Documentary!

[HeyJude]

Regarding Mike and lawsuits in general, it's also worth pointing out that he has clearly sometimes been very justified in bringing suits, and other times it's clearly a vendetta sort of situation.

There's at least one case from the mid-2000s involving Mike (no other BBs or BB entities were involved on either side) that has to this day never really been publicized, but it speaks to the lengths and zeal with which Mike is willing to sue and pay lawyers TONS of money, and send them down an insanely conspiratorial and dead-end rabbit hole. Hopefully at some point soon, those details can be expanded upon, because it's a very interesting case.

[Zenobi]

The point of view of these director/writers/editors reminds me of an Italian song from the '60s, which was about the rebellious youth. Talking about the young men's long hair, in translation:
"Seen from the backside, you can't tell boy from girl."
That's about the depth of understanding of the Beach Boys shown by this documentary, the above article etc. Also, sadly, by the many, in several forums, who talk only of the Boys' hits, commercial success, or lack thereof. The reason I post here and only "lurk" elsewhere is right that here people tend to talk more of the music.

What song was that?

"Tre passi avanti", by Adriano Celentano. Apart from the lyrics, a good song by a great singer/songwriter.

[guitarfool2002]

Just reposting this interview quote from Mike in 1998 regarding Surfin USA:

"The problem wasn't really with my cousin Brian, but more with his father Murry, who hated me. He sold the publishing company in 1968, with all those hits, for a nominal sum. He was a very greedy, immoral guy who wanted to get back at me for firing him as our manager. He was unbearable. He ended up stealing the publishing from his son - who was having mental and emotional problems - and not crediting me for being the co-author of California Girls, Surfin' USA, I Get Around and a bunch of [other] songs."

Mike specifically mentions Surfin USA as one of the songs, and I think for obvious reasons (a lot of money and royalties). Yet he didn't pursue claiming this song in an actual suit as far as I know, probably because of the Chuck Berry/Arc Publishing involvement, but who knows. Anyway it's why I specifically mentioned the song earlier, and am still wondering why if Mike went for the other songs, why didn't he also go for Surfin USA if he had a valid claim.

[guitarfool2002]

Regarding Mike and lawsuits in general, it's also worth pointing out that he has clearly sometimes been very justified in bringing suits, and other times it's clearly a vendetta sort of situation.

There's at least one case from the mid-2000s involving Mike (no other BBs or BB entities were involved on either side) that has to this day never really been publicized, but it speaks to the lengths and zeal with which Mike is willing to sue and pay lawyers TONS of money, and send them down an insanely conspiratorial and dead-end rabbit hole. Hopefully at some point soon, those details can be expanded upon, because it's a very interesting case.

People would be amazed to learn how often Mike has used lawyers and legal filings for all sorts of reasons in the past 20 years. Let's just say people have no idea how frequently he goes through the legal system to file various complaints, orders, etc. because they're not reported like the bigger lawsuits. He's actually been the defendant in one that has been winding through the courts in recent years that isn't reported on in the media.

[Dan Lega]

guitarfool said:  "Mike would have to sue Chuck's publishers and rights-holders to get his credits and royalties...which he could have done..."


Surfin' USA is unique.  As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits.  In fact, I think the law is that legally you're not supposed to change the lyrics when doing a cover of a song.  Meaning, I think the original copyright holders could sue you for changing the lyrics.  Now... most likely they won't do that, especially if the re-worked song is making money for them.

So, no, I don't think Mike had any legal footing to claim credits (and thus co-payments) on their "cover" song, Surfin' USA.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

In some ways it is unique, and in others it is not. I'll point to the example of Jake Holmes' song "Dazed And Confused", which Jimmy Page essentially covered with some new lyrics on Zeppelin 1, and for decades took full credit for it. Holmes finally sued decades later, and a settlement was made which was for some reason immediately sealed by the court so no one knows who got what in the deal. But now, Dazed And Confused is credited as Jimmy Page, inspired by Jake Holmes. If the case was made that the Beach Boys essentially took Chuck Berry's Sweet Little Sixteen and wrote new lyrics over Chuck's music, there is the parallel with Jimmy Page and Dazed And Confused. On Surfin USA, does the backing track or the melody sound like Sweet Little Sixteen? The case could be made that it does not obviously enough to claim theft of the material. But Brian and other band members said they did it as a tribute to Chuck's music, which Carl and David loved. So it could hypothetically have been taken to court, just not in 1963 when Murry signed it over under threats of a lawsuit, and Morris Levy was apparently one of the key players doing the threat. Chuck didn't have anything to do with that since he was in jail at the time.

For more confusion, and it's kind of fun to see the variations, check out any "official" published sheet music that you can find for Surfin USA and check the variety of credits. It's listed any number of ways and with several co-credits to where I don't think anyone knows and anyone cares at this point what gets printed on a lead sheet. What is it on the more recent CD pressings? Is it still listed solely as a Chuck Berry composition?

I understand the logic laid out above, but since the 90's when a literal flood of copyright cases like those against Zeppelin and many others started hitting the courts, so too were new precedents in these legal cases start to be set that didn't exist in the 70's or even the 80's. Precedents such as the Robin Thicke/Marvin Gaye estate case where Gaye's estate sued over the Thicke song stealing the "feel" of an old Gaye dance hit, and a court agreed. That is more what Surfin USA was...it has the feel and the spirit of Sweet Little Sixteen, but musically they're more similar than sounding alike enough to warrant a full writer credit for Berry. It's like copyrighting a blues progression and a blues feel.

So this concept: "As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits."

...is basically disproven by the precedent set in the Dazed And Confused case, where it clearly was a Jake Holmes composition with the melody, main riff/hook, chord structure, and some lyrics already in place, and Jimmy Page expanded on Holmes' song including changing and adding lyrics without Holmes' permission, and a court found that Page still gets main songwriter credit for the song, with original composer Holmes only getting a somewhat odd "inspired by..." credit on all future releases.

I was suggesting that if Mike Love had proof that he wrote the lyrics to Surfin USA, even as a co-writer, there could be a valid claim after all the new legal precedents for backdated copyright claims have been set and continue to be set for a legal filing and perhaps even including a claim that Surfin USA is not entirely a Chuck Berry original composition, musically or lyrically, despite the deal struck with Levy and Arc Publishing back in '63. And it COULD be worth millions. Also, if Mike had as much of a hand in writing "Back In The USSR" as he has said, he'd have a valid claim against The Beatles, perhaps more valid than "Wouldn't It Be Nice".

And the Surfin USA credit, following the Page/Holmes example, could be (or could have been) more accurately listed as "Brian Wilson - Mike Love; Inspired by Chuck Berry" if a case were worked up and filed. Who knows.

I say "could" very deliberately, because it's hypothetical anyway. And who knows what future precedents will be set.

Sorry, but I don't see how this case makes your claim for you.  If Jimmy Page and Jake Holmes came to an "agreement" then there is no legal precedent.  Jimmy may have gotten to keep his name on the credits, but since you say the terms are sealed we'll never know how much he had to pay Jake Holmes to KEEP his name on the credits.  He may have had to pay him an awful lot!  And just because his name is still credited we don't know how much of the royalties he still gets.  It could be a minuscule 1%... or less!

And, anyway, it wasn't Jimmy Page suing Jake Holmes to keep his name on the song, it was Jake Holmes suing Jimmy Page because he stole his song.  Just as Chuck Berry sued The Beach Boys because they stole his song.  So, yeah, I still believe Mike Love has no shot at trying to sue Chuck Berry's estate for a writing credit and any remuneration that would go along with it.

Love and merci,
Dan Lega

[Zenobi]

It seems many people behave honestly only under dire duress.
Admitting that a song's original author MIGHT have a legitimate claim to some credits? Never!

