By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 02:30 pm:

Hey Gang:
This just in from BILLBOARD magazine's website:

Jackson Sues Universal Over Motown Royalties

Michael Jackson has filed suit against Motown Records and parent Universal Music Group (UMG) in an attempt to obtain rights to all masters of material he recorded for the label from 1969-76, Billboard Bulletin reports.

The 10-count suit, filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court, claims that under a 1980 agreement, Motown agreed to pay royalties to Jackson on the distribution of select pre-1976 material, including solo and Jackson 5 recordings, as well as any "best-ofs" or compilations of unreleased tracks.

Jackson says UMG has since released such albums and licensed songs commercially without his consent. He claims the label failed to provide him "with a single accounting" and has not paid him "a single dollar in royalties."

The artist is seeking to terminate the 1980 contract and all other recording agreements with Motown, and seeks to reclaim "his right, title and interest in" all of his master recordings and compositions with the label. A UMG spokesperson declined comment.

The new suit comes almost a year after Jackson attacked his current label, Sony, and its then-CEO, Tommy Mottola, for what he described as racist business practices. Jackson has been in and out of court in the past few months, having been sued by a promoter for backing out of a millennium concert as well as by auction house Sotheby's for failure to pay for two paintings.


-- Erik Gruenwedel, L.A

By STUBASS (64.12.97.7) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 02:36 pm:

GEEZ: I HOPE THAT MICHAEL DOESN'T CALL BERRY GORDY A "DEVIL"!!!...STU

By Common (209.2.55.169) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 02:48 pm:

LOL @ Stubass! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

KevGo: "He claims the label failed to provide him "with a single accounting" and has not paid him "a single dollar in royalties."

I remember an interview that Marlon Jackson where he said he was living quite comfortably from the royalties that he received from his Jackson years. Now being the astute businessman that Michael is, is he just realizing that he hadn't been paid all this time? Or is he saying that the company just stopped paying him? It looks as though he is using the non-payment of royalties strategy to get the master of the J5 & his material. Am I correct in this theory?

Peace!

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 02:56 pm:

Common:
Who knows? I know that UMG has worked with past artists on reissue projects (Barry White helped oversee the reissuing of his & Love Unlimited's 20th Century Fox material) so it would be interesting to see what extent Jackson was involved in the reissuing of his catalog. Also, how can he go after Motown for the Jackson 5 material when there are four other brothers involved? Again, who knows what's going on here.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Scratcher (65.132.79.233) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 02:56 pm:

From the article Michael is talking about when UMG took over, I guess that's when the accounting and the royalties stopped from the recordings made from 1969 to 1976. When did UMG take over, sometime in the '90s.

As for the master recordings, when a singer has recouped what the company spent the master recordings should belong to the artists automatically. If that happened there would be need for all these lawsuits and companies like AREC.

By Ritchie (62.254.0.9) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 03:27 pm:

From my small experience in the field, I seem to recall that artists' contracts usually contain a clause that states something like: "any recordings made during the contractual agreement period remain the property of the record company" - and those rights are retained even when the artist moves on.

By Scratcher (65.134.147.167) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 04:14 pm:

Yea Ritchie, and that's one of the problems with the record business. I don't want to get into an artist should own their masters if they recoup discussion. That was done on another thread some time ago. I'll end this convo with this, if a bank loaned you the money to buy a house and you paid the loan back with interest over a 30 year period shouldn't the title and the ownership of the house then be in your name and the property yours?

By Oren (65.115.44.110) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 07:31 pm:

Common -

Do you remember where or when you saw that article.

-Oren

By Scratcher (65.133.219.181) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 07:42 pm:

I read some years back that Marlon Jackson was on the brink of losing his home in Cali. Next thing I knew he relocated to Atlanta, GA. Don't know if he still lives there or not. Doesn't sound like a guy whose living comfortably off his royalties.

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 07:49 pm:

mj is greedy
hehehehe

By Jay (167.167.44.218) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 08:04 pm:

And he doesn't return Paul McCartney's phone calls!

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:15 am:

I heard the same thing Scratcher is saying about Marlon Jackson - that things aren't doing too well for him financially and that he's in the process of looking into the royalty issue with the Jackson recordings.

