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, 08:46:59 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Go Down Print
Author Topic: So according to Mike, the reason he ended the reunion...  (Read 14911 times)
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #75 on: September 13, 2016, 06:46:18 AM »

The questions not being asked are not about the C50 email itself.

What emails if any came before that one often cited email, and what circumstances if any led up to it?

C50 had a specific partnership set up called "50 Big Ones LLC", and the tour enterprise involved many people and all the related attorneys, agents, marketers, booking agents, and accountants and was a multi-million dollar operation that was running more successfully than most I think were hoping from the outset.

If the notion that a standalone email was the main issue - This is where the old notion of investigative journalism kicks in and interviewers would start asking questions like "what led up to that email that is being cited, were there any other emails before that one?".

Simple fact-checking to get more answers. Unless the notion that a multi-million dollar business venture involving multiple partners and a very large crew of interested parties whose finances were banking on the tour could come down to a single email with no context given is logical to some. Consider the context and consider what else could have happened.

I think the "email" is a red herring and always has been. It's a convenient reason. A reason that *wasn't* cited for MONTHS and MONTHS after C50 ended. That long letter Mike wrote to the LA Times about "set end dates" and "vital small markets" and all of that? The "email" was NEVER mentioned in that letter, which is still to date Mike's most high-profile, most detailed word on the end of the reunion.

I think Mike soured on the whole thing and didn't want to do it. Initially, he at least *partly* was willing to acknowledge this. He may have qualified it with a bunch of BS logic (small markets, economic feasibility, building up demand, etc.), but he ultimately never implied in that letter to the LA Times that it was anybody's decision other than his own to not do more reunion shows. He didn't own the decision enough, but he didn't laughably pawn the decision off on another actual person at that stage.

Another reason the "email" thing is total BS is that even when Mike mentions it, he NEVER follows that up with "I was ready to do another year of touring with the reunion band, but Brian said no."

Mike says Brian's camp sent the email, but doesn't seem to ever indicate that the email actually had ANYTHING to do with why Mike didn't want to continue the reunion.

And when the email is presented as a reason, where is the context? I'd assume there was something that came before or that led up to an email, especially considering the magnitude of the tour even in a business sense, and with that many people involved on all fronts. If there was a partnership and LLC established specifically for the C50 tour and registered as a corporate entity named "50 Big Ones", it was a corporation that worked within a corporate and legal structure. A single email within a corporate structure usually does not appear within a vacuum with no context. For the sake of telling the history, it could be asked what if anything preceded that email?
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
urbanite
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: September 13, 2016, 07:11:50 AM »

I've read of at least one other occasion where Melinda asserted herself in the music business to Brian's detriment, because she thinks she knows something.  She ought to have stayed out of the C50 shows and let Brian's manager bring up anything that needed to be addressed with other members of the group, especially Mike.  There's nothing more irritating than being an established rock star and having someone's wife attempt to interfere with an operation that's been going on for decades. 


 
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #77 on: September 13, 2016, 07:15:08 AM »

I've read of at least one other occasion where Melinda asserted herself in the music business to Brian's detriment, because she thinks she knows something.  She ought to have stayed out of the C50 shows and let Brian's manager bring up anything that needed to be addressed with other members of the group, especially Mike.  There's nothing more irritating than being an established rock star and having someone's wife attempt to interfere with an operation that's been going on for decades. 


Do you have access to what happened with C50 to make these statements? If so, maybe you could provide the context that some of us are asking for regarding the lone email that gets cited so often.

Consider too that some of those "occasions" as spread to numerous members here through the years were not only debunked, but the adage "consider the source(s)" applies in a big way in light of what has been revealed.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Ang Jones
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 559



View Profile
« Reply #78 on: September 13, 2016, 07:37:20 AM »

This idea that the fault all lies with one email is just too childish for words. It's just a way of passing the buck when coming in for some unforeseen flak because of something you have chosen to do. Even if there was such an email, out of the blue and with no provocation, there were surely better ways to deal with it. For example, if I have personal problems with someone I don't find it helpful to advertise it in the local paper. The only reason to do that is to deliberately try to hurt someone and sometimes that backfires badly.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: September 13, 2016, 08:01:48 AM »

BRI vs Jardine 2003
BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”).   The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style and to choose from a list of approved booking agencies and managers.