[Custom Machine]

Yes, the nuts and bolts of all the procedural stuff is very interesting.

But Mike *always* had recourse to sue over not being credited on those songs. *Ownership* is a whole other deal. But Mike could have sued from Day One after the first song he co-write was missing his name in 1963 or whenever it first happened. *Whom* he would have needed to sue would be a whole other question. It would have been Murry up until a certain date, and then Irving/A&M, and so on.

Which entity he would have been bringing a suit against would certainly play a role in the efficacy of his case, and how messy or confusing it may have gotten.

The point we all agree on is that through a confluence of many events, it was a much more opportune time to bring the suit when he did circa 1992/93/94.

But I think he would have had a very strong case to get *credits* (and thus royalties) during any of the intervening years. There has never been *anybody* that has called Mike's authorship on the songs into question.

Testimony from fellow band members, other musicians/family members, and possibly print or audio from Brian or others mentioning Mike's co-authorship, all would have helped Mike's case.

Unless Irving/A&M in the 70s or 80s could have gotten Brian on the stand to say Mike DIDN'T co-write the songs, I think Mike would have had a pretty strong case against *any* defendant. This wasn't like other cases where like the drummer in a band claims they helped "write" some hit song by workshopping it in the studio or something. This was a case where Mike and Brian co-wrote songs, and Murry was leaving Mike's name off the songs intermittently for whatever reason.

Any defendant in the case would have had to either argue Mike is lying, or that his contributions did not rise to the level of getting a co-author credit. The latter would be the less challenging argument to make, but again, I think there were plenty of witnesses that could have come forward who either directly witnessed Mike co-write lyrics, and/or heard Brian acknowledge over the years that Mike co-wrote the songs. And again, all of this is assuming Brian *wouldn't* be on the stand admitting Mike co-wrote the songs.

Maybe Brian in his deepest stupor of like Fall 1982 wouldn't have been a great court witness. But I think even late 70s Brian would have been able to be convincing enough that Mike co-wrote the songs. Maybe he wouldn't have been able to say *why* Murry did it. But I think even a shaky 1978 Brian would have been factually convincing enough. By the time of Landy Part 2, it becomes a whole other deal, because Landy easily could have coached/directed Brian to say Mike didn't co-write the songs. Separate from any other factors, Late 1982 to 1992, during Landy's reign, would have been the only truly challenging time for Mike to file suit against *anybody*, because that's the only period of time where I can picture Brian *not* just saying Mike co-wrote the songs.

So again, post-Landy, post-Irving settlement in the early 90s was certainly a much more opportune time for Mike to sue. But he could have sued Murry in 1968. He could have sued Irving/A&M in 1976.

Very good points, but I'll add that it wasn't music publisher Irving Almo that Mike sued, but rather Brian Wilson, who held 100% of the writing credits (excepting WIBN). Other than the fact that they now had to send out two royalty checks (to Brian and Mike) rather than one (to Brian), the actual composers and lyricists listed on each composition made no difference to Irving Almo, whose ownership of the publishing was unaffected by Mike's lawsuit.

[guitarfool2002]

guitarfool said:  "Mike would have to sue Chuck's publishers and rights-holders to get his credits and royalties...which he could have done..."


Surfin' USA is unique.  As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits.  In fact, I think the law is that legally you're not supposed to change the lyrics when doing a cover of a song.  Meaning, I think the original copyright holders could sue you for changing the lyrics.  Now... most likely they won't do that, especially if the re-worked song is making money for them.

So, no, I don't think Mike had any legal footing to claim credits (and thus co-payments) on their "cover" song, Surfin' USA.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

In some ways it is unique, and in others it is not. I'll point to the example of Jake Holmes' song "Dazed And Confused", which Jimmy Page essentially covered with some new lyrics on Zeppelin 1, and for decades took full credit for it. Holmes finally sued decades later, and a settlement was made which was for some reason immediately sealed by the court so no one knows who got what in the deal. But now, Dazed And Confused is credited as Jimmy Page, inspired by Jake Holmes. If the case was made that the Beach Boys essentially took Chuck Berry's Sweet Little Sixteen and wrote new lyrics over Chuck's music, there is the parallel with Jimmy Page and Dazed And Confused. On Surfin USA, does the backing track or the melody sound like Sweet Little Sixteen? The case could be made that it does not obviously enough to claim theft of the material. But Brian and other band members said they did it as a tribute to Chuck's music, which Carl and David loved. So it could hypothetically have been taken to court, just not in 1963 when Murry signed it over under threats of a lawsuit, and Morris Levy was apparently one of the key players doing the threat. Chuck didn't have anything to do with that since he was in jail at the time.

For more confusion, and it's kind of fun to see the variations, check out any "official" published sheet music that you can find for Surfin USA and check the variety of credits. It's listed any number of ways and with several co-credits to where I don't think anyone knows and anyone cares at this point what gets printed on a lead sheet. What is it on the more recent CD pressings? Is it still listed solely as a Chuck Berry composition?

I understand the logic laid out above, but since the 90's when a literal flood of copyright cases like those against Zeppelin and many others started hitting the courts, so too were new precedents in these legal cases start to be set that didn't exist in the 70's or even the 80's. Precedents such as the Robin Thicke/Marvin Gaye estate case where Gaye's estate sued over the Thicke song stealing the "feel" of an old Gaye dance hit, and a court agreed. That is more what Surfin USA was...it has the feel and the spirit of Sweet Little Sixteen, but musically they're more similar than sounding alike enough to warrant a full writer credit for Berry. It's like copyrighting a blues progression and a blues feel.

So this concept: "As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits."

...is basically disproven by the precedent set in the Dazed And Confused case, where it clearly was a Jake Holmes composition with the melody, main riff/hook, chord structure, and some lyrics already in place, and Jimmy Page expanded on Holmes' song including changing and adding lyrics without Holmes' permission, and a court found that Page still gets main songwriter credit for the song, with original composer Holmes only getting a somewhat odd "inspired by..." credit on all future releases.

I was suggesting that if Mike Love had proof that he wrote the lyrics to Surfin USA, even as a co-writer, there could be a valid claim after all the new legal precedents for backdated copyright claims have been set and continue to be set for a legal filing and perhaps even including a claim that Surfin USA is not entirely a Chuck Berry original composition, musically or lyrically, despite the deal struck with Levy and Arc Publishing back in '63. And it COULD be worth millions. Also, if Mike had as much of a hand in writing "Back In The USSR" as he has said, he'd have a valid claim against The Beatles, perhaps more valid than "Wouldn't It Be Nice".

And the Surfin USA credit, following the Page/Holmes example, could be (or could have been) more accurately listed as "Brian Wilson - Mike Love; Inspired by Chuck Berry" if a case were worked up and filed. Who knows.

I say "could" very deliberately, because it's hypothetical anyway. And who knows what future precedents will be set.

Sorry, but I don't see how this case makes your claim for you.  If Jimmy Page and Jake Holmes came to an "agreement" then there is no legal precedent.  Jimmy may have gotten to keep his name on the credits, but since you say the terms are sealed we'll never know how much he had to pay Jake Holmes to KEEP his name on the credits.  He may have had to pay him an awful lot!  And just because his name is still credited we don't know how much of the royalties he still gets.  It could be a minuscule 1%... or less!

And, anyway, it wasn't Jimmy Page suing Jake Holmes to keep his name on the song, it was Jake Holmes suing Jimmy Page because he stole his song.  Just as Chuck Berry sued The Beach Boys because they stole his song.  So, yeah, I still believe Mike Love has no shot at trying to sue Chuck Berry's estate for a writing credit and any remuneration that would go along with it.

