Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[Emily]

It's in the public record, and the full 9th Circuit judgement as written is available at this link: http://333.lawlink.com/documents/6826/public

Judge Thomas (or his clerk) has a good sense of humor.
Among other gems:

The central issue before us is whether American claims for
relief can be asserted on the basis of conduct that only
occurred in Great Britain. The defendants think not. Love
wishes they all could be California torts.

ETA: I finally completed reading the 3 legal links in this thread. There must be SmileySmile.net threads on the 2005 case, right? I'm going to look for them.
But, reading between the lines, that case was edging toward saying that Brian Wilson having any career at all violates his fiduciary duties to BRI as his career would compete with the Beach Boys trademark and license.

[Emily]

CD - The lawyers may have come up with a "theory of the case" and ran it out.  So, wealthy or not, this thing is "billable hours" and a problem with the profession so who knows?  And, it could have caused confusion, and that is sometimes unpredictable.  As, is the lawyer-client relationship, because we don't know all of the facts and circumstances.  We only know what was "filed."

As I look (through that lens) to the beginning of the band, I see the initial Murry nonsense and Brian being browbeaten into whatever arose, while they were all too young to enter into a contract.  And Murry did kick the door down and the band, still does give him credit for that.  I think Murry created a huge mess that took decades to unravel long after he died.    

Maybe Murry thought he was entitled to them all working for him.  It appears he had control of the catalog and people in the industry looked the other way.  We can't turn back the hands of time, but just look at documents that show the legal control relationships that arose over time.        

It is easy for people who don't understand these relationships to finger-point.  There are some brilliant lawyers out there, some greedy ones, some lazy ones and some real dummies as well.  It is no different from any other profession.  

The fraudulent CD purchase was the only thing (barely) tying three of the claims (and some further dependencies) to the US. Without it, they probably wouldn't have brought the case at all. If the lawyers hinged the entire case on a fraudulent act without running it by ML, I'd think he'd have a malpractice case.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Another look at the article, Mike is still slaving away at "Mike Love Not War". What's it been, 15 years in the making? He's already released 2 or 3 songs from it. And he will never get permission to use the Beatles singing.

I mean, WTF?

Well in Mike's defense, I guess he's pulling an Al Jardine with this solo album

Well sure, Al took his time but he did release the sucker. Mike had it finished like 7 years ago. I've heard it.  I mean, how many albums has he done that no one will release?  Country Love, First Love, Unleash the Love, Kokomo Christmas,  Mike Love Not War (which, it says on wiki, he wants to get Neil Young to sing on). Not to mention "Looking Back with Love" being long out of print.

What we need is a three CD Mike Love box set "Made in Kokomo".  

[Dave in KC]

Another look at the article, Mike is still slaving away at "Mike Love Not War". What's it been, 15 years in the making? He's already released 2 or 3 songs from it. And he will never get permission to use the Beatles singing.

I mean, WTF?

Well in Mike's defense, I guess he's pulling an Al Jardine with this solo album

I sincerely doubt Mike's album could ever be as good as Al's.

[Custom Machine]

Are there any contemporary interviews with Brian or Mike in which they discuss the writing of the songs? Do we see Brian actively lying about or actively acknowledging Mike's authorship in the years before the lawsuit? Or Mike bringing the issue up? Do we know the process of registering authorship? Was it generally Murry or someone else who did it? Did Brian actively engage with Sea of Tunes or was he passive and it was actively handled exclusively by Murry?
It is really egregious and also odd. How did it happen that it sat there uncontested for so many years?

Here's a typical example, from the latter part of 1964, starting at about 2:50 in the interview. While Brian doesn't claim to be the sole author of all the songs he mentions, one can easily come away with that impression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z4N4BSs4Ic

Capitol PR also generally focused on "Brian Wilson songs," without mentioning his lyrical collaborators.

[Kurosawa]

Mike has in past interviews been pretty explicit about what he desires. In his view, Wilson/Love should be regarded as one of the great 60's songwriting teams, alongside such teams as Goffin/King, Bacharach/David, Jagger/Richards.