So any idea when this was changed from non exclusive to exclusive?
I don't think Love's is necessarily exclusive. It reads to me like they voted to issue licenses to all 4; they issued a license to ML; then refused to issue a license to AJ. Then he toured anyway, then everyone sued everyone.
I think that, with the Smile lawsuit combined with this one, it's become clear that any attempt to use the name will be embroiled in ugly lawsuits.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1152003.html

Emily - thank you for the links.  In the facts section (background) and even well before Carl passed, in 1993, "the directors of BRI agreed to devote a certain percentage of the touring income to the corporation for use of the trademark and dedicated a larger percentage of the income to those members who actually toured."

After Carl died (about 6 months post) on July 14, 1998, and after Mike had worked on licensing terms, and "to discuss how the trademark would be used."  BRI decided that they would issue licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as Mike had. Mike and Al did not want to tour together.  The suggestion of non-exclusive came from Carl's representative was that each member who wanted to tour follow the same conditions that Mike had.  

Mike's license (October 1, 1998) from BRI had conditions, like prerequisites, or conditions precedent to the award of the license.

They were: 20% on the first $1 million of gross receipts,  

and 17.5% royalty thereafter.  

Also "preserve The Beach Boys style and choose from a list of approved agencies and managers."

At some point later, (October 25, 1998)  Al made some sort of counteroffer of sorts to perform as "Beach Boys Family and Friends" and sent a letter to BRI saying that the license was not necessary. Three days later, BRI sent Al a letter saying that his "unlicensed use of the trademark would be an infringement."

Then Al proposed different terms for a licensee and only 5% (instead of Mike's 20% on the first mil and 17.5% over that number.)  Then BRI came back and said 17.5 % across-the-board.  Al wanted a booking agent and manager, different from the BRI list.

The next month, November 24, 1998, BRI met to discuss the proposal.  Prior to the meeting Al's lawyer sent the BRI board with Al's terms which were rejected by BRI.  But he continued to perform and in locations and dates close to where Mike's band was touring.  

The court found that "With two bands touring as The Beach Boys or as a similar-sounding combination, show organizers themselves were confused about exactly they were getting when they booked Jardine's band.   A number of show organizers booked Jardine's band thinking they would get The Beach Boys along with special added guests but subsequently cancelled the booking when they discovered that Jardine's band was not what they thought it was. Numerous people who attended one of Jardine's shows said they had been confused about who was performing."      

The court finding in favor of BRI is not surprising to me. All Al had to do was use the list of promoters/managers and pay the percentage to get the license.  It has nothing to do with the quality of Al's band (clearly terrific musicians) but just contract terms to adhere to.   As I look at it, only the 12.5% fee, (difference between BRI's figure of 17.5% and Al's proposal of 5%, and the promoter/managers terms were what caused the conflict about the non-exclusive license and resulted in the suit.  

Thank you again Emily for the links, as it is easier to see the BRI license facts officially spelled-out, in the court's decision/s.  

It does not leave room for speculation as to what happened, who was involved and why.     Wink
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 08:04:49 AM by filledeplage » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #80 on: September 13, 2016, 08:13:17 AM »

So we're getting away from the email and C50 for a bit, let's touch on a related note.

With the licensing and all relevant mentions about creating confusion in the marketplace and how the branded name can be used to promote shows...

Where does the Nutty Jerry's booking debacle fit into that, considering that the naming and use of "Beach Boys" to book live shows had been assigned to "50 Big Ones" for use on the C50 tour.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #81 on: September 13, 2016, 08:14:24 AM »

BRI vs Jardine 2003
BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”).   The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style and to choose from a list of approved booking agencies and managers.