Love and merci,
Dan Lega

First, I'm not trying to make a case on anything, it's just going over the history of these lawsuits and finding out more background info. I guess we can agree to disagree overall, but the Jimmy Page/Jake Holmes case is just one of many that could be cited. I was specifically pointing this out from your original post:

"As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits."

And this is where the Jimmy Page example comes into the discussion. Page not only rewrote and rearranged "Dazed And Confused", after taking the main hook, melody, main lyrics, chords, rhythm and feel from Holmes, he didn't get permission from Holmes and did it anyway. Then he took full credit for authorship of the song and collected royalties for decades until Holmes filed his suit.

No matter who sued whom or what, no matter how many payments were involved, if the law as you stated is that someone cannot do what Page did under the law, Page did it and retained the credit on the song, where Holmes only got an "inspired by" sub-credit, which may the first time I've ever seen that listed on an official credit. So the suggestion might be that either Page bought his way out of it through the "agreement" with Holmes, or Holmes accepted what could have been a generous settlement or a cursory payment that paid his bills for a few years, there was still the issue of the law you cited being cast aside in this case and Page's credit being left on the song.

It also often depends on which court and which judge or judges decide these cases, and how they interpret the "law" in making these decisions. I'll point to "Wouldn't It Be Nice" again, and say Mike found a court, judge, etc who thought singing "good night, sleep tight" during the fade of a song was equal enough to the entirety of the song's other lyrics enough to warrant an equal credit and split with the lyricist of the song. Most musicians and writers would (and I think do) look at that decision and say something went wrong there, that's not fair nor is it right...but again Mike and his team found a court and a judge that thought it was the right decision and that's where it will stand. I personally think it is ridiculous to give Mike credit for four words during a fadeout that have little or nothing to do with the creation of the song as a whole, but that's just my opinion. I feel the same about the Jake Holmes case, no matter what they decided, Page clearly took Jake's song and made it his own without Jake's permission or input, and Page still gets full writer's credit while Jake gets a footnote.


And I don't believe Murry and Sea Of Tunes were ever sued by Arc Publishing over Surfin USA - As I understand it, Murry signed over all of the song's rights and credits after receiving a threat that a suit would be filed, and I'll restate it again as naive as Murry might have been in some areas of the music business, he and those around him including at Capitol knew Arc and Morris Levy and knew that a threat of legal action would not be an empty one.

It's also worth noting again that Mike, in that 90's interview I posted earlier, specifically mentions Murry denying him credit for Surfin USA - Yet how and where could that credit be denied after Murry signed over the entire song to Arc and Chuck Berry very soon after the first pressing of the 45rpm single came out? No one in the band made money on the rights and ownership of that song after Murry gave it away, so if Mike is referring to that, and being angry at Murry giving it to Chuck Berry, that would make more sense than mentioning a song which the band didn't own since 1963. So that interview snippet from Mike adds a little more confusion for me as to the case of Surfin USA.

[HeyJude]

Yes, the nuts and bolts of all the procedural stuff is very interesting.

But Mike *always* had recourse to sue over not being credited on those songs. *Ownership* is a whole other deal. But Mike could have sued from Day One after the first song he co-write was missing his name in 1963 or whenever it first happened. *Whom* he would have needed to sue would be a whole other question. It would have been Murry up until a certain date, and then Irving/A&M, and so on.

Which entity he would have been bringing a suit against would certainly play a role in the efficacy of his case, and how messy or confusing it may have gotten.

The point we all agree on is that through a confluence of many events, it was a much more opportune time to bring the suit when he did circa 1992/93/94.

But I think he would have had a very strong case to get *credits* (and thus royalties) during any of the intervening years. There has never been *anybody* that has called Mike's authorship on the songs into question.

Testimony from fellow band members, other musicians/family members, and possibly print or audio from Brian or others mentioning Mike's co-authorship, all would have helped Mike's case.

Unless Irving/A&M in the 70s or 80s could have gotten Brian on the stand to say Mike DIDN'T co-write the songs, I think Mike would have had a pretty strong case against *any* defendant. This wasn't like other cases where like the drummer in a band claims they helped "write" some hit song by workshopping it in the studio or something. This was a case where Mike and Brian co-wrote songs, and Murry was leaving Mike's name off the songs intermittently for whatever reason.

Any defendant in the case would have had to either argue Mike is lying, or that his contributions did not rise to the level of getting a co-author credit. The latter would be the less challenging argument to make, but again, I think there were plenty of witnesses that could have come forward who either directly witnessed Mike co-write lyrics, and/or heard Brian acknowledge over the years that Mike co-wrote the songs. And again, all of this is assuming Brian *wouldn't* be on the stand admitting Mike co-wrote the songs.

Maybe Brian in his deepest stupor of like Fall 1982 wouldn't have been a great court witness. But I think even late 70s Brian would have been able to be convincing enough that Mike co-wrote the songs. Maybe he wouldn't have been able to say *why* Murry did it. But I think even a shaky 1978 Brian would have been factually convincing enough. By the time of Landy Part 2, it becomes a whole other deal, because Landy easily could have coached/directed Brian to say Mike didn't co-write the songs. Separate from any other factors, Late 1982 to 1992, during Landy's reign, would have been the only truly challenging time for Mike to file suit against *anybody*, because that's the only period of time where I can picture Brian *not* just saying Mike co-wrote the songs.

So again, post-Landy, post-Irving settlement in the early 90s was certainly a much more opportune time for Mike to sue. But he could have sued Murry in 1968. He could have sued Irving/A&M in 1976.

Very good points, but I'll add that it wasn't music publisher Irving Almo that Mike sued, but rather Brian Wilson, who held 100% of the writing credits (excepting WIBN). Other than the fact that they now had to send out two royalty checks (to Brian and Mike) rather than one (to Brian), the actual composers and lyricists listed on each composition made no difference to Irving Almo, whose ownership of the publishing was unaffected by Mike's lawsuit.

Yes, that's why I was making the more broad point that *whomever* Mike sued, he had a strong case. What person or persons or entities he would have sued would have varied over the years depending on when he might have chosen to file suit, again as I mentioned in my previous post.

*Generally*, a company that owns the publishing of a song would not be *completely* indifferent  to whether someone is suing over authorship, even if the company in question is not a party to the suit. But again, that would depend on the circumstances. Theoretically, if someone who has no affiliation with the company in question came out of the woodwork and said they had written half of a bunch of songs, they *might* be able to gain control of partial ownership of that publishing.

[HeyJude]

Regarding Mike and "Surfin' USA" and complaining that Murry cut him out of that song, it's probably worth noting that if Mike was *not privy* to Murry and the Sea of Tunes business to the degree that Mike was getting cut out of songwriting credits, he probably didn't have all of the details concerning whatever deals Murry had cut with Arc/Levy/Berry concerning "Surfin' USA."

It has been awhile since I leafed through Mike's autobiography, but it sounds like it wasn't until the 90s that Mike had people looking into the nitty gritty of all the deals concerning Murry/Sea of Tunes, etc.

If Mike was complaining about "Surfin' USA" and Murry once he knew about Murry/Sea of Tunes signing over the rights to that particular song, Mike's gripe would still seem logical to me, as it was still part and parcel of Murry's penchant for cutting Mike out of the publishing and certainly of not keeping Mike in the loop on the business details concerning songs he (Mike) had co-written. I think his *gripe* would be pretty logical and relatively valid (assuming he did co-write some of the lyrics). That's all separate from the realities of what actually could have been *done* to fix specifically the "Surfin' USA" issue by that point. But as we've been discussing, Mike's complaints about being "screwed over" on the songwriting credits has usually had little relation to what has been fixed or what could be fixed.