He was cheated of this recognition during the band's mid-60's heyday, and he feels his contribution is still not given the public and critical recognition it deserves. Granted he is going about seeking this recognition in an abrasive, clumsy way -- but is trying to cement his popular music legacy really so beyond the pale?

He's out of his frickin' mind if he thinks that will ever happen. Brian had too many co-writers for Wilson/Love to stand out in the Goffin/King, etc level. Plus a lot of Brian's best and biggest songs were written with writers other than Mike.

I don't hate Mike like OSD or smileBrian do, but he ain't nothing special either. As a singer, he's Jan without the flatting, as frontman Jan was way better, funnier and had sex appeal. I still can't believe how dumb the Beach Boys were for putting the best looking guy they had behind the drums and putting a balding old man as the lead singer. Imagine if they had a real manager like Brian Epstein instead of Murry.

[CenturyDeprived]

Mike has in past interviews been pretty explicit about what he desires. In his view, Wilson/Love should be regarded as one of the great 60's songwriting teams, alongside such teams as Goffin/King, Bacharach/David, Jagger/Richards.

He was cheated of this recognition during the band's mid-60's heyday, and he feels his contribution is still not given the public and critical recognition it deserves. Granted he is going about seeking this recognition in an abrasive, clumsy way -- but is trying to cement his popular music legacy really so beyond the pale?

He's out of his frickin' mind if he thinks that will ever happen. Brian had too many co-writers for Wilson/Love to stand out in the Goffin/King, etc level. Plus a lot of Brian's best and biggest songs were written with writers other than Mike.  

I'm not sure which other famed songwriting partnership Mike realistically would have thought the Wilson/Love partnership would be regraded as similar to, with the exception of the Lennon/McCartney one, since he's brought up the Paul McCartney/chopped liver analogy before. 

Problem is: I think that Mike may have just wanted that type of recognition too much from the start, or moreso as time went on into the mid 60s. I think Brian sensed this, and I cannot imagine he felt he could just freely navigate with other cowriters (beyond a little bit here, a little bit there) without enduring some major guilt trips. And that sucks. It really, really sucks. He doesn't seem to have been emotionally equipped for increasing family/business guilt trips like that, particularly at a time when he was dealing with so much other stuff.

If a hypothetical properly credited + more widely recognized Wilson/Love partnership would have similarly grown to become incongruous with what Brian wanted (as Brian clearly wanted to stretch out considerably from working with Mike), having a writing partner who felt *even more* entitled due to more fame/recognition may have been exactly what Brian *didn't* want back then, anymore than he wanted to work with an entitled Mike Love in 2012.  If Brian (who shouldn't have had to feel the need to make promises, and should have been granted the freedom to do as he wished - sorry Mike) had to make repeated collaboration promises of the "next album", would a properly credited/more emboldened Mike have made things any easier on Brian? It's hard to say how much of Mike's personality would have been the same or was warped by the crediting screwjob, but I find it hard to imagine Mike Love in any scenario would not get snippy/jealous.

I find it very curious how Brian was very specifically extraordinarily generous with songwriting credits with collaborators *other* than Mike Love. I cannot think this inconsistency was some accident. Does anyone think it's an accident? Rocky recently pointed out in his thread how Brian gave him a credit for adding basically very little to nothing. I recall reading that Brian went out of his way to make Van Dyke a very generous offer of a songwriting split for SMiLE at the time of its inception as well.  I'm sure if Mike got a whiff of those deals, he'd be fuming and feeling very, very burned and treated very differently/worse than other collaborators (which of course he'd be correct and justifiably hurt about).

The question is why did this inconsistency occur? Is Murry the ONLY reason? Did Brian just feel guilty for how Mike got treated, and then subsequently try to make it up to *other* people by being overly generous? Was this clearing his conscience? Or perhaps was the way Mike was being treated, as late as California Girls in 1965, additionally due to some sort of grudge or passive aggressive behavior by Brian's due to ongoing issues with Mike? Not that Murry was no part of it (of course he was), but I think there could conceivably have been more to it as well. If Brian was behaving passive aggressively with the California Girls credit, it would stand to reason he would have been motivated by something, and I think this may be due to resentment over Mike expressing a continuing collaboration entitlement. Yes, California Girls was a hit song, I love the song to death myself, it's maybe Mike's best lead vocal... but maybe feeling constricted as Brian did made him act out. Could keeping Mike's credits at bay on this particularly groundbreaking new song have been something Brian secretly desired, if he thought more public Mike recognition would have made Mike even more entitled/guilt trippy, at this very moment in time when Brian was seeking out other collaborators for entire albums? I wonder.