So any idea when this was changed from non exclusive to exclusive?
I don't think Love's is necessarily exclusive. It reads to me like they voted to issue licenses to all 4; they issued a license to ML; then refused to issue a license to AJ. Then he toured anyway, then everyone sued everyone.
I think that, with the Smile lawsuit combined with this one, it's become clear that any attempt to use the name will be embroiled in ugly lawsuits.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1152003.html

Emily - thank you for the links.  In the facts section (background) and even well before Carl passed, in 1993, "the directors of BRI agreed to devote a certain percentage of the touring income to the corporation for use of the trademark and dedicated a larger percentage of the income to those members who actually toured."

After Carl died (about 6 months post) on July 14, 1998, and after Mike had worked on licensing terms, and "to discuss how the trademark would be used."  BRI decided that they would issue licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as Mike had. Mike and Al did not want to tour together.  The suggestion of non-exclusive came from Carl's representative was that each member who wanted to tour follow the same conditions that Mike had.  

Mike's license (October 1, 1998) from BRI had conditions, like prerequisites, or conditions precedent to the award of the license.

They were: 20% on the first $1 million of gross receipts,  

and 17.5% royalty thereafter.  

Also "preserve The Beach Boys style and choose from a list of approved agencies and managers."

At some point later, (October 25, 1998)  Al made some sort of counteroffer of sorts to perform as "Beach Boys Family and Friends" and sent a letter to BRI saying that the license was not necessary. Three days later, BRI sent Al a letter saying that his "unlicensed use of the trademark would be an infringement."

Then Al proposed different terms for a licensee and only 5% (instead of Mike's 20% on the first mil and 17.5% over that number.)  Then BRI came back and said 17.5 % across-the-board.  Al wanted a booking agent and manager, different from the BRI list.

The next month, November 24, 1998, BRI met to discuss the proposal.  Prior to the meeting Al's lawyer sent the BRI board with Al's terms which were rejected by BRI.  But he continued to perform and in locations and dates close to where Mike's band was touring.  

The court found that "With two bands touring as The Beach Boys or as a similar-sounding combination, show organizers themselves were confused about exactly they were getting when they booked Jardine's band.   A number of show organizers booked Jardine's band thinking they would get The Beach Boys along with special added guests but subsequently cancelled the booking when they discovered that Jardine's band was not what they thought it was. Numerous people who attended one of Jardine's shows said they had been confused about who was performing."      

The court finding in favor of BRI is not surprising to me. All Al had to do was use the list of promoters/managers and pay the percentage to get the license.  It has nothing to do with the quality of Al's band (clearly terrific musicians) but just contract terms to adhere to.   As I look at it, only the 12.5% fee, (difference between BRI's figure of 17.5% and Al's proposal of 5%, and the promoter/managers terms were what caused the conflict about the non-exclusive license and resulted in the suit.  

Thank you again Emily for the links, as it is easier to see the BRI license facts officially spelled-out, in the court's decision/s.  

It does not leave room for speculation as to what happened, who was involved and why.     Wink


Just so everybody knows, the text above is in large part NOT actually pulled from the court documents but rather is filledeplage's interpretation of the text, several parts of which I disagree with.

I also find it silly to suggest that one citing some passage from a court document and then offering up opinion-based running commentary then leaves no "room for speculation as to what happened." I find this funny because when people asked filledeplage to speak to Mike's frivolous 2005 lawsuit, then all of a sudden there were a bunch of justifications and twisted interpretations of what the courts had said in *laughing* Mike's lawsuit out of the courtroom.

I'm not sure why this issue is being beat to death; there was a quick question as an aside as to whether Mike's licence was exclusive, and this has been addressed.

I'm not going to delve into the meat of the "Family & Friends" stuff, and for a short while there I thought with the departure of Cam that dredging up the issue again 17 years later wouldn't still be a thing. It's just more of the "morals and ethics VS. legal issues" debates, which have gone nowhere with filledeplage in the past, so I'm not going to start in on it again.

It's probably convenient for someone hellbent on defending Mike to start talking about legal mistakes Al may have made 17 years ago instead of talking about the topic of the thread, which is what Mike did in 2012, but I'll do my part in trying to keep the thread on track.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 08:24:42 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/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #82 on: September 13, 2016, 08:17:52 AM »

So we're getting away from the email and C50 for a bit, let's touch on a related note.