[HeyJude]

It also often depends on which court and which judge or judges decide these cases, and how they interpret the "law" in making these decisions. I'll point to "Wouldn't It Be Nice" again, and say Mike found a court, judge, etc who thought singing "good night, sleep tight" during the fade of a song was equal enough to the entirety of the song's other lyrics enough to warrant an equal credit and split with the lyricist of the song. Most musicians and writers would (and I think do) look at that decision and say something went wrong there, that's not fair nor is it right...but again Mike and his team found a court and a judge that thought it was the right decision and that's where it will stand. I personally think it is ridiculous to give Mike credit for four words during a fadeout that have little or nothing to do with the creation of the song as a whole, but that's just my opinion.

But do we know that Mike is collecting an equal share of songwriter royalties on WIBN (and the other songs he won)? Yes, once his name is on those songs, his *credit* is "equal" in that the label copy is not going to show us the financial breakdown.

But I recall it being pointed out that on some if not most of the songs in question, Mike was not awarded and would not in the future be receiving an equal financial share of songwriting royalties on those songs.

While Brian and Mike never appeared to have done a "Music by Brian Wilson, Lyrics by Brian Wilson & Mike Love" sort of credit; it's possible that the contracts/financials are drawn up more along those lines.

I think it's quite possible that, for instance, Tony Asher had no sway in the matter of WIBN. So it wouldn't surprise me if Mike *does* get an equal financial cut of WIBN as *Asher*. But not necessarily Brian.

But isn't it possible that on some of these songs Mike is only getting like a 25% cut of the songwriting royalties (and possibly in the case of WIBN something like 16.7%?).

[guitarfool2002]

It also often depends on which court and which judge or judges decide these cases, and how they interpret the "law" in making these decisions. I'll point to "Wouldn't It Be Nice" again, and say Mike found a court, judge, etc who thought singing "good night, sleep tight" during the fade of a song was equal enough to the entirety of the song's other lyrics enough to warrant an equal credit and split with the lyricist of the song. Most musicians and writers would (and I think do) look at that decision and say something went wrong there, that's not fair nor is it right...but again Mike and his team found a court and a judge that thought it was the right decision and that's where it will stand. I personally think it is ridiculous to give Mike credit for four words during a fadeout that have little or nothing to do with the creation of the song as a whole, but that's just my opinion.

But do we know that Mike is collecting an equal share of songwriter royalties on WIBN (and the other songs he won)? Yes, once his name is on those songs, his *credit* is "equal" in that the label copy is not going to show us the financial breakdown.

But I recall it being pointed out that on some if not most of the songs in question, Mike was not awarded and would not in the future be receiving an equal financial share of songwriting royalties on those songs.

While Brian and Mike never appeared to have done a "Music by Brian Wilson, Lyrics by Brian Wilson & Mike Love" sort of credit; it's possible that the contracts/financials are drawn up more along those lines.

I think it's quite possible that, for instance, Tony Asher had no sway in the matter of WIBN. So it wouldn't surprise me if Mike *does* get an equal financial cut of WIBN as *Asher*. But not necessarily Brian.

But isn't it possible that on some of these songs Mike is only getting like a 25% cut of the songwriting royalties (and possibly in the case of WIBN something like 16.7%?).

Let me quote something from that 2013 discussion which breaks down what Tony Asher originally got for his Pet Sounds lyrics (25% + a cash payment), what Mike claims he got on average for his lyrics ('around 30%' and he thought he deserved more), and what Mike and his legal team asked for as a percentage of Brian's settlement in that case (wait for it...30%). Then I'll do another post on Wouldn't It Be Nice.

Interview excerpts from Mike Love in Goldmine, September 1992, the full interview is online:

Why weren't you credited for "California Girls"?

You see, Brian Wilson, they just signed the day before yesterday a settlement of his claims against the publisher. [Wilson was awarded 10 million dollars.] It's my assumption, and it's only an assumption, that his legal advisors are interested in taking the money and running. Brian is a pathetic figure and one of the more pathetic things is that he did not give me credit for many, many songs which I wrote. I have a huge list of them. It's unbelievable.

Back to the lawsuit. What are some of the songs you co-wrote but didn't receive credit for?

Okay, "Little Saint Nick." Brian Wilson is credited with writing 100 percent of that. Well, guess who wrote the words? Mike Love, that's who wrote the words. "Don't Back Down." It's very well known that Brian Wilson did not surf. I wrote "Catch A Wave" and "Don't Back Down." He's credited 100 percent. He didn't give me any credit.

How did that happen?

Because he didn't put my name down. Murry Wilson was the publisher of Sea of Tunes and and put in for this stuff. The same thing with "The Man With All The Toys," "Santa's Beard," "Merry Christmas Baby." There's "Good To My Baby." Brian Wilson is listed as writing it completely, guess who wrote the words? Doctor Love, that's who. "When I Grow Up (To Be A Man)." I participated in that and didn't get a stitch of recognition. "Help Me Rhonda," I wrote, "Since you put me down I've been out doing in my head." That's my fucking line, thank you very much. Things like "Dance Dance Dance," I asked Carl if he wrote any lyrics for the song and he said no. He just came up with the guitar line.

It's a good guitar line.

It is a cool line. Brian Wilson and Carl Wilson split 50-50 on that. I was the one who wrote the Chuck Berry-styled alliteration lyrics. That's my scene.

Was this more Murry Wilson or Brian?

Either that or Brian didn't tell him because of his ego. It's a bloodbath. It's millions and millions of dollars' worth of damage. Other songs, he arbitrarily assigned me a percentage which was fairly nominal. Basically, when I wrote 100 percent of the words he'd give me like 30 percent of the tune, as opposed to a split.


Fair enough, some would say. Others would say Mike is pointing more at Brian than Murry, who he says filed these things ('put in for this stuff'). Consider what I cited on page 11. Tony Asher when he went to see Murry to sign over his payments and credits for his Pet Sounds lyrics got a 25% cut plus a $7,500 payment. Mike in the last quote says he got "like 30 percent of the tune" for his lyrics.

That would make the songs where that happened a case of under-crediting, yet Tony Asher seems to have received around the same deal when he saw Murry and signed his agreements.

Has Tony Asher ever sought to reclaim a larger percentage of the credit and profits from the songs, since his 25% plus cash payment seems very much the same as what Mike mentions in the Goldmine interview with his "like 30 percent" comment. It would seem he'd have a precedent coming after Mike's win to collect a lot more, if he hasn't already in the wake of the box set and all the reissues since 1994.

Maybe the issue of the 30% cut rather than a full 50-50 split on these contracts would get us closer to why no action was taken to correct these issues until 1992.

Was this just the standard split given to lyrical co-writers signing Sea Of Tunes documents through Murry?

So it looks like anywhere around 25-30 percent credit was probably standard in the 1960's with co-writers and lyricists on Beach Boys songs that went through Murry and Sea Of Tunes. I don't think it's coincidental that Mike's team asked for 30% of Brian's settlement in 1992 either. But maybe more info is available to clarify all of this.

[guitarfool2002]

In the case of Wouldn't It Be Nice: Mike moved his affiliation from BMI to ASCAP in recent years so this one is relatively easy to break down. BUT - there is more information in all this, and this is only surface level stuff.

Wouldn't It Be Nice is listed with both BMI and ASCAP showing 3 writers: Brian, Tony Asher, and Mike. The BMI listing shows that BMI controls 31.25% of the song under the composers/writers (Brian and Tony), and 31.25% under the publisher (Irving Music). Since Mike moved to ASCAP, that site shows that ASCAP shows that they control 18.75% of the song under the composer/writer (Mike, as the only writer credited who is an ASCAP member), and 18.75% under the publisher (Almo Music).

