry was "unavailable" as a witness.  So Brian, was called to be the witness as to the creative process.  

So, if you don't have a claim, you can file a claim against an anticipation that the court may, in its decision wrongly deprive you of your rightful credit?
I don't expect that's so.
Emily - it depends on the individual status of the parties.  Asher, appears to be an independent contractor and did work-for-hire.  He would have been paid for his input at the time of the event. He got his money before the album and single was released, perhaps.  I don't know what the royalty arrangement was.

Mike asserted a claim, along with many other songs, that he contributed to that song and was not recognized for attribution purposes.  He made his claim after the world is thinking that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the record, albeit perhaps a small one.  But small can be viewed sometimes as important, and the court found it to be important.  

And the smiley members can lament the injustice in the way the scales of justice are balanced.  I am not arguing whether it was just or not.  It was settled a couple of decades ago. Sometimes courts make mistakes.   But, if they do, or you think they did, you call your lawyer and see what can be done right away.  

It was on Asher to see if he had a stake in the outcome.  Asher was work-for-hire.  Mike was part of the corporate structure. He was not work-for-hire.   Wink

If you are a scientist and are hired to do scientific work, in a company, your work is generally attributed to a "company product." Unless there is an agreement to the contrary.  

When a claim goes in, and is public, and you even think you have a stake in the outcome, then you consult with a lawyer, and decide whether or not to file.  
It was not work-for-hire in terms of receiving royalties. The publishing structure is entirely separate from the recording or performance structure. It is not analogous to a corporate scientist.
I suspect Asher did not think in advance that he had a stake in the outcome; it turned out he did and he didn't take action. He's talked about how ludicrous it was but may have decided it's not worth his while to pursue it in court; but it's still unjust. That the victim of an injustice does not take action on his own behalf, to me, is not a cause to shrug off injustice. I understand that there's a strain of philosophical thought that is strong in the US that differs with that idea.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 08:23:40 AM by Emily » Logged
AndrewHickey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1999



View Profile
« Reply #617 on: January 13, 2016, 08:32:48 AM »

Emily - it depends on the individual status of the parties.  Asher, appears to be an independent contractor and did work-for-hire.  He would have been paid for his input at the time of the event. He got his money before the album and single was released, perhaps.  I don't know what the royalty arrangement was.

Work-for-hire has a very specific legal meaning when it comes to copyright law. Nothing Asher did was work-for-hire, nor has it ever been described as such that I know of.
Logged

The Smiley Smile ignore function: http://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/
Most recent update 03/12/15
AndrewHickey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1999



View Profile
« Reply #618 on: January 13, 2016, 08:34:26 AM »

Kind of like Brian getting half of the lyric credit (according to Brad Elliott) for co-writing with Tony a single line of the GV lyrics.  Smiley

Don't get up.  I'll let myself out.

Not perfectly analogous, as the basic lyrical concept of Good Vibrations, including the title, came from Brian. But similar enough, yes.
Logged

The Smiley Smile ignore function: http://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/
Most recent update 03/12/15
AndrewHickey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1999



View Profile
« Reply #619 on: January 13, 2016, 08:38:37 AM »

It was not work-for-hire in terms of receiving royalties. The publishing structure is entirely separate from the recording or performance structure. It is not analogous to a corporate scientist.
I suspect Asher did not think in advance that he had a stake in the outcome; it turned out he did and he didn't take action. He's talked about how ludicrous it was but may have decided it's not worth his while to pursue it in court; but it's still unjust. That the victim of an injustice does not take action on his own behalf, to me, is not a cause to shrug off injustice. I understand that there's a strain of philosophical thought that is strong in the US that differs with that idea.

Quite.
Also, Mike co-wrote California Girls in 1965, and the lawsuit over it wasn't until 1994. If Mike's lack of credit was unjust during those twenty-nine years, without him taking legal action, Tony Asher's reduced credit for the last twenty-one years, with no legal action, can also be unjust.
Logged

The Smiley Smile ignore function: http://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/
Most recent update 03/12/15
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #620 on: January 13, 2016, 08:42:02 AM »

Brian was saying Mike had written the words for "California Girls" well before the trial. Back in the seventies, if not late sixties.
Yep. The *really* annoying thing about that trial is that because of the decision not to restore Mike's credit on the very obvious cases like California Girls (and really, does *anyone* doubt that one? It's the most Mike Love thing ever written), he ended up getting credit not only on the obvious and borderline ones, but on things like Wouldn't It Be Nice, which he had basically no involvement in and were obvious bargaining chips. (Yes, he probably did write those two lines, but that's all). And Mike now, because of a bad decision on *Brian's* lawyers' part, now also gets money that should have gone to other co-writers like Tony Asher, as well as Brian. Brian's bad legal advice ended up hurting people who were completely uninvolved in the lawsuit :-/
Andrew - had those other lyricists come forward and filed a claim, at the time of the lawsuit, they might have been joined as well as parties in the suit, they could have become part of the award.  