With the licensing and all relevant mentions about creating confusion in the marketplace and how the branded name can be used to promote shows...

Where does the Nutty Jerry's booking debacle fit into that, considering that the naming and use of "Beach Boys" to book live shows had been assigned to "50 Big Ones" for use on the C50 tour.

As I'm sure many know, Mike defenders used the EXACT same excuse that Al did back in 1999 when promoters erroneously billed his band as "The Beach Boys."

For some *strange* reason, while BRI sued Al in 1999 and cited this very thing happening as a supporting fact, BRI *did not* sue Mike in 2012 for this false billing.

I saw several of the same people who scoffed at the idea of Al's incorrect billings in 1999 being the fault of lazy and greedy promoters who defended Mike with the exact same reasoning in 2012.

I don't think Mike wanted anything billed incorrectly in 2012. But BRI certainly didn't attack Mike for this *simple mistake* the same way they pursued Al in 1999.

This sounds like an issue that Al could easily still be bitter about years later, yet how often does Al bring any of this stuff up? When Mike complains about issues that he ended up successfully suing over, does he stop and think and try to empathize with what is surely a LITANY of issues the other guys in the band *could* be bitter about but largely ignore (in interviews anyway)?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 08:20:56 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/
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: September 13, 2016, 08:22:53 AM »

I'm not sure why this issue is being beat to death;
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #84 on: September 13, 2016, 08:26:06 AM »


Pretty much. For f**k's sake, I thought at least the stuff about raking Al over the coals for the "Family & Friends" thing from almost TWO DECADES ago would have gone away with Cam.
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/
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #85 on: September 13, 2016, 08:31:19 AM »

image hosting free
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Rocker
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 10622


"Too dumb for New York City, too ugly for L.A."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #86 on: September 13, 2016, 08:36:17 AM »

I thought that maybe it would be helpful to link to the original beginning-of-the-end's articles. Unfortunately I couldn't find the first announcement of Mike as a whole but it is quoted in the articles here.


Will Beach Boys reunion end on a sour note?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/19/entertainment/la-et-ms-beach-boys-reunion-mike-love-tour-20120919



Brian Wilson fired? No, but Beach Boys will tour without him

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/28/entertainment/la-et-ms-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-reunion-tour-eagles-20120928



http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/28/entertainment/la-et-ms-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-reunion-tour-eagles-20120928

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/05/entertainment/la-et-ms-mike-love-beach-boys-on-brian-wilson-20121004



'It kinda feels like getting fired' -- Brian Wilson to Mike Love

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/entertainment/la-et-ms-brian-wilson-al-jardine-respond-to-mike-love-on-beach-boys-flap-20121008
Logged

a diseased bunch of mo'fos if there ever was one… their beauty is so awesome that listening to them at their best is like being in some vast dream cathedral decorated with a thousand gleaming American pop culture icons.

- Lester Bangs on The Beach Boys


PRO SHOT BEACH BOYS CONCERTS - LIST


To sum it up, they blew it, they blew it consistently, they continue to blow it, it is tragic and this pathological problem caused The Beach Boys' greatest music to be so underrated by the general public.

- Jack Rieley
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #87 on: September 13, 2016, 08:41:47 AM »

So we're getting away from the email and C50 for a bit, let's touch on a related note.

With the licensing and all relevant mentions about creating confusion in the marketplace and how the branded name can be used to promote shows...

Where does the Nutty Jerry's booking debacle fit into that, considering that the naming and use of "Beach Boys" to book live shows had been assigned to "50 Big Ones" for use on the C50 tour.

As I'm sure many know, Mike defenders used the EXACT same excuse that Al did back in 1999 when promoters erroneously billed his band as "The Beach Boys."

For some *strange* reason, while BRI sued Al in 1999 and cited this very thing happening as a supporting fact, BRI *did not* sue Mike in 2012 for this false billing.