If that's the case, it certainly doesn't make Brian's behavior right, but this possible theory (that's all it is) would seem to connect some dots as to why as bafflingly egregious a screwjob as the California Girls credit happened. Mike was being treated unfairly and like crap, but I have doubts that greed and/or fear of Murry were the only factors. Brian may have felt Mike's guilt trips were unfair/crappy and could have been returning the bad treatment.

[AndrewHickey]

I've been thinking about the credits issue, and I think I may -- *may* -- have found an explanation for the weird discrepancies.
Look at the songs Mike *was* credited with, pre-1966. For those songs where we know about the songwriting process, they were head-to-head collaborations, and Mike may even have provided the original idea -- Fun Fun Fun, Warmth of the Sun, and so on. Brian and Mike together in a room, as it were (or in a taxi).
Where Brian's other collaborators are correctly credited, the same seems to have happened -- they sat down together at the piano and wrote together, and the lyrical concept is often, as far as I can tell, brought in by the collaborator.

But let's look at some of the songs Milke *didn't* get credited for. 409 -- he added a hook and backing vocal ideas to an already-written song. Little Deuce Coupe -- we have a demo with very different lyrics, so we can assume that Mike's contribution was to rewrite those in the studio. I Get Around -- "I came up with ‘Round, round, round, get around, I get around’ and redid Brian’s lyrics", California Girls -- written to a pre-existing backing track, and to a title of Brian's.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the really unfair credits date from when Brian started putting together backing tracks without the rest of the band around as much, and writing when they were on tour. I think that possibly what happened is that Brian thought of coming up with the music, and maybe a title and some dummy lyrics, as "writing the song", and adding or rewriting lyrics later not as being the same thing -- it can't be "writing the song" because the song is already written.

There are a few things this doesn't explain -- why Mike got credited on Good Vibrations, why Tony Asher got credited for You Still Believe In Me (though notably the title for that one changed...), why Mike's credit got *added* to I'm Waiting For The Day after copyright registration -- but I think as a general explanation it would cover a lot...

[Autotune]

Mike has in past interviews been pretty explicit about what he desires. In his view, Wilson/Love should be regarded as one of the great 60's songwriting teams, alongside such teams as Goffin/King, Bacharach/David, Jagger/Richards.

He was cheated of this recognition during the band's mid-60's heyday, and he feels his contribution is still not given the public and critical recognition it deserves. Granted he is going about seeking this recognition in an abrasive, clumsy way -- but is trying to cement his popular music legacy really so beyond the pale?

He's out of his frickin' mind if he thinks that will ever happen. Brian had too many co-writers for Wilson/Love to stand out in the Goffin/King, etc level. Plus a lot of Brian's best and biggest songs were written with writers other than Mike.

I don't hate Mike like OSD or smileBrian do, but he ain't nothing special either. As a singer, he's Jan without the flatting, as frontman Jan was way better, funnier and had sex appeal. I still can't believe how dumb the Beach Boys were for putting the best looking guy they had behind the drums and putting a balding old man as the lead singer. Imagine if they had a real manager like Brian Epstein instead of Murry.

Hell no. Not Jan without the flatting. Mike's a much more accomplished and nuanced singer than Jan, God rest his soul. Dennis was great, but no frontman. The list of Wilson-Love collaborations is pretty impressive, I say. Who knows how he would be regarded if the "Brian did it all by himself" legend (and the cheating over songwriting credits) had not occured.