That was a step that they might have taken with assistance of their own legal counsel.   Wink

Those other writers already *had* their share of the royalties. They didn't need to make any claims or get an award. What they already had was taken away from them.

It's very obvious that Mike was dealt with unjustly for many years. But it's equally obvious that in the process of correcting that injustice, Tony Asher in particular was done an injustice almost as bad. He wrote the whole lyric to Wouldn't It Be Nice other than the line "goodnight baby/sleep tight baby", and Mike now gets twice as big a share of the song for that line than Asher gets for all the rest of it.
Andrew - post-trial there is an appeal period, during which time, if there was a dispute as to the results of the award, that is the time to assert a claim to reduce the award by the party who had to pay.  But likely Asher's time was to file to be a "party."

If Asher had a problem, he might have asserted a claim during pre-trial, when the news of the trial was covered. That was on Asher.  

One could not predict the award of the court.  They may have added in the time (duration) of non-attribution, with interest and costs.  

Maybe the award was a "symbolic" as a warning to those who follow to not "repeat the behavior." The court devised the award.  Maybe they were not "counting words" and looking at "concept," of "good night, sleep tight" in the concept of "Wouldn't it Be Nice" as a teen might have dreamt of it and found it to be "core" rather than "ancillary."  Maybe it was regarded or argued (WIBN) that it is a wishful "dream" song.

Mike's non-attribution was not initiated by Brian, but Murry.  Murry was "unavailable" as a witness.  So Brian, was called to be the witness as to the creative process.  

So, if you don't have a claim, you can file a claim against an anticipation that the court may, in its decision wrongly deprive you of your rightful credit?
I don't expect that's so.
Emily - it depends on the individual status of the parties.  Asher, appears to be an independent contractor and did work-for-hire.  He would have been paid for his input at the time of the event. He got his money before the album and single was released, perhaps.  I don't know what the royalty arrangement was.

Mike asserted a claim, along with many other songs, that he contributed to that song and was not recognized for attribution purposes.  He made his claim after the world is thinking that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the record, albeit perhaps a small one.  But small can be viewed sometimes as important, and the court found it to be important.  

And the smiley members can lament the injustice in the way the scales of justice are balanced.  I am not arguing whether it was just or not.  It was settled a couple of decades ago. Sometimes courts make mistakes.   But, if they do, or you think they did, you call your lawyer and see what can be done right away.  

It was on Asher to see if he had a stake in the outcome.  Asher was work-for-hire.  Mike was part of the corporate structure. He was not work-for-hire.   Wink

If you are a scientist and are hired to do scientific work, in a company, your work is generally attributed to a "company product." Unless there is an agreement to the contrary.  

When a claim goes in, and is public, and you even think you have a stake in the outcome, then you consult with a lawyer, and decide whether or not to file.  
It was not work-for-hire in terms of receiving royalties. The publishing structure is entirely separate from the recording or performance structure. It is not analogous to a corporate scientist.
I suspect Asher did not think in advance that he had a stake in the outcome; it turned out he did and he didn't take action. He's talked about how ludicrous it was but may have decided it's not worth his while to pursue it in court; but it's still unjust. That the victim of an injustice does not take action on his own behalf, to me, is not a cause to shrug off injustice. I understand that there's a strong strain in US philosophical thought that differs with that idea.
Emily - Once the suit was filed, and songs were enumerated, and Asher had his name on even one, it was on him to find out from his lawyer if he had a claim. It seems he was an ad (I think) writer so he is a professional in the publication business.  And, if the judge decided that he did, then his name would be entered as a Plaintiff, alongside Mike's.  

Barry Manilow started out as a ad jingle writer, doing "I am stuck on Bandaid Brand, and You deserve a break today...McDonalds." Asher was in the business, doing similar work.  Asher is listed on wiki as a lyricist, jingle writer and copywriter.  He wrote for the Partridge Family, Mattel Toys, Gallo Wines, Max Factor Cosmetics, Glendale Federal Savings, etc.   And he wrote with Brian for the Flintstones movie, "Viva Rock Vegas."  

So the complaint would read something like this "Michael Love, Tony Asher v. Brian Wilson."  (It would likely be the entities named as well.) But, Asher would likely have to be a party and testify one way or the other as to his contributions and his lawyer argue for him.  

You perceive him to be a victim.  He apparently took no action.  Had he gone to the court, and asked to be added as a plaintiff the court would have decided whether he was or not.  It does not matter what he was "thinking" and that is irrelevant.  

Once the file is claim, the world is "on notice."  That is why there is a system of notice, for many claims in the newspapers, whether for custody, or class action injuries from a product.