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Common (209.2.55.169) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:26 am:

Hello everyone,

Oren: It was in the early nineties that I read an article featuring Marlon who said that he was receiving royalties plus doing well in the real estate business. I can't recall what magazine I read it in but it could've been People or Sister 2 Sister. I'm not sure.

Kev & Scratcher: this is quite a surprise that Marlon is in such financial straits. The article where he gave the interview, he seemed to be perfectly content & happy. Guess things are not what they seem.....

Peace!

By fayette (152.163.252.68) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:34 am:

i saw where marlon had a business here(atlanta).
don't know if he lives here. michael jackson
been in the press a lot lately.

By R&B (138.238.41.118) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:43 am:

CORNFLIPITY,ALL THIS HERE SUEIN AN HIFULUTIN LAWYERS ALL OVER THE PLACE,WHY CONFIBULATIONS GOT MY MULES LOOKIN AT REAL FUNNY LIKE,WHY THEM CRITTERS MAY BE A THINKIN BOUT JOININ ONE A THEM FANCY UNIONS,WHY THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW I HAVE TO GIVE EM PART OF MY SOULDUST AN A PENSION,GALLDANGIT!

By SoniT (209.193.174.164) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:45 am:

Didn't Marlon start the Major Broadcasting Cable Network (MBC) with Evander Holyfield and some other people?

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 12:19 pm:

R&B:
You crack me up....
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Scratcher (65.132.78.176) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 12:44 pm:

The article I read about Marlon and his house problems in Cali was at least eight years ago.

By Greg C. (207.103.134.229) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 05:12 pm:

If these allegations are true, Michael Jackson has a tremendous legal fight on his hands. Those Jackson masters are a goldmine and Universal ain't giving them up without a serious fight.

Wonder if Mike is having cash flow problems now and this is one solution to obtaining some money?

We'll see what happens....

By DF (208.27.111.121) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 05:53 pm:

If Mike has a cashflow problem, what's up with the Beatles tapes? Doesn't Mike still have those? Don't those generate money?

That's probably why Sony hasn't dropped Mike, yet. They want that Beatles collection, and Mike's not givin' it up without taking Sony to the bank. Peace.

By Greg C. (207.103.134.243) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 01:09 am:

Michael doesn't have the Beatles masters. Michael has the publishing to the Beatles songs and the right to use the them in any way he sees fit. Big difference!

Capital Records still has the Beatles masters. Sony would love to get their hands on that publishing which Mike owns along with the Sly & The Family Stone catalog which Mike owns as well.

Mike's relationship with Sony is badly damaged. They would never admit it, but they've just about milked him for all he's worth. He's a lame duck at that label now and anything he puts out now for them will be promoted half-heartledly and allowed to wither and die on the vine. His best bet is to ride his contract out at Sony and when it expires, move to another label.

By Sly fan (64.169.106.177) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:47 pm:

Greg C: You put it in a nutshell!!

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:56 pm:

Also, bear in mind that Sony Music Publishing loaned MJ millions of dollars (for what reason, God knows)and MJ in turn put his publishing up for collateral (not a great move, in my humble opinion). So, being that Michael is supposedly broke, Sony can't wait to call on their note and buy out MJ's publishing. That's why he's trying to stick it with Sony until the bitter end - he doesn't want to lose that publishing.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By STUBASS (64.12.97.7) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:08 pm:

WHY IS IT THAT EVERY TIME MICHAEL GETS SUED...OR SUES SOMEONE...THAT HE GETS SICK AND ENDS UP IN THE HOSPITAL???...COULD IT BE "SARS" (SORRY ATTORNEYS RUINING SICK-O)???...

By janebse (68.63.4.162) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:10 pm:

Not at all sure about any of the financial arrangements, but somewhere I read how many millions the Beatles made last year.One of the top money-making machines in the world. Does Michael benefit from that in any way?

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:25 pm:

Janebse:
MJ would benefit because of the publishing but since he put that up for collateral Sony Music would see the monies before MJ does.
Kevin Goins - KevGo