[c-man]

I've been thinking about the credits issue, and I think I may -- *may* -- have found an explanation for the weird discrepancies.
Look at the songs Mike *was* credited with, pre-1966. For those songs where we know about the songwriting process, they were head-to-head collaborations, and Mike may even have provided the original idea -- Fun Fun Fun, Warmth of the Sun, and so on. Brian and Mike together in a room, as it were (or in a taxi).
Where Brian's other collaborators are correctly credited, the same seems to have happened -- they sat down together at the piano and wrote together, and the lyrical concept is often, as far as I can tell, brought in by the collaborator.

But let's look at some of the songs Milke *didn't* get credited for. 409 -- he added a hook and backing vocal ideas to an already-written song. Little Deuce Coupe -- we have a demo with very different lyrics, so we can assume that Mike's contribution was to rewrite those in the studio. I Get Around -- "I came up with ‘Round, round, round, get around, I get around’ and redid Brian’s lyrics", California Girls -- written to a pre-existing backing track, and to a title of Brian's.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the really unfair credits date from when Brian started putting together backing tracks without the rest of the band around as much, and writing when they were on tour. I think that possibly what happened is that Brian thought of coming up with the music, and maybe a title and some dummy lyrics, as "writing the song", and adding or rewriting lyrics later not as being the same thing -- it can't be "writing the song" because the song is already written.

There are a few things this doesn't explain -- why Mike got credited on Good Vibrations, why Tony Asher got credited for You Still Believe In Me (though notably the title for that one changed...), why Mike's credit got *added* to I'm Waiting For The Day after copyright registration -- but I think as a general explanation it would cover a lot...

Andrew, this makes a lot of sense to me - the final couple of exceptions notwithstanding, I think you may have nailed it. However, unless I missed something, Mike never laid a claim to "Little Deuce Coupe", and that wasn't a song for which he was awarded co-authorship status.

[AndrewHickey]

I've been thinking about the credits issue, and I think I may -- *may* -- have found an explanation for the weird discrepancies.
Look at the songs Mike *was* credited with, pre-1966. For those songs where we know about the songwriting process, they were head-to-head collaborations, and Mike may even have provided the original idea -- Fun Fun Fun, Warmth of the Sun, and so on. Brian and Mike together in a room, as it were (or in a taxi).
Where Brian's other collaborators are correctly credited, the same seems to have happened -- they sat down together at the piano and wrote together, and the lyrical concept is often, as far as I can tell, brought in by the collaborator.

But let's look at some of the songs Milke *didn't* get credited for. 409 -- he added a hook and backing vocal ideas to an already-written song. Little Deuce Coupe -- we have a demo with very different lyrics, so we can assume that Mike's contribution was to rewrite those in the studio. I Get Around -- "I came up with ‘Round, round, round, get around, I get around’ and redid Brian’s lyrics", California Girls -- written to a pre-existing backing track, and to a title of Brian's.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the really unfair credits date from when Brian started putting together backing tracks without the rest of the band around as much, and writing when they were on tour. I think that possibly what happened is that Brian thought of coming up with the music, and maybe a title and some dummy lyrics, as "writing the song", and adding or rewriting lyrics later not as being the same thing -- it can't be "writing the song" because the song is already written.

There are a few things this doesn't explain -- why Mike got credited on Good Vibrations, why Tony Asher got credited for You Still Believe In Me (though notably the title for that one changed...), why Mike's credit got *added* to I'm Waiting For The Day after copyright registration -- but I think as a general explanation it would cover a lot...

Andrew, this makes a lot of sense to me - the final couple of exceptions notwithstanding, I think you may have nailed it. However, unless I missed something, Mike never laid a claim to "Little Deuce Coupe", and that wasn't a song for which he was awarded co-authorship status.

You're entirely right. For some reason I've had that in the list in my head forever, but having checked Mike never had anything to do with that one. Oh well -- strike that example, But the rest, I think, still stands.

[filledeplage]

Are there any contemporary interviews with Brian or Mike in which they discuss the writing of the songs? Do we see Brian actively lying about or actively acknowledging Mike's authorship in the years before the lawsuit? Or Mike bringing the issue up? Do we know the process of registering authorship? Was it generally Murry or someone else who did it? Did Brian actively engage with Sea of Tunes or was he passive and it was actively handled exclusively by Murry?
It is really egregious and also odd. How did it happen that it sat there uncontested for so many years?