I saw several of the same people who scoffed at the idea of Al's incorrect billings in 1999 being the fault of lazy and greedy promoters who defended Mike with the exact same reasoning in 2012.

I don't think Mike wanted anything billed incorrectly in 2012. But BRI certainly didn't attack Mike for this *simple mistake* the same way they pursued Al in 1999.

This sounds like an issue that Al could easily still be bitter about years later, yet how often does Al bring any of this stuff up? When Mike complains about issues that he ended up successfully suing over, does he stop and think and try to empathize with what is surely a LITANY of issues the other guys in the band *could* be bitter about but largely ignore (in interviews anyway)?

Taking Al and those issues away for a moment, the Nutty Jerry's booking mess was originally reported in the press local to the area of the shows and the venue in Texas, June 2012, where the C50 lineup had just played in early June at the larger venue in the area. The reporter who broke the story first reported an October booking being advertised for Nutty Jerry's, asked for confirmation that it was indeed the Brian/Al/David C50 lineup, received that confirmation, and went with the story. Then within a week of that, the same paper published a correction that came from Nutty Jerry's with an official statement. The October show was cancelled because it was not going to be the C50 lineup, and it suggested there were issues with how the show was originally booked that caused confusion, to the point where the venue thought it was going to be a C50 show. In the correction article, the reporter also mentioned that Rolling Stone had just published reports that Mike had been booking other shows for his band during C50.

So that's what happened, and consider the date of June 2012.

The part that sticks out and always did after more of the details came out wasn't the deal with "confusion" which is blatantly obvious as shown by what happened here, but in what exactly happened to cause this considering how many agents, lawyers, managers, and assorted staff would be involved in booking such a show at the height of the C50 tour, and considering yet again all of this was being centralized around a corporate entity known as "50 Big Ones".

It might suggest yet again that there could be more than just the lone email that was surrounding all of these issues in the same month, and also would lead to a question of how these shows were being booked with what appeared to be a lack of communication with "50 Big Ones" regarding these bookings like Nutty Jerry's. Something that should have happened didn't happen which led to a booking that eventually got cancelled after the issue of who was actually booked to play a show in October got cleared up.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: September 13, 2016, 08:44:19 AM »

So we're getting away from the email and C50 for a bit, let's touch on a related note.

With the licensing and all relevant mentions about creating confusion in the marketplace and how the branded name can be used to promote shows...

Where does the Nutty Jerry's booking debacle fit into that, considering that the naming and use of "Beach Boys" to book live shows had been assigned to "50 Big Ones" for use on the C50 tour.

As I'm sure many know, Mike defenders used the EXACT same excuse that Al did back in 1999 when promoters erroneously billed his band as "The Beach Boys."

For some *strange* reason, while BRI sued Al in 1999 and cited this very thing happening as a supporting fact, BRI *did not* sue Mike in 2012 for this false billing.

I saw several of the same people who scoffed at the idea of Al's incorrect billings in 1999 being the fault of lazy and greedy promoters who defended Mike with the exact same reasoning in 2012.

I don't think Mike wanted anything billed incorrectly in 2012. But BRI certainly didn't attack Mike for this *simple mistake* the same way they pursued Al in 1999.

This sounds like an issue that Al could easily still be bitter about years later, yet how often does Al bring any of this stuff up? When Mike complains about issues that he ended up successfully suing over, does he stop and think and try to empathize with what is surely a LITANY of issues the other guys in the band *could* be bitter about but largely ignore (in interviews anyway)?
Hey Jude - BRI sued Al - not Mike. That includes Brian, Mike and Carl's estate.  The quotes are directly from the court decision.  How that is contorted into Mike-Apologist (when there would be 3 members out of 4 members involved.) It related to terms of the license which are often speculated about and the bottom line is that Al did not "pay the piper" to dance to the music.  It has nothing to do with Nutty Jerry's promotion.  Mike has paid the dough to the corporation for the right to earn a living, and distribute income (the reason that a corporation exists is to make $$$) to the other shareholders/directors.  