Breaking down just that surface information: It could be concluded that Mike's cut is 18.75% of Wouldn't It Be Nice. And further, it used to be Irving/Almo music, but it appears Irving as publisher goes through BMI and Almo as publisher goes through ASCAP and both have a stake in the song.

And then there is this: On almost all of the Brian/Mike collaborations mentioned in the lawsuit and elsewhere, such as California Girls, Help Me Rhonda, Fun Fun Fun, I Get Around, Warmth Of The Sun, etc...ASCAP is listed as controlling 25%, and Mike is the only ASCAP writer. So for most of these collabs, it would appear Mike's percentage was 25%.

I'll go out on a limb and say like I did in the 2013 post above that Mike's cut for these collaborations was 25%...or at least that was the benchmark figure. Because Tony Asher got the same deal for Pet Sounds.

But it kind of adds up a little more clearly now, though we don't have all the nuts and bolts of these agreements. The lyricists' ballpark figure was around a 25% cut, and that's still carried over to today's listings. I wish it were that easy but there is more to all of this...at least we have a ballpark number that can be backed up.

[Rocker]

Let me quote something from that 2013 discussion which breaks down what Tony Asher originally got for his Pet Sounds lyrics (25% + a cash payment), what Mike claims he got on average for his lyrics ('around 30%' and he thought he deserved more), and what Mike and his legal team asked for as a percentage of Brian's settlement in that case (wait for it...30%). Then I'll do another post on Wouldn't It Be Nice.

Things like "Dance Dance Dance," I asked Carl if he wrote any lyrics for the song and he said no. He just came up with the guitar line.

It's a good guitar line.

It is a cool line. Brian Wilson and Carl Wilson split 50-50 on that. I was the one who wrote the Chuck Berry-styled alliteration lyrics. That's my scene.

Ok, not to play devil's advocate, but.... which one does he mean? I just looked at the lyrics and couldn't find any aliteration.    Or did he talk about the line "dance (dance), dance (dance), dance (dance), yeah"? I'm not sure that counts, though.

[HeyJude]

So yeah, Mike appears to have rarely or never received a full 50% share of the songs he co-wrote from that era.

That he wasn't credited *at all* is very problematic and unjust.

That he got 25 or 30 percent is more in line with the typical level of rock stars from that era not getting perhaps as much as they should, or would get today were they setting up their own publishing, etc.

Mike got totally hosed when his name was left off those songs.

However, when it comes to whether he wrote "100 percent" of the lyrics to the songs, I think that gets way, way murkier. On some of those songs, surely Brian had *some* lyrics, or at least a title/refrain. If "good night baby, sleep tight baby" gets Mike a cut of the "lyrics" share of the royalties on WIBN, then Brian coming to Mike with a song that has "good, good, good, good vibrations" should get Brian a cut of the "lyrics" share of GV. Same with "California Girls", etc. I'd have to dig into the published stories of how the various songs were written, but I think it was pretty rare for Brian to bring Mike a fully complete musical bed and top line melody with ZERO lyrics or a title/refrain/chorus, etc.

[HeyJude]

Regarding the court case, here's a very brief news report that catches comments from Mike and Brian as they enter the courtroom. It certainly reinforces the idea that it was a farce that this thing was even going to trial.

Despite the news reporter's suggestion (based on what information I'm not sure; probably not much), I don't know how much anybody involved really thought Brian would be bankrupted by a judgment in Mike's favor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Exx6w38m_o

[bossaroo]

"It just hurts to look at him!"

what an awful thing for that news lady to say about Brian, jeez.

[Dan Lega]

guitarfool said:  "Mike would have to sue Chuck's publishers and rights-holders to get his credits and royalties...which he could have done..."


Surfin' USA is unique.  As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits.  In fact, I think the law is that legally you're not supposed to change the lyrics when doing a cover of a song.  Meaning, I think the original copyright holders could sue you for changing the lyrics.  Now... most likely they won't do that, especially if the re-worked song is making money for them.

So, no, I don't think Mike had any legal footing to claim credits (and thus co-payments) on their "cover" song, Surfin' USA.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

In some ways it is unique, and in others it is not. I'll point to the example of Jake Holmes' song "Dazed And Confused", which Jimmy Page essentially covered with some new lyrics on Zeppelin 1, and for decades took full credit for it. Holmes finally sued decades later, and a settlement was made which was for some reason immediately sealed by the court so no one knows who got what in the deal. But now, Dazed And Confused is credited as Jimmy Page, inspired by Jake Holmes. If the case was made that the Beach Boys essentially took Chuck Berry's Sweet Little Sixteen and wrote new lyrics over Chuck's music, there is the parallel with Jimmy Page and Dazed And Confused. On Surfin USA, does the backing track or the melody sound like Sweet Little Sixteen? The case could be made that it does not obviously enough to claim theft of the material. But Brian and other band members said they did it as a tribute to Chuck's music, which Carl and David loved. So it could hypothetically have been taken to court, just not in 1963 when Murry signed it over under threats of a lawsuit, and Morris Levy was apparently one of the key players doing the threat. Chuck didn't have anything to do with that since he was in jail at the time.

For more confusion, and it's kind of fun to see the variations, check out any "official" published sheet music that you can find for Surfin USA and check the variety of credits. It's listed any number of ways and with several co-credits to where I don't think anyone knows and anyone cares at this point what gets printed on a lead sheet. What is it on the more recent CD pressings? Is it still listed solely as a Chuck Berry composition?

I understand the logic laid out above, but since the 90's when a literal flood of copyright cases like those against Zeppelin and many others started hitting the courts, so too were new precedents in these legal cases start to be set that didn't exist in the 70's or even the 80's. Precedents such as the Robin Thicke/Marvin Gaye estate case where Gaye's estate sued over the Thicke song stealing the "feel" of an old Gaye dance hit, and a court agreed. That is more what Surfin USA was...it has the feel and the spirit of Sweet Little Sixteen, but musically they're more similar than sounding alike enough to warrant a full writer credit for Berry. It's like copyrighting a blues progression and a blues feel.

So this concept: "As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits."

...is basically disproven by the precedent set in the Dazed And Confused case, where it clearly was a Jake Holmes composition with the melody, main riff/hook, chord structure, and some lyrics already in place, and Jimmy Page expanded on Holmes' song including changing and adding lyrics without Holmes' permission, and a court found that Page still gets main songwriter credit for the song, with original composer Holmes only getting a somewhat odd "inspired by..." credit on all future releases.

I was suggesting that if Mike Love had proof that he wrote the lyrics to Surfin USA, even as a co-writer, there could be a valid claim after all the new legal precedents for backdated copyright claims have been set and continue to be set for a legal filing and perhaps even including a claim that Surfin USA is not entirely a Chuck Berry original composition, musically or lyrically, despite the deal struck with Levy and Arc Publishing back in '63. And it COULD be worth millions. Also, if Mike had as much of a hand in writing "Back In The USSR" as he has said, he'd have a valid claim against The Beatles, perhaps more valid than "Wouldn't It Be Nice".

And the Surfin USA credit, following the Page/Holmes example, could be (or could have been) more accurately listed as "Brian Wilson - Mike Love; Inspired by Chuck Berry" if a case were worked up and filed. Who knows.

I say "could" very deliberately, because it's hypothetical anyway. And who knows what future precedents will be set.

Sorry, but I don't see how this case makes your claim for you.  If Jimmy Page and Jake Holmes came to an "agreement" then there is no legal precedent.  Jimmy may have gotten to keep his name on the credits, but since you say the terms are sealed we'll never know how much he had to pay Jake Holmes to KEEP his name on the credits.  He may have had to pay him an awful lot!  And just because his name is still credited we don't know how much of the royalties he still gets.  It could be a minuscule 1%... or less!