Here's a typical example, from the latter part of 1964, starting at about 2:50 in the interview. While Brian doesn't claim to be the sole author of all the songs he mentions, one can easily come away with that impression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z4N4BSs4Ic

Capitol PR also generally focused on "Brian Wilson songs," without mentioning his lyrical collaborators.

Thanks, Custom Machine, for this.  At about 6:00 Al talks about how, first, Dennis conceived the original idea from surfing, second, Brian wrote the music, and third, Mike wrote the lyrics.  (I surely hope this was included for the court in the lyric lawsuit as evidence coming from within the band.) 

And, despite the magic synergistic quality from within the origins, and the live performance, poison is flowing from Murry's pen, undermining the band members.

The Capitol PR is generally focused on Brian Wilson songs because Murry is in bed with them.      

[Autotune]

I've been thinking about the credits issue, and I think I may -- *may* -- have found an explanation for the weird discrepancies.
Look at the songs Mike *was* credited with, pre-1966. For those songs where we know about the songwriting process, they were head-to-head collaborations, and Mike may even have provided the original idea -- Fun Fun Fun, Warmth of the Sun, and so on. Brian and Mike together in a room, as it were (or in a taxi).
Where Brian's other collaborators are correctly credited, the same seems to have happened -- they sat down together at the piano and wrote together, and the lyrical concept is often, as far as I can tell, brought in by the collaborator.

But let's look at some of the songs Milke *didn't* get credited for. 409 -- he added a hook and backing vocal ideas to an already-written song. Little Deuce Coupe -- we have a demo with very different lyrics, so we can assume that Mike's contribution was to rewrite those in the studio. I Get Around -- "I came up with ‘Round, round, round, get around, I get around’ and redid Brian’s lyrics", California Girls -- written to a pre-existing backing track, and to a title of Brian's.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the really unfair credits date from when Brian started putting together backing tracks without the rest of the band around as much, and writing when they were on tour. I think that possibly what happened is that Brian thought of coming up with the music, and maybe a title and some dummy lyrics, as "writing the song", and adding or rewriting lyrics later not as being the same thing -- it can't be "writing the song" because the song is already written.

There are a few things this doesn't explain -- why Mike got credited on Good Vibrations, why Tony Asher got credited for You Still Believe In Me (though notably the title for that one changed...), why Mike's credit got *added* to I'm Waiting For The Day after copyright registration -- but I think as a general explanation it would cover a lot...

Andrew, this makes a lot of sense to me - the final couple of exceptions notwithstanding, I think you may have nailed it. However, unless I missed something, Mike never laid a claim to "Little Deuce Coupe", and that wasn't a song for which he was awarded co-authorship status.

You're entirely right. For some reason I've had that in the list in my head forever, but having checked Mike never had anything to do with that one. Oh well -- strike that example, But the rest, I think, still stands.

Interesting theory. Now, How about the Christmas Album co-writes? Wasn't Brian still touring with them, and using the guys as main performers for the tracks?

[AndrewHickey]

I've been thinking about the credits issue, and I think I may -- *may* -- have found an explanation for the weird discrepancies.
Look at the songs Mike *was* credited with, pre-1966. For those songs where we know about the songwriting process, they were head-to-head collaborations, and Mike may even have provided the original idea -- Fun Fun Fun, Warmth of the Sun, and so on. Brian and Mike together in a room, as it were (or in a taxi).
Where Brian's other collaborators are correctly credited, the same seems to have happened -- they sat down together at the piano and wrote together, and the lyrical concept is often, as far as I can tell, brought in by the collaborator.

But let's look at some of the songs Milke *didn't* get credited for. 409 -- he added a hook and backing vocal ideas to an already-written song. Little Deuce Coupe -- we have a demo with very different lyrics, so we can assume that Mike's contribution was to rewrite those in the studio. I Get Around -- "I came up with ‘Round, round, round, get around, I get around’ and redid Brian’s lyrics", California Girls -- written to a pre-existing backing track, and to a title of Brian's.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the really unfair credits date from when Brian started putting together backing tracks without the rest of the band around as much, and writing when they were on tour. I think that possibly what happened is that Brian thought of coming up with the music, and maybe a title and some dummy lyrics, as "writing the song", and adding or rewriting lyrics later not as being the same thing -- it can't be "writing the song" because the song is already written.