Emily posted the link - and I responded with both court text and a viewpoint, and last time I checked viewpoint-based posting is what this board is all about. It was hardly a viewpoint.  The court just took the facts and documents in front of them.  They looked forward from 1993 as to how the money would be distributed and how the trademark would be protected. The court considered all of that.

The suit is entitled - "BROTHER RECORDS, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendent-Appellee, v. Alan Jardine, an individual, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant."

And,  I do not see Michael Edward Love mentioned in the title of the case. Do you see his name?  I cannot.  Unless it is in invisible ink.

The fellow shareholder/directors of BRI sued Al at that time.  The terms of the license at that time were revealed by the court.  
  
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 08:46:41 AM by filledeplage » Logged
MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 757



View Profile
« Reply #89 on: September 13, 2016, 08:57:05 AM »

Taking Al and those issues away for a moment, the Nutty Jerry's booking mess was originally reported in the press local to the area of the shows and the venue in Texas, June 2012, where the C50 lineup had just played in early June at the larger venue in the area. The reporter who broke the story first reported an October booking being advertised for Nutty Jerry's, asked for confirmation that it was indeed the Brian/Al/David C50 lineup, received that confirmation, and went with the story. Then within a week of that, the same paper published a correction that came from Nutty Jerry's with an official statement. The October show was cancelled because it was not going to be the C50 lineup, and it suggested there were issues with how the show was originally booked that caused confusion, to the point where the venue thought it was going to be a C50 show. In the correction article, the reporter also mentioned that Rolling Stone had just published reports that Mike had been booking other shows for his band during C50.

So that's what happened, and consider the date of June 2012.

The part that sticks out and always did after more of the details came out wasn't the deal with "confusion" which is blatantly obvious as shown by what happened here, but in what exactly happened to cause this considering how many agents, lawyers, managers, and assorted staff would be involved in booking such a show at the height of the C50 tour, and considering yet again all of this was being centralized around a corporate entity known as "50 Big Ones".

It might suggest yet again that there could be more than just the lone email that was surrounding all of these issues in the same month, and also would lead to a question of how these shows were being booked with what appeared to be a lack of communication with "50 Big Ones" regarding these bookings like Nutty Jerry's. Something that should have happened didn't happen which led to a booking that eventually got cancelled after the issue of who was actually booked to play a show in October got cleared up.
Here's hoping that Nutty Jerry's upcoming book release will finally put these issues to rest.  Wink 2

Logged
Robbie Mac
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 877


Carl Wilson is not amused.


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: September 13, 2016, 09:04:25 AM »

So we're getting away from the email and C50 for a bit, let's touch on a related note.

With the licensing and all relevant mentions about creating confusion in the marketplace and how the branded name can be used to promote shows...

Where does the Nutty Jerry's booking debacle fit into that, considering that the naming and use of "Beach Boys" to book live shows had been assigned to "50 Big Ones" for use on the C50 tour.

As I'm sure many know, Mike defenders used the EXACT same excuse that Al did back in 1999 when promoters erroneously billed his band as "The Beach Boys."

For some *strange* reason, while BRI sued Al in 1999 and cited this very thing happening as a supporting fact, BRI *did not* sue Mike in 2012 for this false billing.

I saw several of the same people who scoffed at the idea of Al's incorrect billings in 1999 being the fault of lazy and greedy promoters who defended Mike with the exact same reasoning in 2012.

I don't think Mike wanted anything billed incorrectly in 2012. But BRI certainly didn't attack Mike for this *simple mistake* the same way they pursued Al in 1999.

This sounds like an issue that Al could easily still be bitter about years later, yet how often does Al bring any of this stuff up? When Mike complains about issues that he ended up successfully suing over, does he stop and think and try to empathize with what is surely a LITANY of issues the other guys in the band *could* be bitter about but largely ignore (in interviews anyway)?
Hey Jude - BRI sued Al - not Mike. That includes Brian, Mike and Carl's estate.  The quotes are directly from the court decision.  How that is contorted into Mike-Apologist (when there would be 3 members out of 4 members involved.) It related to terms of the license which are often speculated about and the bottom line is that Al did not "pay the piper" to dance to the music.  It has nothing to do with Nutty Jerry's promotion.  Mike has paid the dough to the corporation for the right to earn a living, and distribute income (the reason that a corporation exists is to make $$$) to the other shareholders/directors.  