And, anyway, it wasn't Jimmy Page suing Jake Holmes to keep his name on the song, it was Jake Holmes suing Jimmy Page because he stole his song.  Just as Chuck Berry sued The Beach Boys because they stole his song.  So, yeah, I still believe Mike Love has no shot at trying to sue Chuck Berry's estate for a writing credit and any remuneration that would go along with it.

Love and merci,
Dan Lega

First, I'm not trying to make a case on anything, it's just going over the history of these lawsuits and finding out more background info. I guess we can agree to disagree overall, but the Jimmy Page/Jake Holmes case is just one of many that could be cited. I was specifically pointing this out from your original post:

"As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits."

And this is where the Jimmy Page example comes into the discussion. Page not only rewrote and rearranged "Dazed And Confused", after taking the main hook, melody, main lyrics, chords, rhythm and feel from Holmes, he didn't get permission from Holmes and did it anyway. Then he took full credit for authorship of the song and collected royalties for decades until Holmes filed his suit.

No matter who sued whom or what, no matter how many payments were involved, if the law as you stated is that someone cannot do what Page did under the law, Page did it and retained the credit on the song, where Holmes only got an "inspired by" sub-credit, which may the first time I've ever seen that listed on an official credit. So the suggestion might be that either Page bought his way out of it through the "agreement" with Holmes, or Holmes accepted what could have been a generous settlement or a cursory payment that paid his bills for a few years, there was still the issue of the law you cited being cast aside in this case and Page's credit being left on the song.

It also often depends on which court and which judge or judges decide these cases, and how they interpret the "law" in making these decisions. I'll point to "Wouldn't It Be Nice" again, and say Mike found a court, judge, etc who thought singing "good night, sleep tight" during the fade of a song was equal enough to the entirety of the song's other lyrics enough to warrant an equal credit and split with the lyricist of the song. Most musicians and writers would (and I think do) look at that decision and say something went wrong there, that's not fair nor is it right...but again Mike and his team found a court and a judge that thought it was the right decision and that's where it will stand. I personally think it is ridiculous to give Mike credit for four words during a fadeout that have little or nothing to do with the creation of the song as a whole, but that's just my opinion. I feel the same about the Jake Holmes case, no matter what they decided, Page clearly took Jake's song and made it his own without Jake's permission or input, and Page still gets full writer's credit while Jake gets a footnote.


And I don't believe Murry and Sea Of Tunes were ever sued by Arc Publishing over Surfin USA - As I understand it, Murry signed over all of the song's rights and credits after receiving a threat that a suit would be filed, and I'll restate it again as naive as Murry might have been in some areas of the music business, he and those around him including at Capitol knew Arc and Morris Levy and knew that a threat of legal action would not be an empty one.

It's also worth noting again that Mike, in that 90's interview I posted earlier, specifically mentions Murry denying him credit for Surfin USA - Yet how and where could that credit be denied after Murry signed over the entire song to Arc and Chuck Berry very soon after the first pressing of the 45rpm single came out? No one in the band made money on the rights and ownership of that song after Murry gave it away, so if Mike is referring to that, and being angry at Murry giving it to Chuck Berry, that would make more sense than mentioning a song which the band didn't own since 1963. So that interview snippet from Mike adds a little more confusion for me as to the case of Surfin USA.

Sorry... but I still think you're totally wrong.  The Page/Holmes agreement/lawsuit doesn't fit this at all.  It's all backwards!  Holmes sued Page, not Page suing Holmes!  And perhaps rather than let the suit go to trial and cost a lot of money, and perhaps not even win, Holmes came to an agreement to let Page keep some credit.  (Though I'm fuzzy on whether this did go to trial or not -- but that doesn't negate the fact that Holmes LET Page keep some credits.)

On the other hand we have Chuck Berry, who sued The Beach Boys and was awarded FULL COMPENSATION -- and so that's it!  That's the agreement they came to!  Mike Love has no legal standing to counter-sue THEM to collect lyric writing royalties!

Now he could go back to the Chuck Berry estate and ask them nicely if he could have some compensation for writing the lyrics -- but he has absolutely no precedent to sue them.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

[Zenobi]

I don't understand what would be "totallly wrong".
Why would the Holmes-Page case would not fit? Why "backwards"?
Jake Holmes, uncredited original author of a song, sues Page: poor Jake, who has no clout, gets just an "inspired by" footnote (I hope the undisclosed cash he got was adequate, though I fear it was not).
Chuck Berry, uncredited original author of a song, sues the Beach Boys: his lawyers have clout, so he gets full credit and compensation.
Mike, uncredited co-writer of several songs, sues Brian: clout is maybe comparable, but Brian's lawyers fumble, so Mike gets (probably) adequate credits and more compensation than initially asked.
They seem similar cases to me, though the outcomes vary. They are all about uncredited, full or partial, authorship of songs.

[HeyJude]

I think the idea is that the case concerning Mike and *SURFIN' USA* specifically is not comparable, because there are essentially two "layers" of beefs there.

Mike's name was (according to him) left off the song as it was on a number of his co-writes with Brian. Outside of Mike's purview or possibly even knowledge, a series of legal actions/agreements concerning "Surfin' USA" took place between Brian/Murry/Sea of Tunes and Chuck Berry's associates. It looks like the deal was done quickly and settled, and nobody gave it much more thought because everybody agreed it was a re-write of the Berry tune, and everybody was so rich off the saga that it wasn't like cases where a person has ONE hit that they fight tooth and nail for (e.g. Matthew Fisher and "A Whiter Shade of Pale", which is a truly fascinating and perplexing case for mostly different reasons).

I think, just procedurally and logistically, it would have always been difficult for Mike to get his name on "Surfin' USA" or collect royalties. I suspect his lawyers knew this and already had a zillion other songs they were pursuing (and perhaps Mike and/or his lawyers were aware that "Surfin' USA" was also one of the few cases where not everybody involved uniformly agrees that Mike wrote the lyrics), so he didn't pursue it.

That would of course not stop him for still saying in interviews that he co-wrote the song. It would just be one of the only cases where his beefs ring hollow from a technical standpoint.

[juggler]

"It just hurts to look at him!"

what an awful thing for that news lady to say about Brian, jeez.

Yikes, what a tacky, tasteless comment for her to make about any human being.  

I googled her, and the newscaster, Ann Martin, apparently lost her job due to budget cuts in 2008 and went into retirement at that point.  Good riddance.

[guitarfool2002]

Sorry... but I still think you're totally wrong.  The Page/Holmes agreement/lawsuit doesn't fit this at all.  It's all backwards!  Holmes sued Page, not Page suing Holmes!  And perhaps rather than let the suit go to trial and cost a lot of money, and perhaps not even win, Holmes came to an agreement to let Page keep some credit.  (Though I'm fuzzy on whether this did go to trial or not -- but that doesn't negate the fact that Holmes LET Page keep some credits.)

On the other hand we have Chuck Berry, who sued The Beach Boys and was awarded FULL COMPENSATION -- and so that's it!  That's the agreement they came to!  Mike Love has no legal standing to counter-sue THEM to collect lyric writing royalties!

Now he could go back to the Chuck Berry estate and ask them nicely if he could have some compensation for writing the lyrics -- but he has absolutely no precedent to sue them.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

That's fine, like I said we can agree to disagree on it. But consider that even apart from the Dazed And Confused case, there are more cases to cite where the "law" which you stated was not followed, and exactly what you said the law did not allow -  "As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits." - ended up happening and the persons who changed the lyrics or arrangement still received and continue to receive lyricist or composer credits.