There are a few things this doesn't explain -- why Mike got credited on Good Vibrations, why Tony Asher got credited for You Still Believe In Me (though notably the title for that one changed...), why Mike's credit got *added* to I'm Waiting For The Day after copyright registration -- but I think as a general explanation it would cover a lot...

Andrew, this makes a lot of sense to me - the final couple of exceptions notwithstanding, I think you may have nailed it. However, unless I missed something, Mike never laid a claim to "Little Deuce Coupe", and that wasn't a song for which he was awarded co-authorship status.

You're entirely right. For some reason I've had that in the list in my head forever, but having checked Mike never had anything to do with that one. Oh well -- strike that example, But the rest, I think, still stands.

Interesting theory. Now, How about the Christmas Album co-writes? Wasn't Brian still touring with them, and using the guys as main performers for the tracks?

I don't know anything about the writing process for those songs, but I would assume in those cases that Brian brought the songs into the studio and Mike reworked the lyrics -- and the same for the added credits on All Summer Long.

What we could *really* do with is something like the Song By Song book series, or the interviews with Lennon and McCartney where they both separately talked about who did what on each song. I'd *love* to see a book-length track-by-track interview with Brian, Mike, Van Dyke, Tony Asher and any other living co-writers, looking at the 60s stuff, while that's still possible. Doubt we'll ever get it though :-/

[SMiLE Brian]

What does Murry Wilson and songwriting credits have to do with Mike trying to shake BW down for money in 2005? That lawsuit was a money grab plain and simple along with slandering BW/AJ.

[filledeplage]

What does Murry Wilson and songwriting credits have to do with Mike trying to shake BW down for money in 2005? That lawsuit was a money grab plain and simple along with slandering BW/AJ.

Smile Brian - Did you watch the video that Custom Machine linked?

Did you read the cases?

The original poison in the well came from Murry.  It flowed for decades following his death.  Like Pinocchio's nose, it just got bigger as time went by.

Let's remember the work arrangement for the nascent Brother Records... The Boys schlepped around the world performing the music, while Brian worked writing Pet Sounds and Smile.   When they came home from schlepping to far flung places, they recorded the vocals and became part of the process, so they had two jobs.  It is like a working parent, working outside of the home.  You go out to work then you come back to work.   
 
And while this concerned some different factors, the thread is about the interview and the article.  The other case just became part of the discussion. 

[Cam Mott]

According to Brad Elliott (on PSML) documentation shows that, kind of like Tony Asher, before 1967 Mike didn't necessarily get his full credit even when he got credit: ie. Mike got only half credit for his lyrics to Good Vibrations.  It's hard to pick out a pattern.  

[SMiLE Brian]

So you are arguing BW deserved all the legal malice from Mike because of the sins of Murry?

Mike got greedy after the first shakedown in 1994 and tried to do it again in 2005 without success. The same BW working his ass off in the studio process referred to in the lawsuit as "BW surrounded by druggies, drug dealers, and plagiarizers"?

While Mike did the "heavy lifting" on the road of banging groupies and messing up songs the other guys were singing (live in london, thanksgiving tour)

[Cam Mott]

So you are arguing BW deserved all the legal malice from Mike because of the sins of Murry?

Mike got greedy after the first shakedown in 1994 and tried to do it again in 2005 without success. The same BW working his ass off in the studio process referred to in the lawsuit as "BW surrounded by druggies, drug dealers, and plagiarizers"?

While Mike did the "heavy lifting" on the road of banging groupies and messing up songs the other guys were singing (live in london, thanksgiving tour)

We are discussing a different part of the interview.

[filledeplage]

So you are arguing BW deserved all the legal malice from Mike because of the sins of Murry?

Mike got greedy after the first shakedown in 1994 and tried to do it again in 2005 without success. The same BW working his ass off in the studio process referred to in the lawsuit as "BW surrounded by druggies, drug dealers, and plagiarizers"?