Emily posted the link - and I responded with both court text and a viewpoint, and last time I checked viewpoint-based posting is what this board is all about. It was hardly a viewpoint.  The court just took the facts and documents in front of them.  They looked forward from 1993 as to how the money would be distributed and how the trademark would be protected. The court considered all of that.

The suit is entitled - "BROTHER RECORDS, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendent-Appellee, v. Alan Jardine, an individual, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant."

And,  I do not see Michael Edward Love mentioned in the title of the case. Do you see his name?  I cannot.  Unless it is in invisible ink.

The fellow shareholder/directors of BRI sued Al at that time.  The terms of the license at that time were revealed by the court.  
  

It may have BRI Inc., but good luck convincing people that Brian or the Carl Estate decided that Al was violating the BB  trademark and then convinced the shareholders to green light a lawsuit.
Logged

The world could come together as one
If everybody under the sun
Adds some 🎼 to your day
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #91 on: September 13, 2016, 09:05:02 AM »

So we're getting away from the email and C50 for a bit, let's touch on a related note.

With the licensing and all relevant mentions about creating confusion in the marketplace and how the branded name can be used to promote shows...

Where does the Nutty Jerry's booking debacle fit into that, considering that the naming and use of "Beach Boys" to book live shows had been assigned to "50 Big Ones" for use on the C50 tour.

As I'm sure many know, Mike defenders used the EXACT same excuse that Al did back in 1999 when promoters erroneously billed his band as "The Beach Boys."

For some *strange* reason, while BRI sued Al in 1999 and cited this very thing happening as a supporting fact, BRI *did not* sue Mike in 2012 for this false billing.

I saw several of the same people who scoffed at the idea of Al's incorrect billings in 1999 being the fault of lazy and greedy promoters who defended Mike with the exact same reasoning in 2012.

I don't think Mike wanted anything billed incorrectly in 2012. But BRI certainly didn't attack Mike for this *simple mistake* the same way they pursued Al in 1999.

This sounds like an issue that Al could easily still be bitter about years later, yet how often does Al bring any of this stuff up? When Mike complains about issues that he ended up successfully suing over, does he stop and think and try to empathize with what is surely a LITANY of issues the other guys in the band *could* be bitter about but largely ignore (in interviews anyway)?
Hey Jude - BRI sued Al - not Mike.

Please actually read what I wrote. I SPECIFICALLY said that BRI sued Al. It's right there in my post.

This straw man thing, making assertions regarding things that NOBODY disagrees with, ends up going nowhere.

Back to the actual topic of the thread hopefully......

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/
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #92 on: September 13, 2016, 09:09:02 AM »

FDP's shift is in full force for MELCO... Wink.    Gotta earn those tickets somehow...
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 09:10:59 AM by SMiLE F*cking Brian » Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #93 on: September 13, 2016, 09:09:18 AM »

It may have BRI Inc., but good luck convincing people that Brian or the Carl Estate decided that Al was violating the BB  trademark and then convinced the shareholders to green light a lawsuit.

This is an important point. The lawsuits indeed came from BRI, but the licensee certainly plays a role as well. Here's a post from 2014 from someone who would know that speaks to this:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18293.msg476723.html#msg476723
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 09:09:53 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/
joshferrell
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1634



View Profile
« Reply #94 on: September 13, 2016, 09:38:06 AM »

There were more emails, but Hillary deleted them, at least that's what Putin has told me.....  LOL
Logged
urbanite
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: September 13, 2016, 11:08:20 AM »

I would love to interview Joe Thomas about recording the album and the tour.  I'm sure he would have some interesting experiences to talk about.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #96 on: September 13, 2016, 11:37:37 AM »

I would love to interview Joe Thomas about recording the album and the tour.  I'm sure he would have some interesting experiences to talk about.