So it isn't a law if it has been handled on a case-by-case basis, and in many cases settled out of court before a trial or formal lawsuit even began, or if a judge or jury found in favor of one party or another. In many cases it seems an agreement was struck before trial, like a plea bargain in criminal court, and both parties agreed on a settlement. In many cases it came down to money, and who could afford better legal representation. Cheaper to settle than to take it through a full court trial...

The point being, those like Jimmy Page and others did exactly what you said the law didn't allow, and got away with it through whatever legal or financial means were employed. And that asks the question what good is the law if those with better lawyers and more money can bypass or even negate the law and continue to do exactly what the law is supposed to prevent? And then there's cases like The Verve and The Rolling Stones, where an almost unrecognizable Oldham instrumental cover of Jagger-Richards "The Last Time" sample formed the basis of a massive smash hit "Bittersweet Symphony", The Stones got all rights to the Verve record, and then almost two decades later or whenever Jagger and Richards decided to give the rights to The Verve after all! Some of these cases are so arbitrary, it really is a case-by-case situation where it seems the "law" doesn't mean much until someone argues it does, and someone else decides whether or not to uphold the law...if there really is one.

In short, both the system and the music business is f**ked.

With Surfin USA, just looking around at various reports about that song and Chuck Berry, there is a lot of misinformation going around. Please show me proof if any exists, but as far as I know and have dug into it, The Beach Boys and/or Sea Of Tunes were NOT sued over Surfin USA, and the case actually never went to a court or trial. Murry signed over the song to Chuck Berry's publisher after being threatened with a lawsuit. So to say the band or Sea Of Tunes was actually sued is not true.

But if someone can show evidence otherwise, whether a report of the suit from the 60's or a news blurb or a legal document or a personal letter or whatever, that would prove there was actually a court case on the matter. But as far as I have seen, it was a case of Murry caving in and signing over the rights to the song in total to Chuck's publisher and it never went through a court.

In fact there are also various articles and whatnot which claim the band themselves didn't even know they weren't getting money for the song until the late 80's or so when these copyright and publishing issues were being investigated more thoroughly. I don't believe that, but again please prove me wrong if there is evidence of this. The band had to know that after a certain year, Chuck Berry's name was the sole credit on Surfin USA, unless they were so naive they didn't realize the financial implications of that credit.

So unless there is evidence to prove otherwise, there was no actual court case or decision (therefore no precedent in a legal sense) regarding Surfin USA and the credits, and the band was never "sued" in a court case - It would appear Murry simply caved and gave the rights to Chuck's publisher after receiving a threat of a lawsuit. Did the band members know about this? Some suggest they didn't for decades and assumed they were getting paid for the song's sales and use. Did Murry get anything in return, i.e. a settlement in terms of a payment to speed the process? Or was it just a case of signing over the song and it was a done deal? We don't know unless there is evidence of how it went down.

Murry also sold Sea Of Tunes outright and decades later that sale was deemed null and void by a court trial for a variety of reasons, so it was not the first time Murry did things in the name of the band on his own terms. That resulted in Brian winning that case and getting those royalties back, which Mike then sued on top of that decision to get his share of the credits and royalties from the new owners. I'm not saying Mike could have won a case on Surfin USA, maybe his lawyers told him he didn't have a case on Surfin USA and not to bother with it, but it is suggested by band members that Mike wrote lyrics for the song and he feels he deserves a credit, and said Murry left him off of the credits deliberately then signed away all rights to Chuck Berry.

With Surfin USA I'm just opening the possibility that Mike could have had grounds to file a case, and obviously others disagree. That's fine. But to suggest there is a law that is in place, yet gets bypassed if not totally negated depending on who is involved and the legal means they have to literally "buy out" those filing claims is shown in the Page cases as well as a multitude of others where people essentially rewrote or even stole other copyrighted songs and continue to receive credit for them, even when the law supposedly says that's not allowed. It's all about the money, as in so many situations, and if that's the case maybe Mike could have pursued something on Surfin USA and gotten some credit for lyrics he wrote and turned into a hit song. He obviously feels he deserves credit, and he's apparently backed up by other band members who say yes, Mike wrote lyrics for that song.

So again if anyone has actual evidence that the Surfin USA case went to court and the band/Murry was actually "sued" by Arc Music representing Chuck Berry, please put it on the table.

And it's also ironic and fascinating too in a musicology perspective to go through Chuck's own songs and see how many other existing songs Chuck himself "borrowed" and rewrote in order to make his own hits. Or how he failed to credit pianist and collaborator Johnnie Johnson as cowriter on Chuck's hit songs including Sweet Little Sixteen, costing Johnnie a lot of money in lost royalties that should have been his. When Johnson finally filed suit against Berry and the publishers, the court dismissed it, saying too much time had passed to make it a valid legal case. So Chuck, as much as he feels ripped off by musicians stealing his songs (and rightfully so in a lot of cases), wasn't exactly honest with giving credits where credits were due either.

[Dan Lega]

Sorry... but I still think you're totally wrong.  The Page/Holmes agreement/lawsuit doesn't fit this at all.  It's all backwards!  Holmes sued Page, not Page suing Holmes!  And perhaps rather than let the suit go to trial and cost a lot of money, and perhaps not even win, Holmes came to an agreement to let Page keep some credit.  (Though I'm fuzzy on whether this did go to trial or not -- but that doesn't negate the fact that Holmes LET Page keep some credits.)

On the other hand we have Chuck Berry, who sued The Beach Boys and was awarded FULL COMPENSATION -- and so that's it!  That's the agreement they came to!  Mike Love has no legal standing to counter-sue THEM to collect lyric writing royalties!

Now he could go back to the Chuck Berry estate and ask them nicely if he could have some compensation for writing the lyrics -- but he has absolutely no precedent to sue them.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

That's fine, like I said we can agree to disagree on it. But consider that even apart from the Dazed And Confused case, there are more cases to cite where the "law" which you stated was not followed, and exactly what you said the law did not allow -  "As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits." - ended up happening and the persons who changed the lyrics or arrangement still received and continue to receive lyricist or composer credits.

So it isn't a law if it has been handled on a case-by-case basis, and in many cases settled out of court before a trial or formal lawsuit even began, or if a judge or jury found in favor of one party or another. In many cases it seems an agreement was struck before trial, like a plea bargain in criminal court, and both parties agreed on a settlement. In many cases it came down to money, and who could afford better legal representation. Cheaper to settle than to take it through a full court trial...

The point being, those like Jimmy Page and others did exactly what you said the law didn't allow, and got away with it through whatever legal or financial means were employed. And that asks the question what good is the law if those with better lawyers and more money can bypass or even negate the law and continue to do exactly what the law is supposed to prevent? And then there's cases like The Verve and The Rolling Stones, where an almost unrecognizable Oldham instrumental cover of Jagger-Richards "The Last Time" sample formed the basis of a massive smash hit "Bittersweet Symphony", The Stones got all rights to the Verve record, and then almost two decades later or whenever Jagger and Richards decided to give the rights to The Verve after all! Some of these cases are so arbitrary, it really is a case-by-case situation where it seems the "law" doesn't mean much until someone argues it does, and someone else decides whether or not to uphold the law...if there really is one.

In short, both the system and the music business is f**ked.

With Surfin USA, just looking around at various reports about that song and Chuck Berry, there is a lot of misinformation going around. Please show me proof if any exists, but as far as I know and have dug into it, The Beach Boys and/or Sea Of Tunes were NOT sued over Surfin USA, and the case actually never went to a court or trial. Murry signed over the song to Chuck Berry's publisher after being threatened with a lawsuit. So to say the band or Sea Of Tunes was actually sued is not true.

But if someone can show evidence otherwise, whether a report of the suit from the 60's or a news blurb or a legal document or a personal letter or whatever, that would prove there was actually a court case on the matter. But as far as I have seen, it was a case of Murry caving in and signing over the rights to the song in total to Chuck's publisher and it never went through a court.