While Mike did the "heavy lifting" on the road of banging groupies and messing up songs the other guys were singing (live in london, thanksgiving tour)

Smile Brian - did you see the Thanksgiving Tour?

Funny, I didn't notice you in the crowd...

[AndrewHickey]

What does Murry Wilson and songwriting credits have to do with Mike trying to shake BW down for money in 2005? That lawsuit was a money grab plain and simple along with slandering BW/AJ.

Yes it was. Both lawsuits, though, were brought up in the original article, so we've been discussing both. The songwriting credits one is, to me at least, much more interesting. The 2005 one was just a straight case of Mike absolutely, and indefensibly, being in the wrong.

[SMiLE Brian]

Again plague, why did BW have to pay ($) for the sins of his father with constant lawsuits from Mike Love. I guess blood being thicker than water doesn't work in Mike's mind.

[filledeplage]

What does Murry Wilson and songwriting credits have to do with Mike trying to shake BW down for money in 2005? That lawsuit was a money grab plain and simple along with slandering BW/AJ.

Yes it was. Both lawsuits, though, were brought up in the original article, so we've been discussing both. The songwriting credits one is, to me at least, much more interesting. The 2005 one was just a straight case of Mike absolutely, and indefensibly, being in the wrong.

Andrew - p. 9776.  Love v. Sanctuary Records Group.  "Thomas, Circuit Judge...This appeal presents the question, inter alia, of whether the Lanham Act and California's common law right of publicity apply extraterritorially to events occurring in Great Britain.  Under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude that such claims are not viable, and we affirm the judgment entered by the district court."

Mike had "standing" as a beneficial owner to bring the action.  It was not dismissed at the outset, so the trial judge must have considered some evidence advanced, otherwise it would never have gone to trial.   Britain has no right to publicity as in the US.  We don't know if the project was submitted to BRI, for approval or, if it may have been required.    

"The district court dismissed the claims for violation of California's statutory and common law rights of publicity after holding that English law, which does not recognize a right of publicity, governed." p. 9777.

Another factor was where BigTime.tv directed the action and the court found was to be Great Britain.  It was a "not my problem" decision, for the judge, whom some might find amusing with the "Love wished they could all be California torts." (I'm thinking his personal opinion is bleeding into the decision.)  JMHO

So, on p. 9781,"[3] Because BigTime.tv did not purposefully direct any of the relevant intentional acts in California, it was not subject to the jurisdiction of a court in that state."  Although, on p. 9783, "At most de minimum conduct occurred in California when a handful of copies of the paper were delivered without the CD, and a handful of copies of Good Vibrations were sent to Wilson's attorney in California."

California does have an interest in the right of publicity.  p. 9783 addresses that. "...permits celebrities...to control the commercial exploitation of the celebrity's likeness" and is based on its interest in "...safeguarding its citizens from the diminution in value of their names and likenesses." (citing Sinatra, 854 F.2d at 1202.)
 

In dispute was Love's residence and whether California or Nevada, whether "the business" or the "where you vote" and other indicia was weighed and how.  It is not as simplistic as some would like to think.  And his photo/the band was used, albeit allegedly small, was used on the packaging.  So, there was some kind of a tie to support the claim.  

We don't know all of what was submitted as there is only a decision, here.  We don't have the actual exhibits or testimony and there are more questions than answers.  Or, at least I would.  

          

[filledeplage]

Again plague, why did BW have to pay ($) for the sins of his father with constant lawsuits from Mike Love. I guess blood being thicker than water doesn't work in Mike's mind.

Smile Brian - when someone else is running your business and doing all the paperwork, and you don't have good personal representation, protecting your interests, and depend on, and, expect that uncle to "do the right thing," and find that he didn't do it, and they are dead (as Murry was) someone has to respond, and that was Brian because unfortunately, Murry was "unavailable."

So if your uncle stole your car, and cleaned out your bank account when he broke into your house, and found your ATM card, what would "you" do?      

[SMiLE Brian]

Not sue the living day lights out of cousin BW and instead go after Murry's estate.