It seems to still be a hot button topic that people don't want to touch too much. Even writer Jim Peterik, when asked about "Sail Away" on NPP, didn't want to get into the demise of the reunion:

Whitman: This is supposed to be Brian’s vision of what would have been the next Beach Boys album, correct? He made That’s Why God Made the Radio and then he wasn’t in The Beach Boys anymore. What’s up with that?

Peterik: I can’t talk about that, but anyway … how about those Bears?


http://www.technologytell.com/entertainment/63061/true-survivor-songwritermelodic-rocker-jim-peterik-interviewed/
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/
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 5855


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: September 13, 2016, 02:33:02 PM »

BRI vs Jardine 2003
BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”).   The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style and to choose from a list of approved booking agencies and managers.

So any idea when this was changed from non exclusive to exclusive?
I don't think Love's is necessarily exclusive. It reads to me like they voted to issue licenses to all 4; they issued a license to ML; then refused to issue a license to AJ. Then he toured anyway, then everyone sued everyone.
I think that, with the Smile lawsuit combined with this one, it's become clear that any attempt to use the name will be embroiled in ugly lawsuits.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1152003.html

Emily - thank you for the links.  In the facts section (background) and even well before Carl passed, in 1993, "the directors of BRI agreed to devote a certain percentage of the touring income to the corporation for use of the trademark and dedicated a larger percentage of the income to those members who actually toured."

After Carl died (about 6 months post) on July 14, 1998, and after Mike had worked on licensing terms, and "to discuss how the trademark would be used."  BRI decided that they would issue licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as Mike had. Mike and Al did not want to tour together.  The suggestion of non-exclusive came from Carl's representative was that each member who wanted to tour follow the same conditions that Mike had.  

Mike's license (October 1, 1998) from BRI had conditions, like prerequisites, or conditions precedent to the award of the license.

They were: 20% on the first $1 million of gross receipts,  

and 17.5% royalty thereafter.  

Also "preserve The Beach Boys style and choose from a list of approved agencies and managers."

At some point later, (October 25, 1998)  Al made some sort of counteroffer of sorts to perform as "Beach Boys Family and Friends" and sent a letter to BRI saying that the license was not necessary. Three days later, BRI sent Al a letter saying that his "unlicensed use of the trademark would be an infringement."

Then Al proposed different terms for a licensee and only 5% (instead of Mike's 20% on the first mil and 17.5% over that number.)  Then BRI came back and said 17.5 % across-the-board.  Al wanted a booking agent and manager, different from the BRI list.

The next month, November 24, 1998, BRI met to discuss the proposal.  Prior to the meeting Al's lawyer sent the BRI board with Al's terms which were rejected by BRI.  But he continued to perform and in locations and dates close to where Mike's band was touring.  

The court found that "With two bands touring as The Beach Boys or as a similar-sounding combination, show organizers themselves were confused about exactly they were getting when they booked Jardine's band.   A number of show organizers booked Jardine's band thinking they would get The Beach Boys along with special added guests but subsequently cancelled the booking when they discovered that Jardine's band was not what they thought it was. Numerous people who attended one of Jardine's shows said they had been confused about who was performing."      

The court finding in favor of BRI is not surprising to me. All Al had to do was use the list of promoters/managers and pay the percentage to get the license.  It has nothing to do with the quality of Al's band (clearly terrific musicians) but just contract terms to adhere to.   As I look at it, only the 12.5% fee, (difference between BRI's figure of 17.5% and Al's proposal of 5%, and the promoter/managers terms were what caused the conflict about the non-exclusive license and resulted in the suit.  


Thank you again Emily for the links, as it is easier to see the BRI license facts officially spelled-out, in the court's decision/s.  

It does not leave room for speculation as to what happened, who was involved and why.     Wink


So..The name BBF&F confused fans and promotors however if Al paid the 17.5%, they could use the name and the fans and promotors would now not be confused?

I'm confused! LOL
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #98 on: September 13, 2016, 02:34:04 PM »

It's a love thang! LOL
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #99 on: September 13, 2016, 05:06:50 PM »

Must be this "new math" the kids are learning... Old Man
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.292 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!