In fact there are also various articles and whatnot which claim the band themselves didn't even know they weren't getting money for the song until the late 80's or so when these copyright and publishing issues were being investigated more thoroughly. I don't believe that, but again please prove me wrong if there is evidence of this. The band had to know that after a certain year, Chuck Berry's name was the sole credit on Surfin USA, unless they were so naive they didn't realize the financial implications of that credit.

So unless there is evidence to prove otherwise, there was no actual court case or decision (therefore no precedent in a legal sense) regarding Surfin USA and the credits, and the band was never "sued" in a court case - It would appear Murry simply caved and gave the rights to Chuck's publisher after receiving a threat of a lawsuit. Did the band members know about this? Some suggest they didn't for decades and assumed they were getting paid for the song's sales and use. Did Murry get anything in return, i.e. a settlement in terms of a payment to speed the process? Or was it just a case of signing over the song and it was a done deal? We don't know unless there is evidence of how it went down.

Murry also sold Sea Of Tunes outright and decades later that sale was deemed null and void by a court trial for a variety of reasons, so it was not the first time Murry did things in the name of the band on his own terms. That resulted in Brian winning that case and getting those royalties back, which Mike then sued on top of that decision to get his share of the credits and royalties from the new owners. I'm not saying Mike could have won a case on Surfin USA, maybe his lawyers told him he didn't have a case on Surfin USA and not to bother with it, but it is suggested by band members that Mike wrote lyrics for the song and he feels he deserves a credit, and said Murry left him off of the credits deliberately then signed away all rights to Chuck Berry.

With Surfin USA I'm just opening the possibility that Mike could have had grounds to file a case, and obviously others disagree. That's fine. But to suggest there is a law that is in place, yet gets bypassed if not totally negated depending on who is involved and the legal means they have to literally "buy out" those filing claims is shown in the Page cases as well as a multitude of others where people essentially rewrote or even stole other copyrighted songs and continue to receive credit for them, even when the law supposedly says that's not allowed. It's all about the money, as in so many situations, and if that's the case maybe Mike could have pursued something on Surfin USA and gotten some credit for lyrics he wrote and turned into a hit song. He obviously feels he deserves credit, and he's apparently backed up by other band members who say yes, Mike wrote lyrics for that song.

So again if anyone has actual evidence that the Surfin USA case went to court and the band/Murry was actually "sued" by Arc Music representing Chuck Berry, please put it on the table.

And it's also ironic and fascinating too in a musicology perspective to go through Chuck's own songs and see how many other existing songs Chuck himself "borrowed" and rewrote in order to make his own hits. Or how he failed to credit pianist and collaborator Johnnie Johnson as cowriter on Chuck's hit songs including Sweet Little Sixteen, costing Johnnie a lot of money in lost royalties that should have been his. When Johnson finally filed suit against Berry and the publishers, the court dismissed it, saying too much time had passed to make it a valid legal case. So Chuck, as much as he feels ripped off by musicians stealing his songs (and rightfully so in a lot of cases), wasn't exactly honest with giving credits where credits were due either.

I really don't understand why you are having a hard time with this.

And get this, Cam Mott just brought up the exact same thing on the other board, and someone else came back and said exactly what I said. 

You're just not following the law.  As the responder on the other board said, in the standing of the law "Surfin' USA" is now "Sweet Little Sixteen."

As I said, if you change a song you DON'T GET TO CLAIM AUTHORSHIP OF THE SONG.

If you do, you can get sued!


So, Jimmy Page stole a song, claimed credit for it, but was lucky enough to be able to work out some type of agreement where he keeps partial credit.  He now has no legal standing to go back and sue to get more credit of the song.  (Okay, I guess he could sue, but most likely the suit would be thrown out because he HAS NO LEGAL STANDING.  This is the same for Mike Love.  Perhaps he could sue, but as the law stands he would lose.)


So... the Beach Boys stole a song, took all the credit for "Surfin' USA" and got sued, or were about to be sued.  Knowing their standing in the reality of the law, and knowing that because of public comments they made about "stealing" the song, that they therefore didn't have much of a chance of winning the lawsuit, they came to an agreement THAT GOES EXACTLY WITH WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

So, again, Mike has no standing in the eyes of the law to SUE them to get royalties. 


And, yes, it "happens" all the time.  And, yes, some people get away with it, and others don't.  Just look at George Harrison and My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine.  Are you saying George Harrison now has the RIGHT to sue them for royalties AFTER HE LOST THE CASE?

The Boys perhaps could have gotten away with it, but as I mentioned above, once one of them said they essentially stole the song by saying outloud they rewrote Sweet Little Sixteen, they had cooked their goose.  They can't now claim they didn't realize they were borrowing the song structure and lyrical ideas -- which was George Harrison's defense.  And most people believe George when he says that -- but he still lost the case!  (And the lyrics were completely different, too!  No stealing of lyrical ideas here.)  So the Boys knew where they stood legally, and thus rightly, by the law that is, returned the credits to Chuck Berry.

Now, they could have paid lawyers and gone to court, and/or tried to make some kind of deal, but apparently they didn't want to go to court, and if they tried to make some kind of deal they failed, probably because the litigants knew the law was on their side.

So again, according to the law, Mike has absolutely no legal ground to stand on in suing them for lost or future royalties on "Surfin' USA."  Final.  No precedent anywhere.  Again, the law is, if you change a previously copyrighted song you cannot claim a songwriting credit and the royalties that go with it.  If you do, you can get sued.  The Beach Boys did that, they stole a song, they got called out on it, and they followed the law in giving back the credits to the original copyright holder.  Mike has no legal standing to counter-sue them.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

[Dan Lega]

I don't understand what would be "totallly wrong".
Why would the Holmes-Page case would not fit? Why "backwards"?
Jake Holmes, uncredited original author of a song, sues Page: poor Jake, who has no clout, gets just an "inspired by" footnote (I hope the undisclosed cash he got was adequate, though I fear it was not).
Chuck Berry, uncredited original author of a song, sues the Beach Boys: his lawyers have clout, so he gets full credit and compensation.
Mike, uncredited co-writer of several songs, sues Brian: clout is maybe comparable, but Brian's lawyers fumble, so Mike gets (probably) adequate credits and more compensation than initially asked.
They seem similar cases to me, though the outcomes vary. They are all about uncredited, full or partial, authorship of songs.

Yes, I was ONLY talking about "Surfin' USA."  And you seem to have that part understood.  My guess as to the wherefore of the different outcomes is the same as what you're suggesting, that Jake Holmes didn't have the wherewithal (e.g., money) to spend on a lengthy, messy lawsuit, and instead opted for the easy way out and make a deal.  Equally, Jimmy Page knew he was most likely on the wrong side of the law and tried and succeeded in cutting a deal.  The Beach Boys were just starting out, whereas Chuck Berry had been a star for quite a bit now, so who had the most money?  Chuck Berry did, and with the law on his side he was able to get the Beach Boys to "cave in" and give him back full credit, as the law says they should do.  Of course they also "caved" because they knew they were wrong in the eyes of the law.  And I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with that assessment.   Whereas most people didn't agree with that assessment on George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine" case.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

[Zenobi]

Ok, I understand your point now, that's for clarifying it.
Sure, Mike has no legal right to claim partial authorship of a "stolen" song.
I think that Mike could claim partial authorship if Chuck Berry had AUTHORIZED Surfin' USA, acknowledging it as a new song "based" on his original song. In that case the right credits for Surfin' USA should be Berry-Wilson-Love. But, as the song was "stolen", legally it is NOT a new song and so all the credit stays with the original author, Chuck Berry.
Is that right?