That was on him and his lawyer.  Not on Mike, after the award was made.  Remember, Mike offered to settle for far less than the court award, so I would guess it was a surprise if not a shock to him.   Wink

The system is what it is.  
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 08:44:45 AM by filledeplage » Logged
AndrewHickey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1999



View Profile
« Reply #621 on: January 13, 2016, 08:46:52 AM »


Emily - Once the suit was filed, and songs were enumerated, and Asher had his name on even one, it was on him to find out from his lawyer if he had a claim.

But the point is, he didn't "have a claim" until after the lawsuit, when *his* share of the rights to the song was reduced, even though he wasn't a party to the suit. You keep talking like it was his responsibility to sue Brian *for what he already had*. It wasn't. He wasn't a plaintiff because at the time *he had no complaint* -- he was still getting the royalties which had been agreed.
Logged

The Smiley Smile ignore function: http://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/
Most recent update 03/12/15
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #622 on: January 13, 2016, 08:55:45 AM »


Emily - Once the suit was filed, and songs were enumerated, and Asher had his name on even one, it was on him to find out from his lawyer if he had a claim.

But the point is, he didn't "have a claim" until after the lawsuit, when *his* share of the rights to the song was reduced, even though he wasn't a party to the suit. You keep talking like it was his responsibility to sue Brian *for what he already had*. It wasn't. He wasn't a plaintiff because at the time *he had no complaint* -- he was still getting the royalties which had been agreed.

Andrew - during the notice of the lawsuit, was likely the time that he maybe have asserted a claim as a stakeholder.   Yes, it was likely his responsibility once the suit was filed.  If there was a danger his percentages might be reduced, then, yes, he would need to speak up.

The court devised the remedy for Mike. 

Anyone who had an interest, would likely need to be a party if his intellectual property was in contention. 

What is lost here is that it was an "entity" - an analogy is if your neighbor's dog bites you, and has insurance coverage, in order to collect on their insurance you have to name the owner of the dog to reach the entity. The dog owner might be your best friend, but to reach the asset of the insurance policy you have to name the friend who owns the dog who bit you. 



 

Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #623 on: January 13, 2016, 09:15:36 AM »

It was not work-for-hire in terms of receiving royalties. The publishing structure is entirely separate from the recording or performance structure. It is not analogous to a corporate scientist.
I suspect Asher did not think in advance that he had a stake in the outcome; it turned out he did and he didn't take action. He's talked about how ludicrous it was but may have decided it's not worth his while to pursue it in court; but it's still unjust. That the victim of an injustice does not take action on his own behalf, to me, is not a cause to shrug off injustice. I understand that there's a strong strain in US philosophical thought that differs with that idea.
Emily - Once the suit was filed, and songs were enumerated, and Asher had his name on even one, it was on him to find out from his lawyer if he had a claim. It seems he was an ad (I think) writer so he is a professional in the publication business.  And, if the judge decided that he did, then his name would be entered as a Plaintiff, alongside Mike's.  

So the complaint would read something like this "Michael Love, Tony Asher v. Brian Wilson."  (It would likely be the entities named as well.) But, Asher would likely have to be a party and testify one way or the other as to his contributions and his lawyer argue for him.  

You perceive him to be a victim.  He apparently took no action.  Had he gone to the court, and asked to be added as a plaintiff the court would have decided whether he was or not.  It does not matter what he was "thinking" and that is irrelevant.  

Once the file is claim, the world is "on notice."  That is why there is a system of notice, for many claims in the newspapers, whether for custody, or class action injuries from a product.

That was on him and his lawyer.  Not on Mike, after the award was made.  Remember, Mike offered to settle for far less than the court award, so I would guess it was a surprise if not a shock to him.   Wink

The system is what it is.  
He did not have a claim until after the case. So the judge would have not put his name on the case. He would've had to file a new claim after the the first judgment. That he decided not to does not mean there was no injustice.
If you have an instance of a person being allowed to sue someone though they had no claim against him, please show it. It's not my understanding that it's permitted. Perhaps I'm wrong.
The "it's on him" philosophy is yours, not mine.
To me, it matters what he was thinking and to me it's not irrelevant. To me, people's feelings matter.

and the dog biting thing is not analogous. With the dog biting, you are having someone file a claim after the injury. What you seem to be arguing is that Asher should have filed a claim before the injury.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 09:19:23 AM by Emily » Logged
AndrewHickey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1999



View Profile
« Reply #624 on: January 13, 2016, 09:20:21 AM »

Anyone who had an interest, would likely need to be a party if his intellectual property was in contention. 

A few minutes ago, you were arguing that Asher's intellectual property wasn't in contention at all, because his work was "work-for-hire".
Logged

The Smiley Smile ignore function: http://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/
Most recent update 03/12/15
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 83 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.837 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!